Why crucifixion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by nightshadetwine » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:18 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 am
Good ones. I have added them.
I forgot this one:

Plato, Phaedo, 83d http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Apage%3D83:
Because each pleasure or pain nails it[the soul] as with a nail to the body and rivets it on and makes it corporeal, so that it fancies the things are true which the body says are true.

nightshadetwine
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by nightshadetwine » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:21 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:02 pm
This remembers Acts of Peter, 37:

"It is right to mount upon the cross of Christ, who is the word stretched out, the one and only, of whom the spirit saith: For what else is Christ, but the word, the sound of God So that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man."

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... -of-peter/
Thanks. I hadn't seen that verse before.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:54 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:59 am
Charles Wilson wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:41 am
Alas, he is intercepted and is Crucified, perhaps in Caesarea, where substantial tessellated/mosaic tile has been found (See GJohn.).
This would be the real, historical crucifixion of a real, historical person, correct?
***
BTW:

John 19: 13 (Moffatt):

On hearing this, Pilate brought Jesus out and seated him on the tribunal at a spot called the 'mosaic pavement' — the Hebrew name is Gabbatha
[NOTE: "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" are within a few verses of each other in GJohn. "Gabbatha" is a single appearance word. Bauscher, who wants nothing to do with me, states that "Gabbatha" is a "one-way" transliteration. It works only moving from Hebrew to Greek. Threrefore, it was written for effect. My view: "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" point to "Galba-Otho".]

https://www.google.com/search?q=picture ... 20&bih=929

Mosaic Tile from Jerusalem: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... jerusalem/
***
It reads as a Noir Story and has details that VERY FEW knew.

1. If it is a Story written in Hebrew/Aramaic: There would be plenty of Semiticisms as it was translated into Greek. There are many of those Semiticisms in the NT texts. Are there enough to justify Jewish Authorship? More importantly, would this Story have been an ACTUAL Story written by someone who was there or close to it? See the Peshitta followers who argue most sincerely that the NT was not authored in Greek but Aramaic. See: Peshitta. org.

2. Authorship may be assigned to Nicholas of Damascus (Perhaps dba "Nico-di'-mas) This is a good possibility and argues for Greek authorship of the NT with enough Hebrew language knowledge to account for what we see as regards to Semiticisms. NoD was in Jerusalem for many years with Herod and son Archelaus. He certainly was a "Ruler of the Jews" as Nicodemus was and it is very reasonable to see that this "Ruler" was, in fact Nicholas of Damascus - He doesn't understand a Jewish Idiom "Born Again". It points to a word that goes back to Sumer and means "Return to Mother". Kramer sees this as the first written use of the word that comes to us as "Freedom".
This argues for the Story as a Novel, with a Real Tableau but a modified description of events that Could-Have-Happened. Oddly, the character John appears Real while the "Jesus"-Construct shows evidence of being manufactured.

3. If Josephus, it was written at some distance in time from events @ 4 BCE to authorship in the 90's and later. Linguistic analysis would be a little Iffy at best since Josephus has been...ummm...polished, shall we say.

4. Zakkai: A big possibility since he was an actual Priest-Who-Survived. When given Yavneh by Vespasian, he may have had to Promise to help with the details of what was to follow. There are details that Zakkai would probably have known that others would not. I speculate that the 2 Passages "You must turn as a child..." and "Enter Through the Narrow Door" are one Story and only a few such as Zakkai would have known that.

5. Moby Dick took place on an ocean and oceans certainly existed. Details of whaling ships were known but mere knowledge of this is no guarantee that there was an epic search for the White Whale. The NT certainly and I mean certainly provides knowledge of the Mishmarot Priesthood and also the Mishmarot SETTLEMENTS, especially Immer and Jehoiarib. Josephus provides information here in giving the date of the Fall of the Temple, which gives a nod to Zakkai and the other Priestly Survivors. See: Rabbi Jose.

6. I may add more.
***

My guess is that there was a Priest who was Crucified but that the Story was written as a Novel. The Main Character is the child Peter, and the Story was told from his perspective. I believe that Peter accompanies and survives the Return of the Priest 12 years after the 4 BCE Massacre, which Peter would have witnessed as a child. It is also possible that Peter becomes a Priest and it is Peter who gets Crucified but the end of the Story becomes very hidden. GJohn "corrects" the Synoptics but it is the deaths of Galba, Otho and Vitellius that are recorded in John, not the correct version of the 4 BCE Massacre.

In short, Ben, I dunno. I would rather believe that the NT is a Story of an actual Priest who was Crucified with Peter watching and growing to adulthood. The Beatitudes are written after Peter contemplates the last cry of the Priest: "My God, my God, for this was I spared?" All he knows are the Repetitions of the Priestly Code at the Temple. He finishes out his days Performing his Service. "Why?..Why?..." Over and over.

See also: Slaughterhouse Five and especially Catch-22 at the Death of Snowden. Catch-22 is the Inversion of Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiastes Motifs are found all over the NT.

Charlie

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by GakuseiDon » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:21 pm

There was an argument by later Christian apologists about the significance of outstretched arms. From Minucius Felix's "Octavius":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html

You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

We'd have to imagine a much earlier philosophical association between "pure mind with arms outstretched" and crucifixion that inspired the idea of the Son of God being crucified, which I haven't come across personally.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by neilgodfrey » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:23 pm

Perhaps I have missed where it has already been listed, but I'm thinking of Paul's virtual explanation of where he got the idea of a(n effectively) crucified christ from in Galatians 3:13. He cites a passage in Deuteronomy. The author of Acts similarly identified a hanging on a tree with a crucifixion.

(I also like to keep in mind that a crucified christ appears to have been a uniquely/originally Pauline concept. Other christs -- opposed by Paul -- were slain like lambs or even escaped death entirely.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:38 pm

Should be moved to the "I hate Windows" Thread.

Somehow Windows duplicated lines and the Post itself on an Edit where I simply dropped a <space>. Grrr...
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:40 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:59 am
Charles Wilson wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:41 am
Alas, he is intercepted and is Crucified, perhaps in Caesarea, where substantial tessellated/mosaic tile has been found (See GJohn.).
This would be the real, historical crucifixion of a real, historical person, correct?
***
BTW:

John 19: 13 (Moffatt):

On hearing this, Pilate brought Jesus out and seated him on the tribunal at a spot called the 'mosaic pavement' — the Hebrew name is Gabbatha
[NOTE: "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" are within a few verses of each other in GJohn. "Gabbatha" is a single appearance word. Bauscher, who wants nothing to do with me, states that "Gabbatha" is a "one-way" transliteration. It works only moving from Hebrew to Greek. Threrefore, it was written for effect. My view: "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" point to "Galba-Otho".]

https://www.google.com/search?q=picture ... 20&bih=929

Mosaic Tile from Jerusalem: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... jerusalem/
***
Ben --

It reads as a Noir Story and has details that VERY FEW knew.

1. If it is a Story written in Hebrew/Aramaic: There would be plenty of Semiticisms as it was translated into Greek. There are many of those Semiticisms in the NT texts. Are there enough to justify Jewish Authorship? More importantly, would this Story have been an ACTUAL Story written by someone who was there or close to it? See the Peshitta followers who argue most sincerely that the NT was not authored in Greek but Aramaic. See: Peshitta.org.

2. Authorship may be assigned to Nicholas of Damascus (Perhaps dba "Nico-di'-mas) This is a good possibility and argues for Greek authorship of the NT with enough Hebrew language knowledge to account for what we see as regards to Semiticisms. NoD was in Jerusalem for many years with Herod and son Archelaus. He certainly was a "Ruler of the Jews" as Nicodemus was and it is very reasonable to see that this "Ruler" was, in fact Nicholas of Damascus - He doesn't understand a Jewish Idiom "Born Again". It points to a word that goes back to Sumer and means "Return to Mother". Kramer sees this as the first written use of the word that comes to us as "Freedom".
This argues for the Story as a Novel, with a Real Tableau but a modified description of events that Could-Have-Happened. Oddly, the character John appears Real while the "Jesus"-Construct shows evidence of being manufactured.

3. If Josephus, it was written at some distance in time from events @ 4 BCE to authorship in the 90's and later. Linguistic analysis would be a little Iffy at best since Josephus has been...ummm...polished, shall we say.

4. Zakkai: A big possibility since he was an actual Priest-Who-Survived. When given Yavneh by Vespasian, he may have had to Promise to help with the details of what was to follow. There are details that Zakkai would probably have known that others would not. I speculate that the 2 Passages "You must turn as a child..." and "Enter Through the Narrow Door" are one Story and only a few such as Zakkai would have known that.

5. Moby Dick took place on an ocean and oceans certainly existed. Details of whaling ships were known but mere knowledge of this is no guarantee that there was an epic search for the White Whale. The NT certainly and I mean certainly provides knowledge of the Mishmarot Priesthood and also the Mishmarot SETTLEMENTS, especially Immer and Jehoiarib. Josephus provides information here in giving the date of the Fall of the Temple, which gives a nod to Zakkai and the other Priestly Survivors. See Also: Rabbi Jose. However, again, knowledge of details is not knowledge of actual events that may have happened.

6. I may add more.
***

My guess is that there was a Priest who was Crucified but that the Story was written as a Novel. The Main Character is the child Peter, and the Story was told from his perspective. I believe that Peter accompanies and survives the Return of the Priest 12 years after the 4 BCE Massacre, which Peter would have witnessed as a child. It is also possible that Peter becomes a Priest and it is Peter who gets Crucified but the end of the Story becomes very hidden. GJohn "corrects" the Synoptics but there are the deaths of Galba, Otho and Vitellius that are recorded in John, not the correct version of the 4 BCE Massacre and the 9 CE Aftermath.

In short, Ben, I dunno. I would rather believe that the NT is a Story of an actual Priest who was Crucified with Peter watching and growing to adulthood. The Beatitudes are written after Peter contemplates the last cry of the Priest: "My God, my God, for this was I spared?" All he knows are the Repetitions of the Priestly Code at the Temple. He finishes out his days Performing his Service. "Why?..Why?..." Over and over.

See also: Slaughterhouse Five and especially Catch-22 at the Death of Snowden. Catch-22 is the Inversion of Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiastes Motifs are found all over the NT.

Charlie
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:41 pm

Should be moved to "I hate Windows" Thread, part 2.

Somehow Windows duplicated lines and the Post itself on a simple Edit. Grrr...

John2
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by John2 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:18 pm

Not to get you sidetracked, but I can't help wondering if Jesus' crucifixion should be isolated from the other things he did or that happened to him that were thought to be foretold by the OT. Did Christians also make up the other things about Jesus because the OT says things that seemed applicable to those things? Why a betrayal (etc.)?
May the four winds blow you home again.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:48 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Not to get you sidetracked, but I can't help wondering if Jesus' crucifixion should be isolated from the other things he did or that happened to him that were thought to be foretold by the OT. Did Christians also make up the other things about Jesus because the OT says things that seemed applicable to those things? Why a betrayal (etc.)?
There can be no single answer for the "et cetera" part of the question. Each detail potentially follows its own path. But why a betrayal? The most obvious one is:

John 12.18: 18 "I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.'"

Psalm 41.9-10 (40.10-11 OG): 9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. 10 But You, O Yahweh, be gracious to me and raise me up [ἀνάστησόν με], that I may repay them.

A betrayal followed by a "resurrection" (ἀνάστασις).

As for whether or not the crucifixion ought to be isolated from the other things, well, that is what I am trying to determine. It certainly seems both more important and less obvious than a lot of the other scriptural derivations, including the betrayal, but I am still looking into every angle.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply