The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:37 am
It think and believe definitely that the Book of Revelation reveals the oldest belief of the Pillars. Jesus was immolated, not crucified. Since only this death could allow a so strong effusion of blood that was able to purify the sins:
Hebrews 9:22
Notoriusly, the crucifixion of a living victim can only allow a minimal effusion of blood. It is simply ridicolous to think that the nail wounds were able to shed so much blood to purify alone the sins.
But the Jewish custom could allow the crucifixion (really, a hanging) of the only corpse, since the corpse is already drained of all the blood.
I think that this explains why the crucifixion is mentioned only one time in Hebrews 6:4-6:
The sinners crucify figuratively the Son of God again. But they are playing here the role of jackals: they rage on only the corpse of Jesus, crucifying it. The first time the corpse of Jesus was crucified by the demons, after the assassination of Jesus.
Hence I can apply the Argument from Silence on the idea of crucifixion in Hebrews: it is never mentioned when the topic is the Passion of Jesus.
In conclusion, the idea that the living Jesus was crucified, and not only the his corpse, is introduced only by the Earliest Gospel after the 70 CE. Since the crucifixion of a living being is recognizably only a Roman custom. Not a Jewish custom.
Hence, when Paul talks about the crucifixion, he refers to the crucifixion of the corpse only.
The euhemerization of Jesus coincides stricto sensu with the romanization of the his crucifixion.
Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Notoriusly, the crucifixion of a living victim can only allow a minimal effusion of blood. It is simply ridicolous to think that the nail wounds were able to shed so much blood to purify alone the sins.
But the Jewish custom could allow the crucifixion (really, a hanging) of the only corpse, since the corpse is already drained of all the blood.
I think that this explains why the crucifixion is mentioned only one time in Hebrews 6:4-6:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
The sinners crucify figuratively the Son of God again. But they are playing here the role of jackals: they rage on only the corpse of Jesus, crucifying it. The first time the corpse of Jesus was crucified by the demons, after the assassination of Jesus.
Hence I can apply the Argument from Silence on the idea of crucifixion in Hebrews: it is never mentioned when the topic is the Passion of Jesus.
In conclusion, the idea that the living Jesus was crucified, and not only the his corpse, is introduced only by the Earliest Gospel after the 70 CE. Since the crucifixion of a living being is recognizably only a Roman custom. Not a Jewish custom.
Hence, when Paul talks about the crucifixion, he refers to the crucifixion of the corpse only.
The euhemerization of Jesus coincides stricto sensu with the romanization of the his crucifixion.