(who was Jesus) wasRoman records

Mark L. Bakke errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:27:24 -0400 (00924766044, 371E890C.6D408B1E@bakkster.com) 


>>BAKKE

>>That's not what I asked.  I want to know on what basis we could accept

>>any Gospel account of *anything* Jesus said.  In other words, how does

>>one determine which accounts can be trusted and which can not?

> 

> Ed

> That one's going to take some typic, so I'll respond to it in the morning.

> Just put in an 11 hour day and I'm going out to dinner with the most

> beautiful woman in the world.  


BAKKE
That certainly sounds more important and rewarding to me!


> Ed

> There are some general criteria of

> authenticity, but I don't think that any given saying can be claimed with

> absolute certainty to be authentic.  


BAKKE
It would seem to me that the ability to demonstrate authenticity should
be rather important to those who wish to claim inerrancy in the sayings
of Jesus.  What are these general criteria of authenticity to which you
refer?


> Ed

> On the other hand, there are many that

> are patently inauthentic to anyone who isn't irrationally superstitious.


BAKKE
I'd certainly agree with you on that count.


>>> Ed

>>> I understand that crucifragium was also combined with crucifixion to hasten

>>> death, but I'll have to look that up.  The quickness attributed to Jesus'

>>> death is probably not historical but it's not absolutely impossible either.

>>

>>BAKKE

>>If it's not historical, may we assume that it's perhaps an embellishment

>>of the story?  If so, would that not constitute an error of fact in the

>>Gospel stories?

> 

> Ed

> I think so.  I think it's a device to attempt to satisfy the gospelers'

> interpretations of several OT prophecies, especially the Jonah analog and

> certain parallels to the paschal lamb.


BAKKE
This sounds reasonable, since it would seem to be rather important for
the Gospel writers to give their stories credibility by linking them to
the OT stories that were well-known and generally accepted by Jewish
audiences.  Does this mean that even Jesus had to be "spin-doctored" by
his supporters?


>>> Ed

>>>  Crucifixion was always preceded by a severe beating that could have

>>> punctured a lung or started internal bleeding, or the stress of the whole

>>> thing could simply have caused a stroke or heart attack.

>>

>>BAKKE

>>I don't recall seeing any Gospel account detailing or alluding to any

>>such beating of Jesus.  He may have been whipped ("scourged"), but that

>>would not produce the injuries of which you speak.  Also, it's rather

>>doubtful that Jesus could have been under the influence of any great

>>stress if he was actually a divine being who already knew the purpose of

>>the crucifixion and was willing to make the sacrifice.

> 

> Ed

> Actually, the gospel accounts speak of him being struck with a rod and

> fists; they are, however, most likely ahistorical because there would have

> been no one of Jesus' followers there to witness the beatings.  


BAKKE
In addition, Roman justice did not permit such beatings.  Also, there's
a doctrinal problem if such beatings are assumed in that, according to
Jewish law, sacrifices were supposed to be free from blemish in order to
be acceptable.  Jesus was supposed to be the "ultimate sacrifice". 
Would his sacrifice have been acceptable if he was beaten and bloodied? 
This doesn't even consider that sacrifices were supposed to be burned
and that certainly didn't happen to Jesus.


> Ed

> The assumed divinity is, of course, irrelevant because if he existed at all, 

> Jesus was no more a god than you or I, and didn't claim to be.


BAKKE
Agreed.


>>BAKKE

>>I, too, have seen such things during PT over the course of my 17 years

>>in the Army.  And, of course, most sports fans are familiar with the

>>case of college basketball star Hank Gathers.  However, investigation

>>into these cases normally reveals a congenital heart defect that led to

>>the death.  I have rather serious doubts that any "perfect" Jesus could

>>have had such a defect.

> 

> Ed

> I don't think that the Christian doctrine of perfection extends to the

> physical, but could be wrong.  Have to ask a Christian on that account.


BAKKE
I can't see why physical perfection (or something close to it) should be
excluded.  Of course, if Jesus was God (as Xian Trinitarian doctrine
insists), then it would have been impossible for him to "die" in the
first place.


>>BAKKE

>>In the words often used by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require

>>extraordinary proofs".  Yes, I agree that the Gospel claims on this

>>matter are both remarkable and extraordinary.  This is why the level of

>>required proof for them must be so high.  "Well, it *might* have

>>happened that way" or "you must open your heart and believe" don't quite

>>satisfy the required level of proof.

> 

> Ed

> As I say, I find it remarkable, but not particularly exceptional.

> Personally I doubt the historical veracity of the account but it's not so

> far out that I'd make an issue of it.  It could well have been that anyone

> would kick off early after such treatment.


BAKKE
Since the crucifixion incident is so important to the story of Jesus, I
think it's one which is worthy of critical examination and one which
bears a significant burden of proof.

-- 
Visit "NIGHT OWL MK. II" at: http://www.bakkster.com (New domain name!)
Featuring:
  BOULDER GAMES -- The Best in Wargames! (A Starting Point Hot Site!)
  Philosophy of Life -- Speak Your Mind! | Register your site with the
  "Grognard: The Collectable Card Game"  | Wargamers' Homepage Listing!