Jesus did not die on Cross: some arguments by D.F.Strauss

[swariffin]

Sure - possibly, but correct me if I am wrong - The Bible says nothing of that. It is mere supposition.

No, why do you ask?

Why would the bible must tell every detail of everything? Is it important to the message of love brought by Jesus, by mentioning that Paul saw Jesus, but there was nothing afterward?

If you read a biography of John Paul II, for instance. There is nothing ever written in any of such biography that a guy name swariffin came to the Mass lead by him. In fact, I did present during one of the mass led by John Paul II. So, an unimportant occasion does not have to be specifically written to proof its existence. If it is possible, then you cannot say impossible, correct?

I mentioned about the learning of Thorah to emphasize that Paul (it was Saul at that time) did live in Jerusalem contemporary to Jesus.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

A generation is usually considered to be a period of about twent five years. So I think it took several generations to write down the incomplete accounts of Jesus life; and nobody scrutinized or set a system to verify its authenticity.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

Oh yes, brother. The codices of the written gospel were scientifically dated around that time. The science is called Papirology and backed by Electron Microscope and carbon dating technology. It is not by simple assumption coming up from the thin air.

 

[ralphinal]

First, the dates of the gospels are NOT certain to be all post 70 A.D. In fact, there is more than a small amount of convincing evidence that they were all completed by 70 A.D.

Even if they were not, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of them for several reasons. I suggest that you all study the means by which societies with bardic traditions passed along information. In the eras that Jesus lived, men memorized vast amounts of information to re-tell to others without significant changes in the message.

Besides, I am more likely to trust a man who was told by a man than one that came along 1800 years later. Or 600

 

[Snow]

That is still one generation where eyewitnesses could still be alive. What so difficult to remember something so profound as the crucifixion of their Lord?

I didn’t say there’s weren’t people who saw it. I said there were not eyewitness accounts. We have what appears to be a second or third hand account of the resurrection in the NT.

The details on the Gospel are sufficient though there are not too much that one may forget.

Ya think?

When the correctness of doctrine depends on precise wording and phrasing and vocabulary and sometimes even punctuation… Can you remember the exact specifics of a conversation or a lecture from 40 years or more ago… that you weren’t even present for, that you heard 2nd hand?

If so, please repeat, exactly, the original conversation here.

Anybody here who are over fifty of age here surely can say that they can remember something significant that happened some forty years ago even when they were perhaps ten years old. Second World War veterans can easily recount what happened in Normandy some sixty years ago with graphic details. So I don’t think there is a problem with memory here.

Don’t quite understand what you have in mind here. The argument for the authenticity of the Quran can apply here, like if the Gospel erred others would have voiced out their objection to it. The Gospel story was common knowledge even before the Gospels were written. They were written for the purpose of record and documentation when the believing community getting larger and the original disciples began to pass out from the scene. Beside many manuscripts were already available for references. It would be foolhardy to assume that the disciples didn’t keep some kind of records and notes especially for the teachings.

Could you please direct me to those manuscripts that helprf them accurately capture the historical facts found in the NT?

You seem to create a premise and then build your argument on it.

I wonder whether you can picture how the community of believers works. It would not be much different from what it is today minus the modern facilities that we have. These people were brothers and sisters in the Lord. They met and worked together. Lots of meetings, deliberations and plans were surely being discussed and carried out. Their numbers were not that big at first. If you imagine this scenario your question would not have arise because there was simply no interruption of the continuity of the service of the apostles.

I can picture how a community of believers works and how oral traditions are kept and that is exactly my point. Such remembrances are notoriously inaccurate. Examples can be found in the conflicts between the Gospels - and that’s even considering that each Gospel writer probably had access to the Gospels that came before… and still there are errors. That is the reason that the Gospels don’t qualify as history… they may be true but such religious writings belong to another genre of literature other than history.

 

[Snow]

Why would the bible must tell every detail of everything? Is it important to the message of love brought by Jesus, by mentioning that Paul saw Jesus, but there was nothing afterward?

If you read a biography of John Paul II, for instance. There is nothing ever written in any of such biography that a guy name swariffin came to the Mass lead by him. In fact, I did present during one of the mass led by John Paul II. So, an unimportant occasion does not have to be specifically written to proof its existence. If it is possible, then you cannot say impossible, correct?

I mentioned about the learning of Thorah to emphasize that Paul (it was Saul at that time) did live in Jerusalem contemporary to Jesus.

I’m shaking my head here… I never said the Bible had to contain all detail. My point is that there is no evidence or no historical evidence rather for some things.

 

[Snow]

First, the dates of the gospels are NOT certain to be all post 70 A.D. In fact, there is more than a small amount of convincing evidence that they were all completed by 70 A.D.

Even if they were not, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of them for several reasons.

And yet they are doubted. I guess your point is that all doubters are wrong and you are right.

I suggest that you all study the means by which societies with bardic traditions passed along information. In the eras that Jesus lived, men memorized vast amounts of information to re-tell to others without significant changes in the message.

Thank you for the suggestion. Exactly what about societies with bardic traditions do you think you know that I don’t?

Besides, I am more likely to trust a man who was told by a man than one that came along 1800 years later. Or 600

What does that even mean?

Are you making some sort of reference to the authors of Genesis who wrote about events that predated them by thousands or hundreds of years?

 

[ralphinal]

And yet they are doubted. I guess your point is that all doubters are wrong and you are right.

Not at all. I am saying that when there are multiple possibilities, more than one should be studied. For example, if they were written after the fall of Jerusalem, why was it not mentioned to support the prophacies of Jesus? If you look at the history of the late daters, you see that they are all late comers to the dance. Even more recent scholarship, mostly using word choice, dates them pre-70.

Thank you for the suggestion. Exactly what about societies with bardic traditions do you think you know that I don’t?

I have no idea. I have studied bardic tradition, so I can say that I do know something about it. Assuming that you have, can you say that it was a more reliable means to transmit info than is usually granted?

What does that even mean?

Are you making some sort of reference to the authors of Genesis who wrote about events that predated them by thousands or hundreds of years?

It has nothing to do with Genesis. It has to do with Strauss, Muhammed, and anyone else who came along later to revise the scriptures.

 

[Reuben_J]

I didn’t say there’s weren’t people who saw it. I said there were not eyewitness accounts. We have what appears to be a second or third hand account of the resurrection in the NT.

There were eyewitness accounts, people who saw what happen, if that is what you mean. But I think what you want is for the eyewitness who saw the incident to write the Gospel. This is not reasonable though would be ideal.

I give you some information here – apostle John and the Marys were there when Jesus died. Then you have the embalmers and the people who buried Jesus. Then you have the guards, the Romans and the Jews, all who want to make sure that Jesus really died. You cannot get it more certain than that.

I think the reason why we are so fussy about the obvious is all because the crucifixion does not confirm to the Muslim belief. Even if it were written more explicitly that Jesus died, though I don’t know how it would be, Muslims would still do not believe it because the Quran says not to believe it.

Ya think?

When the correctness of doctrine depends on precise wording and phrasing and vocabulary and sometimes even punctuation… Can you remember the exact specifics of a conversation or a lecture from 40 years or more ago… that you weren’t even present for, that you heard 2nd hand?

If so, please repeat, exactly, the original conversation here.

I will let you know this because all this seems to be so foreign to you.

First, the exact conversation does not matter too much in the Bible, as it is not reported verbatim, unlike the Quran. It is not the grammar or the sentence but the message that’s important. For example, Jesus died on the cross – that the message.

Second, detail wording of the conversation means nothing if one does not believe. There was some conversation recorded between Martha and Jesus but what’s important when Martha said she believed that Jesus is the Messiah (and the resurrection and the life).

The death on the cross needs to be understood from the flow of the Gospel story leading to the crucifixion itself.

Jesus understood that he would be given to the Sanhedrin to be killed and that he reprimanded Peter who suggested otherwise. Muslims argue that Jesus did not actually want to die when he prayed to take the cup away from him. But this was in the heat of the agony of the moment. Nevertheless ultimately he submitted to the will of the Father.

I am not so much of an apologist but I don’t see any benefit even if I can tell you what you want to hear because it is clear enough as it is.

Could you please direct me to those manuscripts that helprf them accurately capture the historical facts found in the NT?

You have to look into the main page of CA and then into library. I can help you but it will take a while for me to browse through them.

I can picture how a community of believers works and how oral traditions are kept and that is exactly my point. Such remembrances are notoriously inaccurate. Examples can be found in the conflicts between the Gospels - and that’s even considering that each Gospel writer probably had access to the Gospels that came before… and still there are errors. That is the reason that the Gospels don’t qualify as history… they may be true but such religious writings belong to another genre of literature other than history.

Then you would understand that as far as the Gospel is concerned there is no error. The apostleship is an office, a church. It is no difference than what the Vatican is now. The difference is the facilities and the modern equipment. What was done a thousand years ago in the Vatican is still known today. Nothing is lost on important matters. Similarly with the early Christians and they had much less documents and paper work to deal with.

You cannot be inaccurate about death and life. Either he was dead or not. You make it as if it is so complicated. The Gospels are very short books and about a life of a single person that pertains to salvation. I invite you to go through them again casually and maybe start a new thread on your doubts.

There are no errors that have not been adequately explained in the Gospel that would change its message.

And for your information, I never said the Quran was an inaccurate account of Mohammad’s revelation. I only do not think the revelation came from God and do not believe it was the angel Gabriel. If you want to critique the Bible with same criteria as how you would do to the Quran, it is fine with me, as long as it applied consistently.

 

[swariffin]

I’m shaking my head here… I never said the Bible had to contain all detail. My point is that there is no evidence or no historical evidence rather for some things.

If you learn philosophy, there is a theory called the Empirical Logic. If a = b, and b = c, then a = c, correct? So, if solid evidence with the standard of court of law evidence is absent, such as why we believe that Jesus died on the cross, logic will play into account. John who were present at the foot of Jesus together with Mary and Mary Magdalene, saw that a roman soldier pierce Jesus at the side. Logic said that with the first century medication, there is no way that Jesus could survive such wound. In this case, witness was there. Action of piercing occurred. The result? logically it was a certain death.

Counter check was there. One, if Jesus did not die yet, when the roman pierce Jesus side with a spear, a state of great shock should occur. So great the shock that if Jesus was not die, he would have reacted due to the force of the impact and the great pain endured. Two. When Jesus was given spices and wrapped in the linen cloth, and buried in the tomb, if he was alive, then he was still breathing. When the spice or when Jesus is wrapped, air is blocked from Jesus’ lung. Lack of oxygen would make Jesus’ body reacted by movement.

So, if I shoot your head with a shotgun in a short range, does anybody need a medical statement from a doctor that you indeed die from the gunshot? In order to provide an evidence of your death?

 

[swariffin]

I’m shaking my head here… I never said the Bible had to contain all detail. My point is that there is no evidence or no historical evidence rather for some things.

If you learn philosophy, there is a theory called the Empirical Logic. If a = b, and b = c, then a = c, correct? So, if solid evidence with the standard of court of law evidence is absent, such as why we believe that Jesus died on the cross, logic will play into account. John who were present at the foot of Jesus together with Mary and Mary Magdalene, saw that a roman soldier pierce Jesus at the side. Logic said that with the first century medication, there is no way that Jesus could survive such wound. In this case, witness was there. Action of piercing occurred. The result? logically it was a certain death.

Counter check was there. One, if Jesus did not die yet, when the roman pierce Jesus side with a spear, a state of great shock should occur. So great the shock that if Jesus was not die, he would have reacted due to the force of the impact and the great pain endured. Two. When Jesus was given spices and wrapped in the linen cloth, and buried in the tomb, if he was alive, then he was still breathing. When the spice or when Jesus is wrapped, air is blocked from Jesus’ lung. Lack of oxygen would make Jesus’ body reacted by movement.

So, if I shoot your head with a shotgun in a short range, does anybody need a medical statement from a doctor that you indeed die from the gunshot? In order to provide an evidence of your death?

 

[paarsurrey]

When Jesus was given spices and wrapped in the linen cloth, and buried in the tomb

Hi

It is wrong to say he was buried in a grave; he was never buried in a grave, he was just laid in a tomb. His friends knew he was not dead yet, so they hurriedly managed to take him away and laid him in a spacious and airy tomb in a solitary place.Instead of giving him a burial bath; they put a lot of ointments on him and wrapped his body with a lot of wrappings; we was being treated for the wounds inflicted on him on the Cross.

The friends could not say that he was alive; then they would have not handed over his body to his friends.

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

Hi

It is wrong to say he was buried in a grave; he was never buried in a grave, he was just laid in a tomb. His friends knew he was not dead yet, so they hurriedly managed to take him away and laid him in a spacious and airy tomb in a solitary place.Instead of giving him a burial bath; they put a lot of ointments on him and wrapped his body with a lot of wrappings; we was being treated for the wounds inflicted on him on the Cross.

The friends could not say that he was alive; then they would have not handed over his body to his friends.

Thanks

So, you believe 100 lbs of spices can cure a spear wound? Can you give a demonstration of how it could be done?

 

[planten]

I repeat. Forty years and the eyewitnesses were still alive.

**Reuben, Could you please tell me where was Mary, the mother? Where was Mary, The Magd? I had informed the friends that even if the eye witnesses had said that jesus is dead, it had no meaning. Because none of the friends of Jesus could say that he was still alive.

Even after Jesus walked away on his own two legs with his same old body and wounds. even long time afterwards, none of Jesus friends could say that he was alive. That would have put them in trouble. And would have put Jesus also in trouble, where ever he was.

Death of Jesus on the cross is a bad thing in every way, being a cursed person as per bible, and being bad for Jesus because non-acceptance of his prayer which he performed in the garden to his God to avoid the cup. Quran tells us that his prayer was accepted. Bible also says that an angel was strengthening him. Strengthening can only mean “helping him and assuring him.” Not doing anything against his wishes and prayers.**

 

[Reuben_J]

Planten, I am never known for being a patient man and I feel every time when I have to respond to your post I have to dig deep into the reservoir of my goodness.

Both Marys were there at the foot of the cross. (There were three actually). Even if they were at a distance common sense will tell you they could still see the cross. Death is not something you can hide very well. A person die and that’s it.

The Bible is more than positive in saying that Jesus died. I cannot tell you more than what already been told. The Bible is a story told. It does not depend on the conversation of the characters there or anything at all. If the author says Jesus died, that mean he died.

There are so many reasons why Jesus could have died; you are simply deaf to all these causes. Maybe you can go back home tonight and do yourself a favor. If you have a spear like the one that the Roman soldiers use which is about a foot long metal and pierce it against your left chest until blood and water oozes out, you will I am sure not able to see the next daylight. It is no different for Jesus, only he had to undergo the torture and the hanging. You must be a superhuman to survive all that. But why I am telling you all this? You have heard all that.

You do not understand the theology of the cross nor Christianity. The death on the cross is a shameful death. This is humility for God who does not have to die at all but in obedience to the Father, he humbles himself and suffers death. To Christians this is a teaching of ultimate humility and humility result in obedience. You will never understand this but I am just advised by a fellow Catholic in the other thread to explain my faith. I will gladly do so but you don’t seem like the one who would listen.

Ultimately we see the cross as a victory. Because it is a victory it has power. I can explain this but I guess it may be too hard for you. Maybe you can digest this first tonight if you will, otherwise we will go about in a wild goose chase.

You do not understand the prayer at all. Jesus as a man experience agony and that is pain. At that moment just like any man he cried out for the cup (the suffering) to be taken away but then that was neither his will nor the Father’s. The will of the Father and his will is to finish his mission. What is the mission? Salvation of mankind.

Your Quran does not talk much about the crucifixion except to say that Jesus did not die there but only appear to be so. How vague and yet you question the Bible which is so detail and thorough on this subject.

 

[planten]

** Reuben J, I ignore all your above post because my question was in relation to the whereabouts of all the Mary’s at the time the bible was being written. You had said that eye witnesses were there when bible was being written. I know that at least two Mary’s were there at the time of crucifixion effort. I know that they were eye witnesses. I want to know, Where were they 20 or 30 years later? That is my question. Then I will deal with the rest of your post.**

 

[paarsurrey]

** Reuben J, I ignore all your above post because my question was in relation to the whereabouts of all the Mary’s at the time the bible was being written. You had said that eye witnesses were there when bible was being written. I know that at least two Mary’s were there at the time of crucifixion effort. I know that they were eye witnesses. I want to know, Where were they 20 or 30 years later? That is my question. Then I will deal with the rest of your post.**

Hi

I think it will be appropriate if Reuben J answered palnten’s simple question in a straightforward way.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[Reuben_J]

** Reuben J, I ignore all your above post because my question was in relation to the whereabouts of all the Mary’s at the time the bible was being written. You had said that eye witnesses were there when bible was being written. I know that at least two Mary’s were there at the time of crucifixion effort. I know that they were eye witnesses. I want to know, Where were they 20 or 30 years later? That is my question. Then I will deal with the rest of your post.**

Well, I do not know. But the writer, especially John, had Mary the mother of Jesus lived with him after the crucifixion.

I have explained in details the rest in my previous posts about the disciples working together in a church context. It’s like President Obama if he wants to refer to something done during the Kennedy administration he would only have to refer to the archive and they would be there.

There were notes and records from which the Gospels were referred to.

I hope that helps. It would be good if you say you understand or do not understand what I wrote so that I can clarify. If you keep repeating your questions then I figure that you did not even listen to what we say. Discussion is a two-way traffic. Though it is very draining to discuss with you I would still make the effort to be patient as a respect for a person of another religion. I don’t know if is too much to ask for reciprocation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Are planten and paarsurrey the same and one person? Your literary style and the use of fonts are very similar.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by planten:
Reuben J, I ignore all your above post because my question was in relation to the whereabouts of all the Mary’s at the time the bible was being written. You had said that eye witnesses were there when bible was being written. I know that at least two Mary’s were there at the time of crucifixion effort. I know that they were eye witnesses. I want to know, Where were they 20 or 30 years later? That is my question. Then I will deal with the rest of your post.

Well, I do not know. But the writer, especially John, had Mary the mother of Jesus lived with him after the crucifixion.

I have explained in details the rest in my previous posts about the disciples working together in a church context. It’s like President Obama if he wants to refer to something done during the Kennedy administration he would only have to refer to the archive and they would be there.

There were notes and records from which the Gospels were referred to.

I hope that helps. It would be good if you say you understand or do not understand what I wrote so that I can clarify. If you keep repeating your questions then I figure that you did not even listen to what we say. Discussion is a two-way traffic. Though it is very draining to discuss with you I would still make the effort to be patient as a respect for a person of another religion. I don’t know if is too much to ask for reciprocation.

Hi

Planten asked simple question which you have now answered. I don’t know what was in that question which angered you and you had to be patient with.

Anyway that is not the issue.

As you have replied now “Well, I do not know. But the writer, especially John, had Mary the mother of Jesus lived with him after the crucifixion.”

Planten asked as to where was Mary :"I know that at least two Mary’s were there at the time of crucifixion effort. I know that they were eye witnesses. I want to know, Where were they 20 or 30 years later?"

It is for that that I have been stating here that the accounts of the gospels are only a partial accounts of Jesus and Mary’s life. It has to be as the gospel writers did not go with Jesus and Mary on their journey.

Quran just by mentioning that God Allah gave Jesus and Mary a refuge in a country with comfort and fountains; speaks volumes about their life accounts.

For the rest one could ask from Hindus and Buddhists and Indian Archaeologcial departmenst; I don’t mention of the Muslim sources as the Catholics, I know, would be hesitant to accept.

I love Jesus and Mary.

Thanks

 

[wanner47]

paarsurrey (and Snow), do you believe that Socrates existed?

Also, paarsurrey, I respectfully request that you stop adding “I love Jesus and Mary” to the end of your posts. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. If you truly loved Jesus, you’d worship Him; if you truly loved Mary, you’d honor her.