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

[paarsurrey]

books.google.com/books?id=5_AFAAAAQAAJ&dq=David+Friedrich+Strauss&pg=PP1&ots=TMIbC1XftR&source=an&sig=QczkC8xI3qTQe5R73fxjoGbeJns&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA409,M1

“A New Life of Jesus” By David Friedrich Strauss (1808 –1874),a German theologian and writer.

We might, therefore, refuse to acknowledge in the resurrection of Jesus any miraculous objective occurrence for the following reasons.

The Evangelical evidence, on which the belief of that occurrence originally rested, is far from giving that certainty which it ought to give in order to make such a miracle credible.

1. For in the first place it does not come from eye-witnesses,
2. secondly the different accounts do not agree, and
3. thirdly they give a description of the nature and movements of the subject after the resurrection which contains in itself contradictory elements.

Inasmuch, then, as the ecclesiastical view of the matter, as regards the last point, admits only the possibility of a miracle, the essence of which involves characteristics which are, according to human notions, self-contradictory, an attempt is made to take another point of view, and to understand the Evangelical accounts in such a manner that they shall not contain such contradictions.
According to this the Resurrection of Jesus takes the form of a natural occurrence,

1. his condition after it is the same as it was before it.
2. In the appearances after the resurrection, the accounts of which are given in the Evangelists, the advocates of this view keep exclusively to those features which seem to point to a perfectly natural corporeality;

a. the marks of the wounds,

b. the tangibility,

c. the eating, which is here taken to be not merely a power of eating, but also as a want of sustenance.

1. On the other hand, they endeavour to set aside by an evasive explanation the opposite characteristics which point to something spiritual in the nature of Jesus after the resurrection.

a. The fact of the disciples, as is sometimes stated, being afraid at his appearance (Luke xxvii. 37 ; John xxi. 12) is intelligible,

b. they say, on the supposition that they really believed that he was dead, and thought consequently that what they then saw of him was his shade ascended from the world below.

c. The travellers to Emmaus did not recognise him for some time.
d. Mary Magdalene thought he was the gardener.

1. The first of these is explained sometimes by the disfigurement of his features by suffering,
2. sometimes by supposing that he had not marked features;
3. the latter from the circumstance that having risen from the grave unclothed from the sepulchre he had borrowed clothes from the neighbouring gardener.
4. While the doors were shut he stood suddenly in the midst of his disciples.
5. Even Schleiermacher considers it self-evident that the doors had been opened for him before.
6. They see here, they say, a proof of the fact that the body which Jesus brought from the grave was not a glorified one,

a. but severely wounded and hurt,

b. and gradually recovering.

1. And this proof is the improvement shown in his state of health between the morning of the resurection, when he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him (John xx. 17),
2. and eight days later, when the healing of his wounds had advanced so far that he himself invited Thomas to do so.
3. Again in the morning he stays quietly in the neighbourhood of his grave,
4. in the afternoon he feels already strong enough for an expedition to Emmaus, three hours distant,
5. and some days later undertakes even the journey to Galilee.

Thanks

 

[eldestofvic]

Paarsurrey

Just a couple of quick notes as I really don’t have much time.

#1) Most modern historians (even in the Historical Jesus movement) now consider Strauss’s work to be fundamentally flawed in several areas.

#2) Straus was not arguing a sense of false-hood. There exists in his writings a notion of the “myth that is true”. Its a hard concept to grasp and one that most Fundamentalists will dismiss out of hand; however, it is what it is. At one time the whole story has all the hallmarks of “myth” (some of which you mentioned above) while at the same time it is so phenomenologically “true” it simply cannot be denied.

 

[Eucharisted]

It’s a medical fact that Jesus died. He poured out all of His blood and water on the cross. But I guess if you want to ignore science and a historical eyewitness account recorded in the gosepl, you can. Not going to argue this one, since I know you won’t listen.

 

[eldestofvic]

The Evangelical evidence, on which the belief of that occurrence originally rested, is far from giving that certainty which it ought to give in order to make such a miracle credible.

1. For in the first place it does not come from eye-witnesses,

What does not come from eye witnesses? News of his resurrection? Wrong, the New Testament records over 500 people seeing the risen Christ after his death. The actual event of his resurrection was attested to the authorities by the guards.

1. secondly the different accounts do not agree, and

irrellevant, The NT authors were not writing a chronology but recording the reflections of witnesses. In point of fact, the discrepancies make the individual testamonies more reliable as they attest to actual reflection then an agreed upon story.

That’s enough for now… reflect on that for a while.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Romans had a lot of failings and faults, but the inability to kill someone was not one of them. Their officers had no tolerance for incompetent executioners. When they said an enemy was dead, he was dead. A spear through the heart guaranteed that.

 

[Snow]

It’s a medical fact that Jesus died. He poured out all of His blood and water on the cross.

It’s not even a historical fact - how could it be a medical fact?

But I guess if you want to ignore science and a historical eyewitness account recorded in the gosepl, you can.

Here’s the first problems. There is zero scientific proof of it.

Here’s the second problem - There are no historical accounts.

Here’s the third problem - There are no eyewitness accounts.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by Eucharisted:
It’s a medical fact that Jesus died. He poured out all of His blood and water on the cross.

Snow says:

It’s not even a historical fact - how could it be a medical fact?

Originally Posted by Eucharisted:
But I guess if you want to ignore science and a historical eyewitness account recorded in the gosepl, you can.

Snow says: It’s not even a historical fact - how could it be a medical fact?

Here’s the first problems. There is zero scientific proof of it.

Here’s the second problem - There are no historical accounts.

Here’s the third problem - There are no eyewitness accounts.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

I think we have only mythical expressions from Paul to base his new theological philosophy invented at Rome ; nothing more than that.

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

Thanks

 

[GreenLantern]

It’s not even a historical fact - how could it be a medical fact?

I think he was talking about how flogging, cruxcifiction and spearing is usually lethal to the recipient.

Here’s the first problems. There is zero scientific proof of it.

What would you say is scientific proof?

Here’s the second problem - There are no historical accounts.

The Gospels?

Here’s the third problem - There are no eyewitness accounts.

Um, the Gospels again?

 

[dzheremi]

Is there any point to any of these threads, Paarsurrey? You sure do start a lot of them, but they generally follow a pattern:

1. Quote an old (preferably German, at least in the threads I’ve seen) philosopher/scientist/archeologist/theologian as though their assertions are fact and can stand as evidence.
2. Quote a poster in some other thread (or in this case, this thread) who agrees with you
3. State your own opinion
4. Consider the matter decided, but still make more threads pushing the same nonsense whenever you feel like it (such as your many threads dealing with the “Jesus lived, and died a natural death, in India” lunacy that is apparently the hallmark of Ahmadiyya like yourself).

If there is some sort of point to any of this, I cannot see it.

I am very tempted to say who cares what a bunch of heretical Christ-deniers have to say about anything ever, but I know that wouldn’t be charitable, so instead I just have to wonder why? Why do you do all of this? Are you trying to convert people? Are you trying to get them to take your theories seriously? Shouldn’t you work at being accepted within the community you try to present yourself as being a part of (Islam) first, since they still will not accept you due to your unorthodox beliefs? I will always disagree with Islam, but I can at least treat the arguments of another Muslim here, say Sister Amy or men0jwv, with more seriousness because I know they are not heretics in the view of their own tradition. That is much more than I can say for you, or incidentally the other poster you have quoted, who is a Mormon and hence has the same problem within the community that he claims to be part of (Christianity).

Heretics will listen to heretics, but the rest of us have far less time for this “maybe Christ didn’t really die on the cross”, “maybe Christ lived in India”, “maybe Christ came to the Americas and a Hebrew-speaking Israelite Native American angel (or some such person) wrote a book about it on golden plates” talk.

In a discussion with the assistant priest of the local Dominican Order last week, he told me with regard to some disagreements I have had with Muslims that a Muslim may not respect me, or my faith or its the content of its traditions, but it is likely that he will respect that there is tradition in my faith, because he sees rich tradition in his own faith. I think this is very reasonable, and this is how I’m trying to think about our disagreements from now on. However, when it comes to newer sects that claim legitmacy within already well-established traditions (the Ahmadiyya within Islam, the Mormons within Christianity, etc), I am not so sure that it would be wise to try to apply that thinking, since your quest for legitimacy comes at the expense of the established ways of your faith from which you have departed.

So whether you believe in Christ’s crucifixion and glorious resurrection or not, I see no reason anyone should listen to you or give your opinions any credence. To disagree while still allowing that the belief in Christ’s resurrection is central to Christianity would be fine, but given that you do not respect your own religion’s traditions, there is little hope of you understanding the necessity that you respect mine, if this thread is about Jesus or anything else of importance, and not really about just stating your own disbelief behind the mask of a dead European (which for me is personally unconvincing, anyway; my European relatives came from further south, so you better believe they were all Catholics!)

If Islam’s doctrines have no chance with you, what hope do you have of ever being taken seriously by mainstream, orthodox Christians? Re-think your strategy or pack it in, my friend.

 

[ralphinal]

Strauss also denies the virgin birth. Islam confirms it.

Is he right about that, too?

Honestly, I would love to know why you guys pick heretics to quote then only use the part that you like.

 

[inJESUS]

Honestly, I would love to know why you guys pick heretics to quote then only use the part that you like.

because Muhammad did the same when he quoted Gnostics.

 

[Soutane]

I’d say 500 eyewitnesses are sufficient.But you know what?500,000 eyewitnesses are insufficient for someone DETERMINED not to believe.

 

[Snow]

I’d say 500 eyewitnesses are sufficient.But you know what?500,000 eyewitnesses are insufficient for someone DETERMINED not to believe.

There are not 500 eyewitnesses. There is one account from Paul who claims that there were 500 witnesses. We actually have zero of the alleged eyewitness accounts. Paul himself never met Christ.

 

[Snow]

What would you say is scientific proof?

Something observable - reproducible by independent means, generally.

The Gospels?

The Gospels belong to a genre of literature called - gospel - or good news - evangelium, not history.

Set aside for a moment whether the gospels are true. We believe as a matter of faith that they are but that is by faith, not fact. The Gospels are religious writings trying to make a point - they are not unbiased sources of historical fact. The authors are anonymous. No one knows who wrote them. The authors were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe. For example Luke records the vision or visit of an angel to Zachariah as if it were a simple fact of history. The author certainly had no firsthand knowledge of such an event. He was merely recording oral stories - folklore.

Um, the Gospels again?

It is believed by scholars, or some scholars that the authors - anonymous authors - were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

 

[swariffin]

books.google.com/books?id=5_AFAAAAQAAJ&dq=David+Friedrich+Strauss&pg=PP1&ots=TMIbC1XftR&source=an&sig=QczkC8xI3qTQe5R73fxjoGbeJns&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA409,M1

“A New Life of Jesus” By David Friedrich Strauss (1808 –1874),a German theologian and writer.

We might, therefore, refuse to acknowledge in the resurrection of Jesus any miraculous objective occurrence for the following reasons.

The Evangelical evidence, on which the belief of that occurrence originally rested, is far from giving that certainty which it ought to give in order to make such a miracle credible.

1. For in the first place it does not come from eye-witnesses,
2. secondly the different accounts do not agree, and
3. thirdly they give a description of the nature and movements of the subject after the resurrection which contains in itself contradictory elements.

Inasmuch, then, as the ecclesiastical view of the matter, as regards the last point, admits only the possibility of a miracle, the essence of which involves characteristics which are, according to human notions, self-contradictory, an attempt is made to take another point of view, and to understand the Evangelical accounts in such a manner that they shall not contain such contradictions.
According to this the Resurrection of Jesus takes the form of a natural occurrence,

1. his condition after it is the same as it was before it.
2. In the appearances after the resurrection, the accounts of which are given in the Evangelists, the advocates of this view keep exclusively to those features which seem to point to a perfectly natural corporeality;

a. the marks of the wounds,

b. the tangibility,

c. the eating, which is here taken to be not merely a power of eating, but also as a want of sustenance.

1. On the other hand, they endeavour to set aside by an evasive explanation the opposite characteristics which point to something spiritual in the nature of Jesus after the resurrection.

a. The fact of the disciples, as is sometimes stated, being afraid at his appearance (Luke xxvii. 37 ; John xxi. 12) is intelligible,

b. they say, on the supposition that they really believed that he was dead, and thought consequently that what they then saw of him was his shade ascended from the world below.

c. The travellers to Emmaus did not recognise him for some time.
d. Mary Magdalene thought he was the gardener.

1. The first of these is explained sometimes by the disfigurement of his features by suffering,
2. sometimes by supposing that he had not marked features;
3. the latter from the circumstance that having risen from the grave unclothed from the sepulchre he had borrowed clothes from the neighbouring gardener.
4. While the doors were shut he stood suddenly in the midst of his disciples.
5. Even Schleiermacher considers it self-evident that the doors had been opened for him before.
6. They see here, they say, a proof of the fact that the body which Jesus brought from the grave was not a glorified one,

a. but severely wounded and hurt,

b. and gradually recovering.

1. And this proof is the improvement shown in his state of health between the morning of the resurection, when he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him (John xx. 17),
2. and eight days later, when the healing of his wounds had advanced so far that he himself invited Thomas to do so.
3. Again in the morning he stays quietly in the neighbourhood of his grave,
4. in the afternoon he feels already strong enough for an expedition to Emmaus, three hours distant,
5. and some days later undertakes even the journey to Galilee.

Thanks

1. Jesus then went to India and died there. You forget that one, Paar.

By the way, can we dig the tomb of Jesus there and conduct some scientific analysis?

 

[paarsurrey]

1. Jesus then went to India and died there. You forget that one, Paar.

By the way, can we dig the tomb of Jesus there and conduct some scientific analysis?

Hi

I was quoting from D.F.Strauss and hence did not write that.

Yes, you could do that with the permission from Indian govenment and also from your religious head at Vatican. I don’t have any objection on that.

Thanks

 

[ralphinal]

Hi

I was quoting from D.F.Strauss and hence did not write that.

Yes, you could do that with the permission from Indian govenment and also from your religious head at Vatican. I don’t have any objection on that.

Thanks

The Vatican has no reason to deny it.

I saw a show on this a while back. It turns out taht the tomb supposedly holding “Jesus” is also a tomb of a Muslim leader, and Islam will not allow it to be disturbed.

How convenient…

 

[swariffin]

There are not 500 eyewitnesses. There is one account from Paul who claims that there were 500 witnesses. We actually have zero of the alleged eyewitness accounts. Paul himself never met Christ.

Wrong, as the student of Gamaliel, who studied in Jerusalem. He must have heard the teaching of Jesus, and he by chance must have seen Jesus entering Jerusalem. Do you think the Torah can be learn in a day or two?

 

[swariffin]

Something observable - reproducible by independent means, generally.

The Gospels belong to a genre of literature called - gospel - or good news - evangelium, not history.

Set aside for a moment whether the gospels are true. We believe as a matter of faith that they are but that is by faith, not fact. The Gospels are religious writings trying to make a point - they are not unbiased sources of historical fact. The authors are anonymous. No one knows who wrote them. The authors were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe. For example Luke records the vision or visit of an angel to Zachariah as if it were a simple fact of history. The author certainly had no firsthand knowledge of such an event. He was merely recording oral stories - folklore.

It is believed by scholars, or some scholars that the authors - anonymous authors - were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

The gospels were written and circulated during the relevant time of Jesus. Should there is any difference between the wording of the gospels and the teaching of Jesus, it would have been refuted away by those people who ACTUALLY saw and heard Jesus themselves. At least 3 person saw Jesus close by. The death of Jesus was witnessed by many Jews and Romans. Some of whom became Christian later on. Allow some logic, so there is no need for you to test that fire is hot by your own finger.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I was quoting from D.F.Strauss and hence did not write that.

Yes, you could do that with the permission from Indian govenment and also from your religious head at Vatican. I don’t have any objection on that.

Thanks

I did, and I found that the story of the tomb is faulty.