Jesus and the Crucifixion - Continued from Another Thread.

[RJM]

I don't know. I doubt it.

Fair enough. But you accept Jesus's ascension into heaven? So it's down to belief? Jesus appeared to his closest followers and told them he had not really died. Somehow Peter and James got it mixed up, and told Paul that Jesus died and was resurrected

Or Paul made it all up?

 

[RJM]

Paul invented it. Lay it all on Paul. It's the only game left in town, lol

That's where the buck stops. It can't go anywhere from there ...

EDIT
Sorry @muhammad_isa
I genuinely mean no rudeness or offence

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or Paul made it all up?

It is very clear that many people believed that he died and was resurrected.

I doubt whether all of the disciples believed that.
What particular scrolls by which authors claim that the disciples believed that?

However, it is quite possible that some of the disciples started to believe that over time.
Jesus was not there to contradict it.

 

[RJM]

It is very clear that many people believed that he died and was resurrected.

I doubt whether the disciples believed that.
What particular scrolls by which authors claim that the disciples believed that?

Paul says he spent 15 days with James and Peter. Paul writes about the resurrection front and centre. Hard to believe they told him Jesus survived?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul says he spent 15 days with James and Peter. Paul writes about the resurrection front and centre. Hard to believe they told him Jesus survived?

Paul claims a lot of different things. I'm not saying he wasn't sincere in what he believed,
but he was not a disciple .. and he didn'r entirely agree with the early Jewish Christians in a lot of respects.

 

[RJM]

Paul claims a lot of different things. I'm not saying he wasn't sincere in what he believed,
but he was not a disciple .. and he didn'r entirely agree with the early Jewish Christians in a lot of respects.

As I said, the game ends there. Blame it on Paul.

Just asking: you do know that the gospel accounts of Jesus's appearances after the crucifixion are clear that it is the risen Christ they're taking about, not the Jesus who didn't die? The accounts can be disputed as additions or whatever, but there's no way to make them have a different meaning, imo

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just asking: you do know that the gospel accounts of Jesus's appearances after the crucifixion are clear that it is the risen Christ they're taking about, not the Jesus who didn't die?

Clearly, that's what the authors of those Gospels believed. It is quite understandable why people would believe that.
It is also understandable how Jesus could be seen as a dying saviour and so on.

However, we all believe what makes sense to us .. or what we want to believe .. or what it is convenient to believe etc.

If Jesus did NOT die on the cross, does that mean that Jesus taught something different than what the Bible says he taught?
Does it somehow mean that God won't resurrect us all after death?

 

[Ella S.]

Ok. But those closest to Jesus believed he died on the cross. There were a lot of people involved in the conspiracy to rescue Jesus alive from the cross.

Would Jesus's own brother and closest followers not get wind? Did Jesus deceive them not just on that point, but by later meeting them face-to-face and lying to them that he had died, and was risen?

By my mileage, the only person close to Jesus that we know was claiming he died on the cross was Peter. Paul never knew Jesus before the crucifixion and we don't have any surviving writings from James.

The only reference to James believing Jesus died on the cross was in 1 Corinthians 15 but that's just relaying the commonly heard story about Jesus. Paul does claim to have personally known James and Peter but we sort of have to take his word on whether they agree with him on this point or not. Paul has a clear bias in that he is a recent convert looking to reform the church so these are claims that I remain fairly skeptical of.

If we grant that James thought Jesus died on the cross, which I still don't think we can say with much certainty, then I still wonder what your source is for Mary Magdelene.

 

[RJM]

Paul does claim to have personally known James and Peter but we sort of have to take his word on whether they agree with him on this point or not.

It's impossible they did not talk about the crucifixion, and extremely unlikely Jesus deceived both James and Peter. So as I say, it comes down to blaming Paul for making it all up, and that's where the discussion comes up against the wall. It can't progress from there.

 

[RJM]

Jesus did NOT die on the cross, does that mean that Jesus taught something different than what the Bible says he taught?

Yes because Christ's life and death and resurrection IS his teaching, imo

 

[Ella S.]

It's impossible they did not talk about the crucifixion, and extremely unlikely Jesus deceived both James and Peter. So as I say, it comes down to blaming Paul for making it all up, and that's where the discussion comes up against the wall. It can't progress from there.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as saying that Paul "made it all up." I'm not sure there is enough evidence for that claim. I'm just saying that I think Paul's claims aren't enough to overcome the high burden of proof required to make his testimony good evidence.

It's possible that Paul was simply mistaken or poorly communicating or had his understanding of the event distorted by some other outside pressure, or the surviving copies we have of Paul are different from what he actually wrote, etc. There are a number of alternative explanations for why Paul's writings say what they do and intentional deceit is only one of several options.

I wouldn't make a hard claim on any of those. I just think that Paul is a biased source and much of what he claims cannot be backed up, which makes him unreliable.

 

[RJM]

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as saying that Paul "made it all up." I'm not sure there is enough evidence for that claim. I'm just saying that I think Paul's claims aren't enough to overcome the high burden of proof required to make his testimony good evidence.

It's possible that Paul was simply mistaken or poorly communicating or had his understanding of the event distorted by some other outside pressure, or the surviving copies we have of Paul are different from what he actually wrote, etc. There are a number of alternative explanations for why Paul's writings say what they do and intentional deceit is only one of several options.

I wouldn't make a hard claim on any of those. I just think that Paul is a biased source and much of what he claims cannot be backed up, which makes him unreliable.

It becomes a fudge. Paul says he spent 15 days with Peter and met James. He says they accepted him as an apostle. It's extremely unlikely he misunderstood them regarding the death on the cross. It's also extremely unlikely Jesus deceived Peter and James. So there it ends, imo

 

[Ella S.]

It becomes a fudge. Paul says he spent 15 days with Peter and met James. It's extremely unlikely he misunderstood them regarding the death on the cross. It's also extremely unlikely Jesus deceived Peter and James. So there it ends, imo

He also claims that they were witnesses to the resurrection, though, which almost certainly couldn't have happened.

 

[RJM]

He also claims that they were witnesses to the resurrection, though, which almost certainly couldn't have happened.

According to the gospels the risen Christ appeared to Peter and James, and all the apostles. I am carefully avoiding including the resurrection. Certainly Christians believe the resurrection. It is central. Atheists obviously don't buy it.

 

[RJM]

It's nowhere possible to mistake the gospel accounts of the risen Christ for a revived Jesus. It's just not there. So either Jesus's own brother and closest followers lied or got it wrong, or Jesus deceived them all, or else Paul basically got it all wrong. It ends with what Paul says James and Peter told him. Nowhere to go from there?

 

[Cino]

Yes because Christ's life and death and resurrection IS his teaching, imo

Please don't take this as questioning your beliefs: To me, Jesus' teachings were to a large part what he said to various audiences during his preaching ministry. He taught many subjects besides that he was going to die.

 

[RJM]

Please don't take this as questioning your beliefs: To me, Jesus' teachings were to a large part what he said to various audiences during his preaching ministry.

It's fine. I'm talking of Christian belief. The crucifixion and resurrection is pivotal. It's far more than the words and healing ministry of Jesus. Tho not denying their importance. There may be Christian sects that reject the death and resurrection. I don't suppose they are many.

 

[RJM]

I wasn't going to go on with this, unless there's anything new?

 

[badger]

Paul spoke at length to James and Peter. All gave their lives for their belief. After the crucifixion they could have just let it all go. Do you reject that Paul was executed? Joesephus reports the death by stoning of James 'brother of the one who was called the messiah'

Paul was never there at any point in that last week, so his belief is what he had.
James? It's time for you to tell me exactly who this 'James' was that Paul spoke with.
Cephas? Cephas was extremely upset by Paul and his ideas, and was the only one who wrote about his experiences, none of which included any witness account of the execution or afterwards during the next 36 hours.

Paul was probably executed in Nero's genocide of Christians, so how does that help any discussion about Jesus and Crucifixion?
Josephus reporting the stoning of a person (James) not at the crucifixion can't help you with any details about the crucifixion.

 

[badger]

They went on to die for their belief that he had died and was resurrected. Did Jesus lie to them? James and Peter knew Paul. Jesus's own brother and closest follower. They all believed Jesus died (and was resurrected) -- but they believed he had died?

All you have to do is to show if any one of the above was there, saw the execution, went to the tomb or witnessed any part of what happened.
The fact that Jesus met with his friends and followers again shows me that he lived after those events.

You're talking about situations that occurred afterwards....these cannot help what happened at the time.