On the Missing Corpse of Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say Jesus hopped up and left that cave there, after he was dead.

Others'll say the missing corpse of Jesus can be better explained by the actions of the living.

For debate:
Which explanation is best? Why?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

The scripture you read above is Paul's reference to his conversion on the road to Damascus, one of many references in fact. In numerous places in his writings Paul claims to have seen Jesus alive and well, and claims that his mission was given to him directly by Jesus.

Yes, Paul does claim to have communed with Jesus. This "communing" occurred some years after Jesus was executed however.

To say that Paul is not a witness of the resurrection of Jesus is to call Paul a liar. Only people who were directly taught by Jesus were called apostles, and we call Paul an apostle.

Was Paul a liar? Only Paul knows the answer to that one. While traveling to Damascus Paul was stricken ill. He was taken into the city by his traveling companions and left at the home of a Christian to recover. Blind, sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had an encounter with Jesus whom had been executed some years earlier, and as a result Paul become a confirmed Christian. So we are left with a couple of possible conclusions beyond the possibility of Paul being a liar. One is that in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian for several days, Paul hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually had a conversation with a dead man. With all due respect to the version I know you prefer, in all honesty, which conclusion is THE MORE LIKELY?

[Moses Yoder]

which conclusion is THE MORE LIKELY?

You can't win an argument with a Christian with pure logic. If I was God, and I was logical, if someone used my name as a curse word I would make sure they experienced a painful death, then I would send them to hell for eternity. Instead, God sent His son to die so they might be saved. Obviosly God is not logical, therefore Christians aren't logical. To ask which conclusion is the more likely is to ask me to be logical, something I am afraid I can't do.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You can't win an argument with a Christian with pure logic. If I was God, and I was logical, if someone used my name as a curse word I would make sure they experienced a painful death, then I would send them to hell for eternity. Instead, God sent His son to die so they might be saved. Obviosly God is not logical, therefore Christians aren't logical. To ask which conclusion is the more likely is to ask me to be logical, something I am afraid I can't do.

That is about as honest an answer as I ever expect to get. Thank you for that at any rate. Unfortunately such a position precludes you from any possibility of serious debate, and leaves you only here to preach. This is the wrong forum for that, I am afraid. Preaching without debating will get you booted post haste.

[Moses Yoder]

That is about as honest an answer as I ever expect to get. Thank you for that at any rate. Unfortunately such a position precludes you from any possibility of serious debate, and leaves you only here to preach. This is the wrong forum for that, I am afraid. Preaching without debating will get you booted post haste.

Debate, according to dictionary.com, means

"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

It does not say that either of the viewpoints have to be logical, and it does not even refer to logic. I would agree that if you are illogical to the point of inhibiting other people's right to free speech banning would be in order, but I don't see where logic has anything to do with debate. If it did, we would have to set up a charter defining what logic is, who decides whether an argument is logical or not, etc. etc. In fact, it could be said that both viewpoints of the Earths origin is illogical. That there was a God who existed for eternity and at one point decided to make a people who would hate Him is not logical. And to decide that the Earth came into being from nothing is also illogical.

[chestertonrules]

[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"I don't deny that they all died at some point, although there is no record of that either. What about the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus, and the hoards of dead people who came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. Would questioning these stories constitute "denying reality" in your opinion?[/quote]


I recognize that these are bizzare hard to believe stories.

My point is that the evidence indicates that the apostles, who claimed to be witnesses to these events, believed that these events occurred.

You can make a case that the apostles were dupes but I don't think you can make the case that they were frauds.

[bjs]

Joey, perhaps I read too much into your questions. I will try to answer more simply.

The only question I'm "begging" is...

Do you, bjs, contend that it is "nonsensical" to note that folks have interacted with corpses?

No.

Looks like I gotta do some more question begging...

Has there never been an instance where evidence was faked?

Yes, there have been instances where evidence was faked.

It may well be such.

This, however, does nothing to preclude you or others from actually producing this corpse.

Since Jesus is alive that would preclude me (or anyone else) from producing a corpse.

If I might as the same of you: does nothing to preclude you or others from actually producing this corpse?

[Student]

Jesus gets crucified and allowed to be buried (to forestall more possible uprisings).

I’m sorry, but this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me what-so-ever.

The whole point of crucifixion was to act as a deterrent. It was intended as a very public warning that this is what happens to anyone who confronts Rome. If the gospel accounts are correct, what was the point of dressing Jesus up as a king, complete with crown of thorns, and placing a notice on the cross saying here is the King of the Jews if they were all taken down after six hours? How many people would see what had happened to the latest failed messiah? As a deterrent it would be useless.

If there was any threat of further insurrection the standard Roman response was to round up all the “messiah’s� followers and crucify them along with their leader, just to be on the safe side. Any objections? There’s plenty room and more crosses, just form an orderly queue.

The worst possible outcome, for Rome, would be to allow a burial and then for the body to go missing. Rumours of the messiah’s “resurrection� would almost certainly circulate leading to further possible uprisings. The least worst outcome would be that the tomb became a shrine for the messiah’s followers and the focus of further trouble. (Is it any wonder Bin Laden was buried surreptitiously at sea?)

If there were any concerns regarding prophesies that the messiah would be resurrected after three days, the best place to keep the body was safely nailed to the cross, in full public view, under guard so it would be impossible to secrete the body away.

[Flail]

On the other hand the resurrection raises some serious questions. No believers or anyone else willing to spread the story actually see Jesus rising from the dead. Instead some total stranger(s) say “Oh yeah, he got up and walked away. No, we did not take the body and hide it.�

This was the payoff without which the whole incarnation, ministry and sacrifice would be pointless. Jesus would be just another nut who got nailed to a cross. Why was the resurrection not done with flashing lights, a booming God voice from the clouds and a giant audience in attendance? Why was it done in such a way as to leave so much doubt? The Gospels have Jesus giving lots of miraculous signs throughout his ministry to establish his authority. Why so obscure about such an important part of the story?

After the fact witnesses? No two stories agree on the details, even to the point of serious contradiction. Did the Apostles first see the risen Jesus in Jerusalem or Galilee, where they were told to go? And these eyewitnesses often fail to recognize Jesus, even those who knew him well in life. If this is the inspired word of God intended to convince the world of a miraculous event of great cosmic significance, why is it so confused and hard to take seriously?

It is true that there were no flashing lights or booming voice of God, but that is true of most of Jesus’ miracles. The few times there was an impressive show (such as the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism or the events of the transfiguration) then the show itself is the miracle.

When Jesus performed other miracles there were no flashing lights or booming voices. Someone was sick, and then they were healed. There was water, and then it was turned to wine. There was a storm, and the sea was calm. Jesus was dead, and then he was alive. In the Gospels a miracle would stand on its own without flashing lights or booming voices. Like most other miracles in the Gospels, the fact that a dead man was alive again was sufficient without any additional theatrics.

I agree that the timeline following the resurrection is difficult to nail down. Consistent time lines have been put together – for instances saying that the disciples were instructed to go Galilee but Jesus met them before the left Jerusalem – and I won’t bother recreating them here. I find that the main difficulty comes from the fact that none of the authors make any effort to say how much time passed after the empty tomb was discovered. They each focus on specific events because of their individual theological goals, but none claim to tell the comprehensive story of what happened after Jesus rose from the dead.

Most eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection recognized him immediately. There is the story of the men on the road to Emmaus who are prevented from recognizing Jesus, but that seems to be the exception. It took Mary Magdalene a few seconds to recognize Jesus near the tomb, though that could simply be because she was distraught and in tears and need no further explanation. John and Peter did not immediately recognize Jesus when they were out on a boat and he was on shore, but that seems to be more because of physical distance than anything else. Most of the time when people saw Jesus after the resurrection immediately recognized him.


You seem to have a strong grasp on your argument (so it is probably my own slowness of thought), but overall I’m not really sure what your argument is in this case. Are you saying that the events surrounding the resurrection can be confusing? No argument there – really life is usually confusing. Are you saying that the Gospels don’t read like a modern novel which leaves no questions or loose end? Again, I agree. But what conclusions are you drawing from these facts and how are you getting there?

In the Gospels, the miracles of Jesus are done in public for the purpose of establishing his authority. The Resurrection happens in secret, witnessed (according to Matthew) only by Roman soldiers who are not going to tell. There are plenty of others in that time frame, and throughout history for that matter, who performed ‘miracles’ in public. We may note in passing that Paul, the earliest writer on Jesus, mentions no miracles other than the Resurrection. Paul also emphasizes belief but declines to bolster that belief with miracle stories despite having met Peter and others who supposedly witnessed them. Yet the Gospels make it clear that this particular miracle, the one that makes Jesus something special, the heart of Christianity, is shrouded in mystery and embedded in contradictory stories. And we might note that the only two stories even alleged to be by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) disagree with each other in major ways concerning the entire ministry of Jesus.

According to many Christian sects, if I do not believe in this, I am destined for hellfire no matter what else I do or no not do. Why then was this supposed inerrant Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, made so hard to believe, even without discounting the possibility of miracles?

The hope was, IMO, to make it all so esoteric and difficult to assess with logic and reason so as to drive the faithful to Church and membership and ritual practice with their doubts and donations. The mystery revealed...come to worship...and bring your capital.

So in your view, the Gospels were written after there was already an established church consisting of faithful who believed something other than what was in the Gospels that had not been written yet? And these Gospels were written in such a way as to discourage any non-faithful from becoming faithful? Do I have that right?

Not at all what I am saying. Not sure where that came from?

What I am saying and speculating is that the Gospels were written post-Paul and his church building letter writing campaigns as doctrine around which those who were looking for new promises from God could adhere. I am saying that subsequent spin by Christianity has made the message all the more illogical... the idea of Trinity for example.

The Gospels were definitely written post Paul. Nothing controversial about that. This does not explain why the several Gospels should all give a rather difficult to accept account of the resurrection, especially since Paul made such a big deal about the necessity of believing in that resurrection. One explanation is that they are telling a story based on something that really happened. Jesus gets crucified and allowed to be buried (to forestall more possible uprisings). The woman go to the tomb at the next opportunity (after the Sabbath) to fulfill the ritual obligations that they could not do because of the onset of the Sabbath. There is no body. Some stranger tells them that Jesus rose from the dead. The subsequent sightings recorded in the Gospels 40 and more years later are as varied and even contradictory as Elvis sightings today. This seems sufficient explanation to me.

And I still say that deliberately writing an unbelievable story is at best going to hold on to an existing audience (and maybe lose some of them) while not helping to being any more converts in. The resurrection story as told in the Gospels was likely already too well known enough to not include as is without inviting even greater disbelief in those Gospels. To my mind, this is similar to the promise of Jesus to return in the lifetime of some of his hearers, a tradition likely too well known to be ignored. Each of the Gospels attempts to deal with this uncomfortable tradition in its own way.

Of course the Gospels were written post-Paul. What I am speculating about is not when they were written but why. And I agree that by this time the Resurrection story had been passed thru the rumor/gossip mill enough that it and its supporting mythos had achieved legendary status. So perhaps these gospel writers thought it about the right time, decades after the fact, to put something down as if to chronicle actual events? By this time one would think most actual witnesses who could refute the spin would be long dead and by writing down the legend as if in a report, some additional credence could be given to the implausible and the fantastical, thus assisting believers in suspending their common sense.

In sum, one wonders how something so fantastical and of earth shattering import could remain so long afoot by word of mouth. It makes me wonder if these matters only 'became' fantastical in the minds of those spreading the rumors, wherein mundane facts morphed into the supernatural over time. I know how human nature tends to enhance gossip, and likewise how most people have trouble keeping facts straight for 60 minutes let alone 60 years.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

My point is that the evidence indicates that the apostles, who claimed to be witnesses to these events, believed that these events occurred.

You can make a case that the apostles were dupes but I don't think you can make the case that they were frauds.

Why? Because no one would lie and falsify? That is in fact EXACTLY what the chief priests told Pilate they suspected the disciples intended to do, is it not? Perpetrate a fraud by moving the body of Jesus and then declaring to everyone that he was resurrected.

And if the missing corpse of Jesus can be explained through actions taken by "living HUMAN agents," then the conclusion that the corpse of Jesus became reanimated, BY WHATEVER MEANS, is effectively reduced essentially to zero. Wouldn't you agree?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 56:

...
Since Jesus is alive that would preclude me (or anyone else) from producing a corpse.

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding Jesus being alive.

I've set up an OP just for this claim here.

If I might as the same of you: does nothing to preclude you or others from actually producing this corpse?

As I make no claims regarding a person I can't show ever even existed (though accept as likely, though as a human only), I feel no need in producing a corpse of any kind.