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

[Reuben_J]

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.

That’s pretty high claim. We may not know the authors today but for the Early Church Fathers these writers were indeed someone that they were familiar with. They were certainly not anonymous. I always think it is pretty lame excuse to say that a non-eyewitness cannot write an authentic report.

There is too much guesses here as to whether Jesus died or not. Muslims tend to go overboard in claiming that Jesus did not die, and their reason for saying so borders on the ludicrous.

If one is to say that Jesus did not die then by the same token one has to provide proof to say otherwise. But actually we are babbling about nothing when we deny the death by crucifixion. The practicality of 1st century medical know how of the Romans or the Jews would not allow for survival after what Jesus had gone through. People suffered death by much lesser cause. But if you believe Ahmad Deedat, well, by all means, though I cannot see for the life of me how an ancient doctor could possibly revive Jesus of his trauma and suffering.

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.

Sorry, they are not folklore. That’s quite an exaggeration, is it not? Mary was still alive during Luke’s time and the disciples did work together. The fact that you have others who were not from the original twelve does not mean that they were outsiders. Writers were simply writers – a gift for writing and they played their roles accordingly in the community of the disciples.

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

Who could be scholars in 1st century w ho could testify to this? You have to study the science of ancient’s manuscripts and how authentic they are like how you would verify any ancient documents today. There was the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, but even then I hear people discredit him too.

Perhaps ultimately it is what you want to believe but it is certainly not folklore.

 

[paarsurrey]

If one is to say that Jesus did not die then by the same token one has to provide proof to say otherwise.

Hi

I think you are wrong here, my friend.Everybody dies , so did Jesus die. It is Catholics who say that Jesus died on cross, so they say a queer thing, hence, the burden of proof is on the Catholics. In my opinion, the Catholics avoid it and don’t take it seriously, perhaps they know it is a mythical creed without any proof. They don’t want to admit a thing which is against their belief or blind faith, it is as simple as that, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I think you are wrong here, my friend.Everybody dies , so did Jesus die. It is Catholics who say that Jesus died on cross, so they say a queer thing, hence, the burden of proof is on the Catholics. In my opinion, the Catholics avoid it and don’t take it seriously, perhaps they know it is a mythical creed without any proof. They don’t want to admit a thing which is against their belief or blind faith, it is as simple as that, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

Many times it has been mentioned that at least 3 people close to Jesus was present during crucifixtion, and hundreds other Jews and Romans too. Do you think Jesus is crucified in the middle of no where. Logically by human standard, Jesus died at the cross. Normal people with common sense will not need any proof.

If you believe Jesus survived despite all odds of the logic, then it is you who supposed to provide the proof, not shifting the burden of proof to us, not by argument per se.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi

I think you are wrong here, my friend.Everybody dies , so did Jesus die. It is Catholics who say that Jesus died on cross, so they say a queer thing, hence, the burden of proof is on the Catholics. In my opinion, the Catholics avoid it and don’t take it seriously, perhaps they know it is a mythical creed without any proof. They don’t want to admit a thing which is against their belief or blind faith, it is as simple as that, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

What are you talking about? We said Jesus died.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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…

Who cares about Strauss?

The only thing that everybody needs to know is that Islam denies the crucifixion (see Qur’an 4:157).

 

[planten]

Many times it has been mentioned that at least 3 people close to Jesus was present during crucifixtion, and hundreds other Jews and Romans too. Do you think Jesus is crucified in the middle of no where. Logically by human standard, Jesus died at the cross. Normal people with common sense will not need any proof.

If you believe Jesus survived despite all odds of the logic, then it is you who supposed to provide the proof, not shifting the burden of proof to us, not by argument per se.

**swariffin, whether Jesus died on the cross or he was alive when brought down, let us leave that alone. Please tell me. Could any one present there say that Jesus had not died? That he was still alive? Please tell. Even if he was alive, no one could say that he was alive.

Even after he got up (came to) in the tomb and walked away on his two legs, he was careful. He met his friends only and then departed. Nobody, nobody could legally say that Jesus had not died. Please consider all these points about the life or death of Jesus on the cross.**

 

[planten]

Who cares about Strauss?

The only thing that everybody needs to know is that Islam denies the crucifixion (see Qur’an 4:157).

**Just in case some people misunderstand the bove words of C Z, it is necessary to inform that Crucifixion means death on the cross, not just putting on the cross. Jesus was definitely put up on the cross. But he did not die. So the act of crucifixion was not completed. It had failed. That is why Quran says that Jesus was not crucified.

Quran does not deny that Jesus was put on the cross.**

 

[ralphinal]

**Just in case some people misunderstand the bove words of C Z, it is necessary to inform that Crucifixion means death on the cross, not just putting on the cross. Jesus was definitely put up on the cross. But he did not die. So the act of crucifixion was not completed. It had failed. That is why Quran says that Jesus was not crucified.

Quran does not deny that Jesus was put on the cross.**

How does the Qur’an explain the fact that he was stabbed in the chest with a spear, spilling blood and water out? A modern doctor would tell you that based on the angle of entry and the description of the results, it included a puncture of the pericardial sac and possibly the heart itself.

 

[swariffin]

**swariffin, whether Jesus died on the cross or he was alive when brought down, let us leave that alone. Please tell me. Could any one present there say that Jesus had not died? That he was still alive? Please tell. Even if he was alive, no one could say that he was alive.

Even after he got up (came to) in the tomb and walked away on his two legs, he was careful. He met his friends only and then departed. Nobody, nobody could legally say that Jesus had not died. Please consider all these points about the life or death of Jesus on the cross.**

Do you think that Golgotha is in the middle of no where? So that no one see the crucifiction of Jesus? The one present there clearly said that Jesus died. See Matthew 26:49-55, Mark 15;37-40, Luke 23:44-49, John 19:28-37. The Roman soldiers saw that Jesus died in John 19:33. John, Mary mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were at the bottom cross of Jesus so much that they could hear Jesus said “This is your son” and “This is your Mother”.

Why did not show up to the public? What for? When Jesus rose Lazarus from death IN FRONT OF MANY JEWS (See John 11:1-44, especially verse 42) they did not believe Him, so much that they made a plot to kill Lazarus again. (John 12:9-11). If the Jews did not believe what they saw WITH THEIR OWN EYE, why would the need for Jesus to appear again? To make proclamation?? Jesus is not a power monger like that, Planten. God gives the chance for people to make their own decision. The same thing like this, we gave you the answer you are looking for. If you did not even want to read that, will you know (don’t have to understand, just knowing) Christianity a bit?? Chance is you keep on asking the same question over and over again. Thousands of forum pages written to answer you are meaningless.

 

[Snow]

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.

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

Do you think the Torah can be learn in a day or two?

No, why do you ask?

 

[Snow]

The gospels were written and circulated during the relevant time of Jesus.

Uh - no. Christ died around 30 or 33 or something AD. A common view with scholars today is that Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written post 70 AD

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.

You are supposing that:

1. people could remember sufficient detail after 40 or more years.
2. the people that could remember read the Gospels.
3. that if they could remember 40 or more years earlier, and they read the gospels, that if there was a discrepancy, they would have undertook to correct it, and that we would in fact today have heard about their attempts to correct it.

Got any evidence to support your theory?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.
3. 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.
4. The first of these is explained sometimes by the disfigurement of his features by suffering,
5. sometimes by supposing that he had not marked features;
6. the latter from the circumstance that having risen from the grave unclothed from the sepulchre he had borrowed clothes from the neighbouring gardener.
7. While the doors were shut he stood suddenly in the midst of his disciples.
8. Even Schleiermacher considers it self-evident that the doors had been opened for him before.
9. 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.
10. 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),
11. and eight days later, when the healing of his wounds had advanced so far that he himself invited Thomas to do so.
12. Again in the morning he stays quietly in the neighbourhood of his grave,
13. in the afternoon he feels already strong enough for an expedition to Emmaus, three hours distant,
14. and some days later undertakes even the journey to Galilee.

Thanks

• **Is this the first, third, or fourth edition ? I would imagine it’s the fourth - is it ? **
• **It’s a bit out-dated, to say the least: an enormous amount of work has been done in the 140 or so years since the fourth edition, from many viewpoints. **
• **To treat a book as old as this as the latest thing in Gospel criticism is like launching a man-hunt to arrest the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. **
• **Quoting Strauss is a waste of time, since his notion of what Jesus was busy about is held by very few NT scholars, if any. **
• **Strauss is interesting, but only for his historical interest: his rejection of the primacy of Mark’s gospel, &, even more, his failure to allow that Jesus was eschatologically-minded, date his solutions very badly. Because they are inadequate - H. S. Reimarus in the 18th century had a far better understanding of the eschatological character of Jesus; then it was lost, for most of the 19th century **

 

[Snow]

That’s pretty high claim. We may not know the authors today but for the Early Church Fathers these writers were indeed someone that they were familiar with. They were certainly not anonymous.

Okay, maybe you have read something in the Gospels that I have not. Where in the Gospels is authorship confirmed?

I think that you will find, if you take a moment to read the text, that authorship is never stated - that is, they are anonymous. Further, authorship was assigned much later, around 180 AD. They are 2nd century guesses. The guesses may be accurate but I don’t think you can demonstrate that those that guessed were relying on verifiable fact.

I always think it is pretty lame excuse to say that a non-eyewitness cannot write an authentic report.

So - if today you ran across a handwritten copy (not the original) of an anonymous text written about something that occurred in 1965, and there were no other written sources to verify it, but there was a lot of tradition and folklore about it, would you consider such text history? Or would you consider it something other than simple, straightforward history.

There is too much guesses here as to whether Jesus died or not. Muslims tend to go overboard in claiming that Jesus did not die, and their reason for saying so borders on the ludicrous.

If one is to say that Jesus did not die then by the same token one has to provide proof to say otherwise. But actually we are babbling about nothing when we deny the death by crucifixion. The practicality of 1st century medical know how of the Romans or the Jews would not allow for survival after what Jesus had gone through. People suffered death by much lesser cause. But if you believe Ahmad Deedat, well, by all means, though I cannot see for the life of me how an ancient doctor could possibly revive Jesus of his trauma and suffering.

I didn’t say anything about Christ not dying. I was speaking to the evidence of such.

Sorry, they are not folklore. That’s quite an exaggeration, is it not? Mary was still alive during Luke’s time and the disciples did work together. The fact that you have others who were not from the original twelve does not mean that they were outsiders. Writers were simply writers – a gift for writing and they played their roles accordingly in the community of the disciples.

Let me try it this way.

The written accounts of Joseph Smith having golden plates and translating them from an ancient language far, far, far exceed the documented accounts of and around the gospels. We have original copies of statements and translations and non-anonymous accounts, etc. Do you consider all that as simple straightforward history - a plain retelling of reality, or are the accounts something different than simple history?

Who could be scholars in 1st century w ho could testify to this? You have to study the science of ancient’s manuscripts and how authentic they are like how you would verify any ancient documents today. There was the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, but even then I hear people discredit him too.

I don’t understand your point.

There are people who don’t think too highly of Josephus as a quality historian but I think what you are referring to are not attempts to discredit Josephus, but rather scholars who are certain that Josephus’s writings have been tampered with after he wrote them.

Perhaps ultimately it is what you want to believe but it is certainly not folklore.

Folklore doesn’t necessarily mean untrue or inaccurate. But the gospels are folklore in that they are a result of decades and decades of oral tradition.

 

[Ignatius]

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

So, some guy 18 centuries after the fact dreams up an alternate Gospel, so what? He has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Reuben_J]

Uh - no. Christ died around 30 or 33 or something AD. A common view with scholars today is that Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written post 70 AD

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?

You are supposing that:

1. people could remember sufficient detail after 40 or more years.

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

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.

1. the people that could remember read the Gospels.

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.

1. that if they could remember 40 or more years earlier, and they read the gospels, that if there was a discrepancy, they would have undertook to correct it, and that we would in fact today have heard about their attempts to correct it.

Got any evidence to support your theory?

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.

 

[Reuben_J]

Okay, maybe you have read something in the Gospels that I have not. Where in the Gospels is authorship confirmed?

I think that you will find, if you take a moment to read the text, that authorship is never stated - that is, they are anonymous. Further, authorship was assigned much later, around 180 AD. They are 2nd century guesses. The guesses may be accurate but I don’t think you can demonstrate that those that guessed were relying on verifiable fact.

My contention is that the services of the apostles were continuous and never interrupted. The writers are those who had the gift for writing and the writings were accepted by the body of the apostles as representative of their stand. Your premise is you want the confirmation of the identity of the writers. I don’t. You can rebut the accuracy of the Gospels only if you think that the body of the community of the believers was not continuous.

So - if today you ran across a handwritten copy (not the original) of an anonymous text written about something that occurred in 1965, and there were no other written sources to verify it, but there was a lot of tradition and folklore about it, would you consider such text history? Or would you consider it something other than simple, straightforward history.

I will not accept it as authentic but this cannot apply to the situation of the apostles. They knew the writers. The apostleship still existed. I have no problem accepting what had been accepted by relevant people who knew why they accepted the documents even though I might not know who they were. Why should I know them if I don’t live in their era?

I didn’t say anything about Christ not dying. I was speaking to the evidence of such.

No evidence is required if you want modern forensic type of detective evidence. Their word is sufficient because they saw.

Let me try it this way.

The written accounts of Joseph Smith having golden plates and translating them from an ancient language far, far, far exceed the documented accounts of and around the gospels. We have original copies of statements and translations and non-anonymous accounts, etc. Do you consider all that as simple straightforward history - a plain retelling of reality, or are the accounts something different than simple history?

I would have problem with Joseph Smith. He was not an apostle of Jesus nor was he an eyewitness. This here is a good example of believing in faith. There is an interrupted time and space between the era of Joseph Smith and the Gospel.

I don’t understand your point.

There are people who don’t think too highly of Josephus as a quality historian but I think what you are referring to are not attempts to discredit Josephus, but rather scholars who are certain that Josephus’s writings have been tampered with after he wrote them.

That you have to argue against the science of verifying ancient documents. This is not my scope to explain further but having going through some of the methods I can say that there was independent confirmation to the crucifixion and Jesus.

Folklore doesn’t necessarily mean untrue or inaccurate. But the gospels are folklore in that they are a result of decades and decades of oral tradition.

My friend, not decades and decades. It was within a single generation.

 

[paarsurrey]

It was within a single generation.

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

 

[Reuben_J]

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

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

 

[Reuben_J]

And the likelihood of forgetting is even less considering that the apostles / disciples were preaching this (the Gospels) days and nights. You do not forget something that is always on your lips, do you?

 

[swariffin]

Uh - no. Christ died around 30 or 33 or something AD. A common view with scholars today is that Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written post 70 AD

Don’t forget that the reader of those gospel are the people who have seen or heard Jesus themselves. Don’t forget the most of the deciples were still alive at that time.

You are supposing that:

1. people could remember sufficient detail after 40 or more years.
2. the people that could remember read the Gospels.
3. that if they could remember 40 or more years earlier, and they read the gospels, that if there was a discrepancy, they would have undertook to correct it, and that we would in fact today have heard about their attempts to correct it.
   Got any evidence to support your theory?

If I rewrite your Quran wrongly and announce it all over the world, would you keep silence? Look at what happen to Salman Rusdhie.