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

[Lui]

Lui, you don’t know what you are talking about. Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus, and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.
All of this has been discussed to a fault in the past on other sections of this forum.This argument/discussion is beating a dead horse.
Haven’t you anything better to do than futilly argue on the internet?

What’s your problem? Do YOU know what you’re talking about?
First of all I haven’t denied the existence of Jesus.** I answered a specific question of the OP**. **THAT WAS IT!!! **The rest of the time I answered tonyrey’s further
questioning.
This is a forum where people have discussions.
So get off my back!

Next time you attack people you should maybe read what they wrote. Go back to page 2 of this thread and read post for post what I’ve written before you make false claims.

 

[danserr]

1, That’s what I said. In general people either believe it or they don’t. It’s different with the existence of Julius Caesar. People don’t believe he existed, they KNOW he existed.

1. No one is entitled to decide whether it’s true or not unless they can provide an undeniable PROOF that a) the Gospels were actually written by eye-witnesses and b) that they were telling the truth. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that the Gospels were personally written by eye-witnesses nor if they were telling the truth it’s all based on faith. As a consequence ALL people who read the Gospels can either decide to believe the Gospels hold the truth or they can decide to believe they are fiction. That is just what humanity does. Christians believe in the truth of the Gospels and everyone else doesn’t.

But there is no undeniable historical proof for anything, even from the twentieth century. Historians don’t work by mathematical proof, we work in probability. If we can show that something is historically probable, then we decide it is rational to accept as true. By your standard we have no undeniable proof that Julius Ceasar existed, that the Roman republic existed (Livy could be lying). Jesus is probably the best attested person of all antiquity. The reason people don’t accept this is that they hold the gospels to a double standard historically.

That being said, there is substantial evidence that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses and told the truth. I have presented a (very) small part of that evidence earlier in this thread.

 

[John21652]

Where did I state that I don’t believe it? I just stated that it is based on faith and not on knowledge. If it were based on knowledge, all of humanity would accept the Gospels as a fact and as the truth but the majority doesn’t. Most people don’t believe Jesus is God.

Actuall you are very wrong.

Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts. Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to p(name removed by moderator)oint quite accurately who wrote what and when. Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts. As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts. There is a plethora of sources available on the Internet. Here’s just one sample - .The relevance of Archeology to the study of scripture. One probably needs less ‘faith’ now than one did a thousand years ago!

 

[Lui]

Actuall you are very wrong.

No, I think you’re very wrong.

That being said, there is substantial evidence that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses and told the truth. I have presented a (very) small part of that evidence earlier in this thread.

None of the so-called evidence ever convinced me. I don’t buy it, I DO buy the historical evidence of Julius Caesar though.

Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the Roman Empire was a well organized society that documented everything in detail. There are eye-witness accounts from other well documented historical figures, Emperors, historians, philosophers, artists, who witnessed his existence. We have personal writings from Caesar. We even know what he looked like, the exact date of his birth, death and single events of his life by exact date.
To deny Caesar’s existence would be ignorance and no serious historian does that. You will have difficulty though finding serious historians who will claim that the stories of the Gospels, including the resurrection and the miracles, are undeniable historical facts…

What is far more important and significant than all those details is the teaching of Jesus about the Supreme Reality, the reason why we exist and the primacy of love. That is the highest form of knowledge which requires explanation if you don’t believe He lived - and died on the Cross…

 

[John21652]

No, I think you’re very wrong.

None of the so-called evidence ever convinced me. I don’t buy it, I DO buy the historical evidence of Julius Caesar though.

Let’s agree to disagree.

You are a victim of your own scepticism. You need to open your mind to the very real evidence that exists. It may not convince you, but the evidence objectively exists and it has been gathered by people across various disciplines of intellectual enquiry. Of course, if you are so closed minded that you doubt all the archeological, anthropological and philosophical evidence, then for you to make that connection with a first mover will be all but impossible. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to beleive anything that intellectual enquiry dishes up. Is that true of you?

 

[VicTorDominican]

What is far more important and significant than all those details is the teaching of Jesus about the Supreme Reality, the reason why we exist and the primacy of love. That is the highest form of knowledge which requires explanation if you don’t believe He lived - and died on the Cross…

If Jesus never existed, then all the teachings in his name would be lies made up by liars.

 

[danserr]

No, I think you’re very wrong.

None of the so-called evidence ever convinced me. I don’t buy it, I DO buy the historical evidence of Julius Caesar though.

Let’s agree to disagree.

But there is more evidence for Jesus than for Caesar, why believe one but not the other? What books have you read that have considered the evidence for Jesus? What do you think is weak about that evidence?

 

[Lui]

What is far more important and significant than all those details is the teaching of Jesus about the Supreme Reality, the reason why we exist and the primacy of love. That is the highest form of knowledge which requires explanation if you don’t believe He lived - and died on the Cross…

That’s a matter of faith.

But there is more evidence for Jesus than for Caesar, why believe one but not the other? What books have you read that have considered the evidence for Jesus? What do you think is weak about that evidence?

I disagree about the statement that there os more evidence that Jesus existed than Caesar and probably so do most historians. I don’t want to discredit faith though so let’s just agree to disagree.
I originally only wanted to answer to the OP that believing in the truth of the Gospels is based on faith and not evidence. That was it. I’ve talked to several priests about this and they told me the same. They never told me faith is based on knowledge. They told me the opposite: “if we would know it is all true it wouldn’t be called faith”.

 

[Lui]

You are a victim of your own scepticism. You need to open your mind to the very real evidence that exists. It may not convince you, but the evidence objectively exists and it has been gathered by people across various disciplines of intellectual enquiry. Of course, if you are so closed minded that you doubt all the archeological, anthropological and philosophical evidence, then for you to make that connection with a first mover will be all but impossible. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to beleive anything that intellectual enquiry dishes up. Is that true of you?

I think I’ll put you on my ignore list.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s a matter of faith.

Most of our everyday, secular lives are a matter of faith.

We conduct our affairs assuming an awful lot:

That when the signal light is green for me, it is red for the driver perpendicular to me, even when I can’t see his signal.
That when I get into an elevator in a tall office building, the engineers had proper training and applied that training for my safety.
That the phrase “seismically retrofitted” can be relied on in the next big quake over an active fault.
That if I’m a candidate for political office, at least one voter will appear on election day.
That when I send a letter or pay a bill with a stamp on it, a human being will actually deliver that letter to the indicated address, and that the or a person at the address will open the envelope.

etc.

Most of the daily lives of atheists are built on faith. They merely refuse to acknowledge that, because they insist that faith belongs only to a religious category of belief.

By the way, are you on CAF merely to challenge the entire belief system of the Roman Church? Because if so, you will be arguing with an awful lot of people, for a very long time. (Hope you have lots of energy for the task. )

 

[Lui]

Most of our everyday, secular lives are a matter of faith.

So what’s the problem with my statement then? I never denied the Gospels are the truth nor that Jesus existed or was the son of God. I only said there is no actual historical evidence that it is true and it’s a matter of faith. A priest told me the same. He said if it was an undeniable fact we wouldn’t call it faith.

By the way, are you on CAF merely to challenge the entire belief system of the Roman Church?

When did I challenge the belief system of the Catholic Church. Just because I don’t think gay people have a perverted disorder(regarding other thread), I’m challenging the Catholic belief system.?

 

[davidv]

So what’s the problem with my statement then? I never denied the Gospels are the truth nor that Jesus existed or was the son of God. I only said there is no actual historical evidence that it is true and it’s a matter of faith. A priest told me the same. He said if it was an undeniable fact we wouldn’t call it faith.

When did I challenge the belief system of the Catholic Church. Just because I don’t think gay people have a perverted disorder(regarding other thread), I’m challenging the Catholic belief system.?

When you say the bolded above your are directly challenging this:
CCC 2357:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

But, it unclear how this sheds any light on who actually died on the cross if it wasn’t Jesus.

 

[danserr]

That’s a matter of faith.

I disagree about the statement that there os more evidence that Jesus existed than Caesar and probably so do most historians. I don’t want to discredit faith though so let’s just agree to disagree.
I originally only wanted to answer to the OP that believing in the truth of the Gospels is based on faith and not evidence. That was it. I’ve talked to several priests about this and they told me the same. They never told me faith is based on knowledge. They told me the opposite: “if we would know it is all true it wouldn’t be called faith”.

If you want to end the discussion for now and “agree to disagree”, that is fine. But I am unclear on why you think some things. For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus? You haven’t given me any books you’ve actually read considering evidence for Christianity. If none, then you are not really justified in saying there is not evidence for it. If you would like to consider some evidence, you can look into stuff by NT Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God, and at the popular level The Case for Christ, or Craig’s The Son Rises or Wright’s Surprised by Hope (chapters 3 and 4). I am not worried about you discrediting faith (though your concern is very polite), because I don’t think you can. I have considered the evidence pro and con and think the evidence for the Jesus to be remarkably good. History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.

More to the point, though, I don’t think a Catholic needs to agree with your definition of faith. Faith is not simply a matter of belief, but a matter of the commitment of one’s entire being to God. This is compatible with having good evidence for one’s belief. Satan, for example, knows God exists, but does not have faith. The Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide admitted that he believed on the evidence that Jesus rose, but he remained Jewish. This could be a topic for another thread, I suppose, but there is no reason to think that evidence would destroy faith.

 

[Lui]

If you want to end the discussion for now and “agree to disagree”, that is fine. But I am unclear on why you think some things.

I didn’t come to this thread to debate on whether Christianity is true or not which is why it makes no sense to discuss any further. I only intended to make that one statement. The more I answer, the more hostility I get.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The witnesses watched him walk to the site of the execution, carrying his cross. His mother, and St. John were right there (not “at some distance”, and his mother would certainly have known her own son. St. John had been with Jesus every day for at least 3 years, and he would have known if it was someone else.

St. John wrote one of the Gospels, and stated exactly what he saw, both before the execution, during the execution, and after Jesus died on the cross.

So, either his Mother, and St. John (and the rest of the witnesses that observed the entire proceedings) were either liars, or this actually happened as they said it did.

This IS the central act of Christianity. If you can not, or will not believe this simple fact, then you can never be a Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

What is far more important and significant than all those details is the teaching of Jesus about the Supreme Reality, the reason why we exist and the primacy of love. That is the highest form of knowledge which requires explanation if you don’t believe He lived - and died on the Cross…

It is not a matter of faith but a fact that the Supreme Reality*,* the reason why we exist and the primacy of love require explanation if you don’t believe Jesus lived - and died on the Cross.Nor is it **entirely **a matter of faith that it was Jesus who died on the cross because you need to explain the causes and effects of that belief - which are most adequately explained by its truth. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

Do you or do you not accept the fact that love is the highest form of knowledge? If not why not?

BTW This is **directly relevant **to the question of whether you know that it was Jesus who died on the Cross…

 

[Pieman333272]

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?

We can’t, per se, know with certitude that it was Jesus who died on the cross. But we need to consider the following:

1. We know Jesus (the same Jesus who preached and performed miracles) was arrested prior to the known crucifixion
2. We know he was tried, and that it was decided he would be crucified.
3. We know he was willing to be crucified, so wouldn’t look for a cop-out at the last minute
4. There are no confirmed look-alikes to Jesus, or methods by which he could swap
5. Whoever it was got out of the tomb and came back to life in a vastly improved, but still physical, state, was mistaken for Jesus exactly, and ascended to heaven all in a manner which the “real” Jesus predicted, if ambiguously.

So, AT WORST, we come to a case similar to what some proponents of the Shakespeare Myth hypothesis go for: We have somebody named Jesus, who did everything Jesus did, but who is not Jesus.

And where does that get us?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

We can’t, per se, know with certitude that it was Jesus who died on the cross. But we need to consider the following:

1. We know Jesus (the same Jesus who preached and performed miracles) was arrested prior to the known crucifixion
2. We know he was tried, and that it was decided he would be crucified.
3. We know he was willing to be crucified, so wouldn’t look for a cop-out at the last minute
4. There are no confirmed look-alikes to Jesus, or methods by which he could swap
5. Whoever it was got out of the tomb and came back to life in a vastly improved, but still physical, state, was mistaken for Jesus exactly, and ascended to heaven all in a manner which the “real” Jesus predicted, if ambiguously.

So, AT WORST, we come to a case similar to what some proponents of the Shakespeare Myth hypothesis go for: We have somebody named Jesus, who did everything Jesus did, but who is not Jesus.

And where does that get us?

Greetings Pieman333272,

Actually we can know for sure per se that Jesus Christ did die on the Cross.

From Dei Verbum Paragraph 19

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

I am surprised to see you as a Catholic writing your response. I do hope that your response is a joke or something of that sort and that you do not believe as you have written.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[The_Reginator]

From Dei Verbum Paragraph 19

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

THAT is how we know that it was Jesus who died on the cross!