neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:42 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:54 pm
What the gospels did establish was that -- when all were read literally -- a
Jesus figure of some form or nature
did wander around Palestine and got crucified. The Jesus of the gospels entered history but left it open for his literal minded readers to understand him, his composition, his provenance, any way one wanted.
Emphasis mine
Perhaps then, this little that was sure, was the entire message, or dare I say, goal?
Impale is the verb of my choice by the way, the whole cross thing didn't either develop until centuries after
I don't know where you are coming from with these questions so you'll have to explain a bit more. Are you suggesting that there were centuries between the first message of Christianity and the concept of a Christ crucified? Does anything change whether Christ was crucified on a crucifix or impaled on a stake?
Thanks for that, let me explain a bit then.
It all is a story at the very least; regardless of real, true or false events underlying it - a story it is.
And stories have a purpose, a goal, and they try to reach that by telling what they tell and not telling what they not tell: omitting information is also part of the information included
So, and while I agree with it, if you state that the gospels tell us little more than a Palestinian Jesus who was put to death, leaving everything else open, then perhaps it was the goal to do just that. Mark for one uses a grand and elaborate framework with chiastic structure and he certainly was very, very literate
Centuries between the first message of Christianity and the concept of a Christ crucified?
Yes, I think so. Even if you put that first message in 150 CE in stead of 30 CE, my current findings (and I'm just into this) are that the use of a cross didn't appear before the 4th century. Stauros yes, tau yes, but the very cross that we all know of so well? I'm still looking (and I might find it, but haven't as of yet)
Does anything change whether Christ was crucified on a crucifix or impaled on a stake?
Sure, impaling would explain how he could have been conscious and lucid until the very last moment; it would explain him uttering a loud cry, both events which aren't consistent with dieing from blood loss