How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?

[Yazata]

I'm going to address Signal's questions in slightly different order than she asked them. (It makes more sense to me that way.)

How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don't think that we can know that.

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?

Do we have any way of knowing who Jesus was, or of referring to him at all, independent of the Gospel accounts?

It seems to me that we can only say something like...

For all X, if X satisfies descriptions A, B and C, then X is Jesus.

(Where A, B and C are descriptions of Jesus and his activities from the New Testament.)

In other words, Jesus is whoever corresponds to the descriptions of the person in the Bible stories. (Assuming that anyone does.)

If the stories aren't accurate, then all we are left with is an uninterpreted variable, and there doesn't really seem to be any reason left why we should continue to call that unknown individual 'Jesus'. He certainly wouldn't be the Jesus of the Bible.

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

We seem to be fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus', at least in part, as referring to whoever it was that died on the cross. (Assuming that anyone did die on the cross in the manner and circumstances described.)

In other words, the issue that I'm trying to raise here is figuring out what the role of the myth is in fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus' to a particular individual who may or may not have existed in history.

 

[arauca]

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

Jesus had a brother by the name James , and his mother was a life .

Why don't you ask me were was Cristobal Colon buried and were was he transported , and are we sure that his bones were transplanted .

Are we sure Osama Binladen was killed and dumped into the sea
Are we sure Oswald killed Kennedy, I know a fellow in jail he claims he kille3d Kennedy.
Up to my age of 15 years old there was no record that I was born, there are no papers, but my mother and my family we all grew up together .
I can ask more dumb question

 

[Believe]

If you want to you can listen to me, I wouldn't force you. Who preaches the book? The church. The bible is not, and I repeat not God's message. God's message is safe with a woman. We are you suppose to hear what the LORD says? Does thee hath a ear?

And who is this woman of whom you speak?

 

[Believe]

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

You can't KNOW of course, it is called faith.

Personally I find "It could all be a fairy tail" to be a more compelling argument against it and I believe!

 

[arauca]

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

I don't know if this is my repeat.

Would you believe Jesus had brothers an a mother .
Would you believe the brother of Jesus was the leader of the church of Jerusalem, before the destruction of Jerusalem ,
Would you believe Saul of Tarsus meat James in Jerusalem ?
Would you believe Saul (Paul) preached the teaching of Jesus .
I can continue giving you steps of history on how Christianity grew until now.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I'm going to address Signal's questions in slightly different order than she asked them. (It makes more sense to me that way.)



How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don't think that we can know that.



Do we have any way of knowing who Jesus was, or of referring to him at all, independent of the Gospel accounts?

It seems to me that we can only say something like...

For all X, if X satisfies descriptions A, B and C, then X is Jesus.

(Where A, B and C are descriptions of Jesus and his activities from the New Testament.)

In other words, Jesus is whoever corresponds to the descriptions of the person in the Bible stories. (Assuming that anyone does.)

If the stories aren't accurate, then all we are left with is an uninterpreted variable, and there doesn't really seem to be any reason left why we should continue to call that unknown individual 'Jesus'. He certainly wouldn't be the Jesus of the Bible.



We seem to be fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus', at least in part, as referring to whoever it was that died on the cross. (Assuming that anyone did die on the cross in the manner and circumstances described.)

In other words, the issue that I'm trying to raise here is figuring out what the role of the myth is in fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus' to a particular individual who may or may not have existed in history.

OR --novel concept--we could accept the historicity as countless generations have done, including the ones who actually were eyewitnesses and certainly in a position to refute a 'myth' or legend.

We could have faith that what was 'written' and 'spoken' really was written and spoken, and not try to 'overthink'.

Heck, most of us here are under 100 years old, right. . . So NONE of us in a position to state that U.S. Grant (President of the U.S. 1868-1876) actually lived (since he died in I believe 1881 at Mount Marcy in NY).

We have 'pictures' but they could have been faked. Ditto with 'letters'. Ditto with the 'eyewitness reports' of people who likewise were all pretty much dead and gone before any of us were born.

So, why do you trust in U.S. Grant? He was 'known' by thousands of people? How many of THEM do you know and trust? Couldn't THEY have been 'fooled' if a small group of people decided to 'fake a president?' Sure they could. And you'll never know for sure. . .but I'll bet you're willing to trust in good old U.S.'s existence and not relegate him to a need for a 'myth' to represent the triumph of the Union forces.

 

[NMSquirrel]

like the ppl who claim the moon landing was faked..

 

[Arioch]

@MOM --

All orthodox Christians over the past two thousand years or a few controversialists who started pushing the claim less than two hundred years ago?

Argumentum ad populum, fallacy. Whose more likely to be right, the billions of humans who thought that the Earth was flat, or the few controversialists who say differently now? Oh wait, the popularity of an idea is absolutely and completely irrelevant to how true it is. Or have you failed to grasp even that simple concept?

To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross also requires disproving the Gospels' status as historical documents, something that has never been done.

Oh really now? I thought it just meant noting that we have absolutely no evidence that the bible is historically accurate. Even biblical archaeologists, archaeologists who are actively trying to prove the bible right, can't find any actual evidence. In fact we've found evidence to the contrary, we've discovered that the Gospels were written some fifty to a hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. This means that they're not first hand accounts and they're very unlikely to have been even second or third hand accounts.

 

[Yazata]

OR --novel concept--we could accept the historicity as countless generations have done, including the ones who actually were eyewitnesses and certainly in a position to refute a 'myth' or legend.

Apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.

I was addressing Signal's question about how we can be sure that it was Jesus that died on the cross and not somebody else.

My suggestion was that the name 'Jesus' appears to get its reference from, and essentially be defined as, 'whoever corresponds to the accounts of Jesus' activities in the gospels'. And as far as conventional Christianity is concerned, a crucial part of that story is Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.

So, if the crucifixion really happened and X is the individual who died on the cross in the circumstances described in the gospels, then it's hard to see how X could have been anyone but Jesus.

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.

We could have faith that what was 'written' and 'spoken' really was written and spoken, and not try to 'overthink'.

I'm just speculating about the logic of how the names of historical figures get their reference.

Heck, most of us here are under 100 years old, right. . . So NONE of us in a position to state that U.S. Grant (President of the U.S. 1868-1876) actually lived (since he died in I believe 1881 at Mount Marcy in NY).

Is that really the issue of this thread?

This thread is imagining a situation analgous to imagining that the famous Civil War general and subsequent president of the United States might not have really been Ulysses S. Grant at all, but somebody else instead.

I'm saying that if our only way of identifying Ulysses Grant, of determining who the name refers to in other words, is specifying that Grant was the general and the president, then the general and the president seemingly couldn't have been anyone else but Grant. Because whoever happened to be the general and the president, that person would have been Grant.

 

[kx000]

Even if Jesus didn't die on the cross that doesn't change anything, he was still Jesus. His death doesn't mean anything. When people said he "died for our sins," its not literal. He didn't die and sin was dead too...

 

[wynn]

To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross is to disregard the witness of two thousand years of Christian testimony .

If there is a mistake in a book, and millions of people quote from that book, for thousands of years - that does not make the mistake go away.

 

[wynn]

So, why do you trust in U.S. Grant? He was 'known' by thousands of people? How many of THEM do you know and trust? Couldn't THEY have been 'fooled' if a small group of people decided to 'fake a president?' Sure they could. And you'll never know for sure. . .but I'll bet you're willing to trust in good old U.S.'s existence and not relegate him to a need for a 'myth' to represent the triumph of the Union forces.

We do not believe that the existence of President Grant affects our eternal destiny, nor are we expected to believe so.

The same is not the case with Jesus, whom we are expected to believe is the one and only path to salvation.

 

[wynn]

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.

This is in fact a line of reasoning that Muslims present to refute Christianity.
And it is a reasoning as old as the Koran.


Surah 4:157:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

 

[GeoffP]

The problem is that none of it is known for certain. The most evidence that exists is the accounts of those who knew him or knew those who knew him. If that's insufficient, then you must believe as you choose to believe. And frankly, the Quran, being derived almost seven hundred years later, has no intelligent commentary to offer on this; "for certain" is laughable in the context.

 

[Adstar]

This is in fact a line of reasoning that Muslims present to refute Christianity.
And it is a reasoning as old as the Koran.


Surah 4:157:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Ahh Surah 4:157 You know i had a discussion with a muslim once and he ( or she not quite sure on that one) was arguing hard that subsidiary punishment was evil and that only those charged with a crime should face punishment for it.. I showed him/ her good old surah 4:157 where it says that God placed another in the place of Jesus to die for the crime Jesus had been convicted of. And i even pointed out that Not only according to the surah did God substitute the punishment to another man but also deceived the jews by making him look like Jesus. This makes their allah both a deceiver and one who causes one man to take the death penalty for another mans conviction.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Mary and John the Apostle stood at the foot of the Cross. I should think they would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

The Pharisees at the bottom of the Cross deried and taunted Jesus. They would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

The Good Thief knew who Jesus was on the Cross too.

Too many eyewitnesses who were very close.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.

An argument which is still confronted with the origin of His teaching......

 

[Arioch]

@MOM --

Mary and John the Apostle stood at the foot of the Cross.

Do we have their account? Nope, because all of the Gospels were written about a hundred years after Jesus supposedly died, well after everyone involved was dead. So we have no first hand accounts of the event in question, we have third or fourth hand accounts at best.

I should think they would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

And then I should think that they would be able to get their stories straight. But they couldn't so it's likely that we don't actually have "their" accounts.

The Pharisees at the bottom of the Cross deried and taunted Jesus. They would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

Would they have? And how do you know this? Have you read their accounts? Oh no wait, you couldn't have because they don't exist!

The Good Thief knew who Jesus was on the Cross too.

Was he? We don't have his account on this so you can't say that for sure.

Too many eyewitnesses who were very close.

But all of this is according to the bible which was written close to a century after the supposed events took place, which means that we don't have any eyewitness accounts because all of the eyewitnesses were dead when the Gospels were written!

How is this at all hard to understand?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Arioch,

Let's no forget common sense. Do you think the Roman authorities certainly knew who it was they crucified, the same person they had on trial and scourged just hours earlier? I know it was 2000 years ago, but give the Romans credit, they knew who they were supposed to execute.

If it wasn't Jesus who was crucified and yet everyone was going around saying it was, don't you think the Roman governor Pontius Pilate would have dispelled this false rumor?

The evidence is overwhelming. Try -

Secular References to Jesus between the first and fifth centuries:
-Josephus
-Pliny the Younger
-Tacitus
-Mara Bar-Serapion
-Lucian
-Seutonius
-Talmudic References
-Thallus

Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)
-Shroud of Turin
-Nazareth Site
-Pieces of the True Cross

Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
-Paul as an eyewitness
-Criterion of Embarrassment
-Criterion of Multiple Attestation
-Criterion of Dissimilarity
-Christian Martyrs & The Criterion of Crucifixion

Again, let's no forget common sense. I don't believe in Muhammad, Buddha or Confucius' teachings but you don't see saying "Muhammad/Buddah/Confucius never existed!!

Even if there was no God, there definitely was Nazarene by the name of "Jesus" 2,000 years ago.

More on Extra-Biblical evidence -

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

 

[Arioch]

@MOM --

Well thanks for informing me that you're a woo.