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]

What defines credible for you? Do witnesses not count? And if they're Christians, does their testimony prove empty simply because they were Christians?

Show me the firsthand testimony of a single VERIFIABLE eyewitness.

But answer this: does someone willingly sacrifice themselves as a lie?

They might if they felt strongly enough about the reasons. But as I have already pointed out, nothing in scripture indicates that the apostles sacrificed themselves for a lie, or that they died violent deaths for their actions, other than James the brother of John. James is executed by Herod at the beginning of Acts 12. Later in Acts 12 Peter is imprisoned but escapes. At this point the apostles scatter and mainly disappear from the narrative. There is no indication that they sacrificed themselves at all, willingly or otherwise. The various traditions that they were martyred by being crucified in various positions are from later centuries and hold no historical value.

[d.thomas]

So, you quote and believe the bible when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't.

That's what I thought.

The one thing that is clear and above argument is that the cult of the crucified carpenter abruptly arose in what we now count as the first century AD. Unfortunately no records were written by anyone during the lifetime of the man in question. The earliest attestations to the origins of Christian belief begin some quarter of a century later with the letters of Paul, a man who was not himself an eyewitness to any of the events in question. All four Gospels were written anonymously many decades after the time they indicate that the crucified carpenter lived and died. This material represents the only access we have to the origins of what would be come the largest and most diverse religious belief in history. Insofar as the material is cogent and consistent it MAY actually have some relationship to actual events. And in truth much of the story holds together and is not unreasonable. The problem occurs in those parts where reason give way to superstitious myth legends and absurdity. Certainly we have every reason to cast doubt on claims of the various and sundry resurrected corpses contained in the stories, capped of by the resurrected corpse of the carpenter himself flying away up into the sky. A claim which by any normal measure is complete and total nonsense.

Gospel Matthew 27:64 states that the chief priests believe that a plot existed by the disciples of Jesus to remove his body from the tomb and then proclaim that he had been resurrected from the dead. The disciples didn't have to "steal" the body however. The body of Jesus had been granted to his followers by the Roman governor and was theirs to do with as they pleased. If YOU wish to deny what Matthew 27:64 say, then please, go right ahead. And yes, I do intend to quote from sections of the NT, since it is the only possible source of information that exists, and I absolutely do intend to discount those portions which are clearly preposterous. Somewhere within lies the truth. Unfortunately the truth has no obligation to be what anyone might fervently wish it to be.

There just has to be truth in those gospels, I mean there just has to be.

Toss out all that mythical stuff and nonsense claims and what we are left with is the truth, that's how we do history in these parts.

It doesn't work with other superheros, just Jesus, that's why we call it special pleading.

[Goat]

What defines credible for you? Do witnesses not count? And if they're Christians, does their testimony prove empty simply because they were Christians?

But answer this: does someone willingly sacrifice themselves as a lie?

Were they offered the ability to recant to save their lives? Do you know WHY they died?

Other than some Christian tradition (which is not always consistent), can you show how any of the apostles died, and show that they did indeed die for their faith?

Can you show that the Heaven's Gate cultists didn't die for a lie?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There just has to be truth in those gospels, I mean there just has to be.

You may be right on that. I personally think that the NT origin story of Jesus is based on some measure of actual events and not pure fiction. There is little doubt that Christianity arose abruptly in the first century. That does not prevent the portions of the story which are clearly nonsense from being clearly nonsense however. We are dealing with an extraordinarily superstitious time in human history after all. And of course there are the "philosophical truths" inherent in the Gospels. Philosophical truths are simply opinions of course, but then I happen to share many of them myself.

[d.thomas]

What defines credible for you? Do witnesses not count? And if they're Christians, does their testimony prove empty simply because they were Christians?

Show me the firsthand testimony of a single VERIFIABLE eyewitness.

But answer this: does someone willingly sacrifice themselves as a lie?

They might if they felt strongly enough about the reasons. But as I have already pointed out, nothing in scripture indicates that the apostles sacrificed themselves for a lie, or that they died violent deaths for their actions, other than James the brother of John. James is executed by Herod at the beginning of Acts 12. Later in Acts 12 Peter is imprisoned but escapes. At this point the apostles scatter and mainly disappear from the narrative. There is no indication that they sacrificed themselves at all, willingly or otherwise. The various traditions that they were martyred by being crucified in various positions are from later centuries and hold no historical value.

Does Acts hold historical value? Was this James really executed by Herod Agrippa? How do you know? Tradition has it?

[Adamoriens]

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

You're operating on the assumption that the resurrection is the default explanation until we come up with something better or disprove it. I don't see that I have to meet either requirement to remain agnostic about it; given the intrinsic improbability of human resurrection after true death (absent significant theistic presuppositions), it's acceptable to withhold belief even if available naturalistic explanations are unsatisfactory. This isn't an in-principle objection to miracles.

No, I think your position is an a priori rejection of the possibility of miracles, which follows from an a priori disallowance of God just as the existence of God guarantees the possibility of miracles.

Not at all. Just the recognition that the same grounds which tell us that people generally don't lie when they have everything to lose by it, also tell us that humans don't generally rise from the dead. This does not entail any sort of anti-theistic presuppositions on my part.

[d.thomas]

There just has to be truth in those gospels, I mean there just has to be.

You may be right on that. I personally think that the NT origin story of Jesus is based on some measure of actual events and not pure fiction. There is little doubt that Christianity arose abruptly in the first century. That does not prevent the portions of the story which are clearly nonsense from being clearly nonsense however. We are dealing with an extraordinarily superstitious time in human history after all. And of course there are the "philosophical truths" inherent in the Gospels. Philosophical truths are simply opinions of course, but then I happen to share many of them myself.

What evidence is there of anyone having read the gospels in the first century? Paul knows nothing of a Jesus of Nazareth, he wrote of a risen Christ and died before the gospel story was told. Christianity may have died with Paul only to be revived late in the second century as this gospel story became somewhat popular in the Jewish diaspora.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Perhaps the best evidence for the reality of the resurrection is the absurd lengths critics seem to have to go to come up with alternatives to what is described in the New Testament. If the story was so improbable, why insist it didn't happen on the basis that the Romans, master executioners that they were, failed to actually kill Christ, or that the disciples were subject to mass hallucination, even though hallucinations by definition are never shared but rather individual events, etc. That the resurrection actually happened best fits the facts is evident from any reasonable reading of the record. What we can say in support of the actual resurrection includes:

Hello Starboard, welcome to the discussion. This is the response you SHOULD have posted two months ago. I certainly gave you every opportunity. But since you posted it now I will deal with it now. It took two months for you to come up with this response however, so please allow me a few hours to give it the retort it deserves.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Numerous eye witnesses attest to seeing the risen Christ.

Who?

The earliest reference to the resurrection as an event occurs in 1 Corinthians, and can reasonably be dated to Paul's conversation about the resurrection with Peter within 3 to 5 years of the resurrection. The belief that it happened was therefore at the core of the movement from the very beginning, not something made up afterwards.

How did you come to date it this early? The argument in favour of a later date seems pretty good to me:

The epistle was written from Ephesus (16:8), a city on the west coast of today's Turkey, about 180 miles by sea from Corinth. According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD.[3][4]

The traditional subscription to the epistle, translated in the King James Bible, states that this epistle was written at Philippi, perhaps arising from a misinterpretation of 16:5, "For I do pass through Macedonia," as meaning, "I am passing through Macedonia." In 16:8 Paul declares his intention of staying in Ephesus until Pentecost. This statement, in turn, is clearly reminiscent of Paul's Second Missionary Journey, when Paul travelled from Corinth to Ephesus, before going to Jerusalem for Pentecost (cf. Acts 18:22). Thus, it is possible that I Corinthians was written during Paul's first (brief) stay in Ephesus, at the end of his Second Journey, usually dated to early 54 AD. However, it is more likely that it was written during his extended stay in Ephesus, where he refers to sending Timothy to them (Acts 19:22, I Cor. 4:17). Also, his references to Apollos (1:12, 3:4, etc.) show that Apollos was known to Paul and the church at the time of writing, which would preclude the first recorded visit to Ephesus (See Acts 18:24-28).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epis ... omposition

Why would Paul refer to over 500 witnesses when if there were no witnesses it would have been obvious?

How would it have been obvious? You live in Greece. You get a letter from Paul mentioning 500 eyewitnesses. How exactly are you going to go about confirming this? You aren't going to undertake a huge journey just to question unnamed witnesses to an event that occurred at some unknown time and place. It wouldn't have been obvious that there weren't 500 witnesses, quite the opposite, his audience would have no way of confirming or denying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. Like us, they just had to take his word for it.

If the resurrection story were a myth, why would the purveyors of that myth make themselves look so bad? They are portrayed in the same Gospels that describe the resurrection as cowards who abandoned their master at the first sign of trouble, and in his hour of greatest need. They fell asleep on the night of his arrest - repeatedly. If you're going to make up a story, why not make yourself look courageous?

Well that's an easy one to answer if we don't commit to traditional authorship. They didn't make themselves bad, they are used as a literary device by the author.

I think you need to recognize that a lot can happen between a resurrection rumor getting started and the stories that get written down about it several decades later.

The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

There is no eyewitness testimony to the resurrection in the NT. There is hearsay. This is different.

[Starboard Tack]

Numerous eye witnesses attest to seeing the risen Christ.

Who?

Peter and the other apostles, Paul, and James are named. Sorry, but the others appear to not have left affadvits, notarised or otherwise.

The earliest reference to the resurrection as an event occurs in 1 Corinthians, and can reasonably be dated to Paul's conversation about the resurrection with Peter within 3 to 5 years of the resurrection. The belief that it happened was therefore at the core of the movement from the very beginning, not something made up afterwards.

How did you come to date it this early? The argument in favour of a later date seems pretty good to me:

I am referring to 1 Cor 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

Why would Paul refer to over 500 witnesses when if there were no witnesses it would have been obvious?

How would it have been obvious? You live in Greece. You get a letter from Paul mentioning 500 eyewitnesses. How exactly are you going to go about confirming this? You aren't going to undertake a huge journey just to question unnamed witnesses to an event that occurred at some unknown time and place. It wouldn't have been obvious that there weren't 500 witnesses, quite the opposite, his audience would have no way of confirming or denying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. Like us, they just had to take his word for it.

One would think that a claim that a man rose from the dead might have stimulated such enquiry, but as I said, some of the best proof for the resurrection are the silly arguments offered up in rebuttal.

If the resurrection story were a myth, why would the purveyors of that myth make themselves look so bad? They are portrayed in the same Gospels that describe the resurrection as cowards who abandoned their master at the first sign of trouble, and in his hour of greatest need. They fell asleep on the night of his arrest - repeatedly. If you're going to make up a story, why not make yourself look courageous?

Well that's an easy one to answer if we don't commit to traditional authorship. They didn't make themselves bad, they are used as a literary device by the author.

Yes, the liberal, and minority position is that the Gospels were written by someone other than the authors they have been attributed to for 2 millenia and who were given credit for having been the authors by virtually all ancient scholars writing close enough to the period to have known the difference. Given that these references to apostolic authorship were written during a time when the very early church was trying to sort out core doctrines, if the authorship was later, wouldn't one expect to find versions of the Gospels dating to the period that would support one perspective or another, when these perspectives were in dispute? We don't see that, nor do we see any signs of legendization - just sober history by people who didn't understand what it all meant, but wanted to be as accurate as they could in recording the facts.

I think you need to recognize that a lot can happen between a resurrection rumor getting started and the stories that get written down about it several decades later.

As noted, the resurrection account was credal as early as 3 to 5 years after the event.

The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

I have a hard time taking you seriously, Fuzzy. You stated in your response that 1st Corinthians is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD.[3][4] . It clearly discusses the resurrection. Pop quiz: What is 55 - 33?

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

There is no eyewitness testimony to the resurrection in the NT. There is hearsay. This is different.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm:

"There is a near consensus among liberal, and some mainline theologians, that:

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus' disciples but by person or persons whose names are unknown.
Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, execution, or after-death appearances."

I will grant the above, that liberal "Christians" have near unanimity on the position that the resurrection is a myth and that the Gospels do not contain eye witness accounts. It is the height of arrogance, however, to continue to state as fact something that is held by a minority of those studying the Bible. It is also arrogant to present the opinions of people who cannot be characterized as intellectually honest as of equivalent value to those of more honest character. The basis for this statement is quite simple. Again, from Religious Tolerance, (no conservative think tank, I might add):

"What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God."

Note the word "mainline" Fuzzy? Note that liberal scholars are not included in that group? Hopefully, you will drop the pretense that your views must be taken as fact on the basis that they represent some kind of meaningful consensus. They represent a consensus, but it is a consensus of people who think like you and present confused interpretation as fact. To avoid the obvious label of being called intellectually dishonest, Liberal Christians must explain what the heck they are doing in church, taking communion, bowing and praying? To what are they bowing and praying to? God, or a myth as John Crossan would assert? You either believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected or you don't. If you don't, that's just fine, but pretending that you are engaged in anything other than idolatry when you call yourself a Christian without believing that you are worshipping a divine Christ whose divinity can only be proven by the fact of his resurrection is a very odd state of mind, or a dishonest one. For that reason, when liberal scholars state that 100% of all of the writers of the NT and all of the commentary from early scholars looking into the truths of these claims were in cahoots to trick the gullible, well to me, that is just further evidence of a very jumbled thinking process, not to be taken seriously however seriously they take themselves.