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

[cho_pilo]

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?

 

[FormerWarrior]

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 saw the movie by that Australian dude.

 

[cho_pilo]

I’m going to rephrase my original questions. (It makes more sense to me that way.)

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

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 the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m going to rephrase my original questions. (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. . .

 

[InternetWoman]

Here’s a logical sequence:

God exists (there are logical proofs/reasons to believe this).

God’s attributes include all powerful, all knowing, etc. (again logical proofs for this)

God is all powerful - so he doesn’t need us - yet he made us - so he is loving/good.

A loving good God would want to communicate with us on how to achieve happiness.

God’s revelation is contained (in part) in Holy Scripture - he wrote it, it is truth.

Holy Scripture says Jesus dies for our sins.

God said it. We believe it.

 

[Rascalking]

The evidence is overwhelming. Even atheists admit to that.
Read the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.

 

[VicTorDominican]

Because Judas, who knew Jesus personally and extremely well, picked Jesus out from the group in Gethsemane and positively identified him. Then Jesus verbally confirmed his own identity when the authorities told him who they were looking for. Besides, he was already publicly and personally known to local authorities both secular and religious by then. After that, the chain of custody guarantees Jesus was not exchanged for another lookalike until he was crucified.

Sometimes it is objected that Jesus was battered to the point of unrecognizability and therefore the battered man could have been someone else. But this cannot be the case either, because Jesus positively identified his own mother while he was on the cross.

If you want to say it was a conspiracy to rescue Jesus and have someone else, like Judas for example, to take the fall for him, you’d have to explain away each of the above facts. Plus, if you postulate Judas as the guy who was really the one crucified, you’d have to explain how Jesus’ mother Mary failed to detect the switch after Jesus’ body was taken down and prepped for burial, since she knew both men personally, and knew Jesus down to physical details no one else would have known. Then you would have to explain how someone posing as Judas defrauded the Sanhedrin of the thirty pieces of silver and explain why the guy who burst open or hanged himself or both was misidentified as the real Judas.

I’m not even going to get into how the impostor, Judas or someone else, was able to survive for two months with an unhealed puncture wound that penetrated through his lung into his heart for nearly two months before going into hiding.

But these are facts, and, as they say in courtroom drama shows, they are not in dispute.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I’m going to rephrase my original questions. (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.

Extremly Easy: There is Indisputable Photo-Negative Scientifically Proven IMAGE Evidence in the last 15 Years: Search the Shroud of Turin Science Sites, Documentaries, RECENT Paperbacks.

• NOTHING has been Refuted. Rare 1st Century Syrian fancy Named Weave, Scourge Marks and :bible1: ALL the Wounds Preciselly as the Gospel Describes, Rare Pollen Types On the Shroud, Native ONLY in the world to a small area Near Jerusalem, Announced by The Chief Botanist of Isreal, Blood Type same ‘rare’ as another from a ‘Christ Cloth’, No Paint, etc,., Etc., Documentaries, Web Sites, Etc., Etc. LAST Years. Impossible for Humans to do; Scientific Miracle!.
• Best, Earliest theory of SOURCE of the slight ‘cloth burns’ was RADIATION from Inside the Corps: By a Soviet Era Physicist in the 1980’s. Nothing has been Refuted!. Christ’s Face exactly as Pictured Always, because the Original Cloth was Widelly Viewed Early Centuries: Obvious Miracle.
  
  We have The Image of Our Lord’s dead Face in the back of our Church, as people are Leaving!. Identical to Paintings. I’ve been following this since Earliest Days, as has Media. The Shroud is The most Studied, Documented Item on Earth, appropriatelly. One TV Hour Documentary ended by concluding that It is Greater Miracle if Humans had created The Shroud; it is So Impossible. Cho Pilo; Life is a Learning Experience. (And the More One Learns Reality, the More Curious one becomes, Like Me, Scientifically and Documented. :tiphat::extrahappy: Best Theory of Why slight scorch marks Inside the Cloth: Energy From Within, PERHAPS as Christ was Resurrecting to Life: Proof That God. What Other cobnclusiobn Possible? None scientifically!.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

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.)

This will be a very uncharitable thing for me to say, but that is simultaneously the most goofy and most insanely nerdy atheist post I’ve ever read. And I’ve read quite a few.

It exemplifies a god-blind mindset (much like a color-blindness deficiency) that finds that the reduction of complex social interactions to the confines of an attempted formal logic structure is the only way to deal with the ambiguity of the real world and the teleological universe that the rest of us see.

The idea that an attempted formal logic structure could be used to reduce the evaluation of historicity to something that an atheist feels could have a 100% certainty may be, in my opinion, associated with certain psychological states, which seem to be common to atheists (based on current psychological research). Such atheists seem to feel that their difficulty in processing social information (as shown by the awkward, angry, insulting posts that are commonly posted by atheists on Christian websites, and their clear inability to understand the response from neurotypical individuals) can be overwhelming, and find that attempting to require formal, static rules in social interaction is a way to deal with the stress of communication and understanding others. This allows them to lower the amount of information they have to process in social interactions, even over the Internet.

That can be a workable social strategy, but it really cripples an individual’s ability to deal with philosophy and theology - or history.

I sincerely apologize for saying that, but it’s true.

 

[tonyrey]

For a start you have the problem of explaining the origin of the teaching of Jesus which is the basis of every civilised person’s acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and in particular the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which do not make sense in a Fatherless universe…

 

[Julian0404]

Because death did not hold HIM. HE rose from death, walked with the apostles for 40 days, eating with them, teaching them. HE has returned numerous times over the centuries, and many of us know HIM personally, have a relationship with HIM, and therefore know that HE was crucified, but never died; was buried but on the 3rd rose again from the dead; and that HE will return to judge heaven and hell.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

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?

Greetings Cho Pilo,

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.

This just simply is not a good question to be asking. Too many eyewitnesses who were very close.

I am very surprised no one has mentioned this.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[AntalKalnoky]

This will be a very uncharitable thing for me to say, but that is simultaneously the most goofy and most insanely nerdy atheist post I’ve ever read. And I’ve read quite a few.

It exemplifies a god-blind mindset (much like a color-blindness deficiency) that finds that the reduction of complex social interactions to the confines of an attempted formal logic structure is the only way to deal with the ambiguity of the real world and the teleological universe that the rest of us see.

The idea that an attempted formal logic structure could be used to reduce the evaluation of historicity to something that an atheist feels could have a 100% certainty may be, in my opinion, associated with certain psychological states, which seem to be common to atheists (based on current psychological research). Such atheists seem to feel that their difficulty in processing social information (as shown by the awkward, angry, insulting posts that are commonly posted by atheists on Christian websites, and their clear inability to understand the response from neurotypical individuals) can be overwhelming, and find that attempting to require formal, static rules in social interaction is a way to deal with the stress of communication and understanding others. This allows them to lower the amount of information they have to process in social interactions, even over the Internet.

That can be a workable social strategy, but it really cripples an individual’s ability to deal with philosophy and theology - or history.

I sincerely apologize for saying that, but it’s true.

His OP is totally Valid thinking for a beginner in concept of God, and of different Culture perhaps, and manner of Speaking. One needs to respect ‘where he is coming from’, total lack of understanding. Questioning his mentality is Gross Violation of All Norms, especially Church standards. Personal attacks such as yours Receive TOS Warnings from CAF, and Should be Removed. We MUST respect Every inquiry, and his strength to Question our Basics openly. [SIGN]** Thanks for your great question, Cho Pilo, Sir! Helps us All Think basics we forget.** [/SIGN] He is Questioning us, to Learn Our Thinking. Thanks!

 

[cho_pilo]

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 rephrasing my original 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).

I think this is not the real 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.

 

[cho_pilo]

His OP is totally Valid thinking for a beginner in concept of God, and of different Culture perhaps, and manner of Speaking. One needs to respect ‘where he is coming from’, total lack of understanding. Questioning his mentality is Gross Violation of All Norms, especially Church standards. Personal attacks such as yours Receive TOS Warnings from CAF, and Should be Removed. We MUST respect Every inquiry, and his strength to Question our Basics openly. [SIGN]** Thanks for your great question, Cho Pilo, Sir! Helps us All Think basics we forget.** [/SIGN] He is Questioning us, to Learn Our Thinking. Thanks!

I applaud your open mind.

 

[tonyrey]

A

Of course if the gospel accounts aren’t accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accounts, 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…

 

[cho_pilo]

Anathama Sit,

I understand what you are saying, but please understand that you have varied readers. Here are the arguments -

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.

 

[_L]

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?

Because 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?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Cho pilo,

The arguments do not hold. There have been many papers written on the validity of the eyewitnesses that I have spoken of.

I am quite aware of the readership of this forum. I am also aware that many do not believe as Catholics do.

It is clear that you do not believe that Sacred Scripture is without error.

You either believe what God has revealed through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church or you do not.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[tonyrey]

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

I mean of course that it is an argument which is still confronted with **the problem of **the origin of His teaching…