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?

[Flail]

None of the Christians on this forum will come anywhere near this subject, with the possible exception of a newbie.

This is probably true. Those of us who have been around for at least a few months have been down the road before. Atheists’ arguments inevitably fall into one of two camps.

1. There is no God and miracles are impossible. Therefore any non-miraculous explanation, no matter how nonsensical it is, must be preferred to a miraculous explanation.

2. If the evidence does point to Jesus rising from the dead then the evidence must have been faked. An unknown person at an unknown time fabricated the evidence. No matter how much evidence there is, it must all be fabricated. Of course we cannot prove that the written document were never fabricated or altered, and we cannot prove anything from the life of any individual from the ancient world without relying on written documents. Therefore we cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

For most of us, one time down that road is enough to realize that the debate is pointless and we move on to other things.

I don't see anyone here in either camp. What specific explanation do you have that you want us to consider? In the face of doubtful evidence, do you recognize the reasonable explanations given throughout this thread as at least more probably true than a miraculous one, or must you insist on the improbable?

[chestertonrules]

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?

I don't believe that the actions of the apostles after the resurrection make sense if they believed or participated in a fraud. Why be exiled or even executed for a trick?

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

[Flail]

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?

I don't believe that the actions of the apostles after the resurrection make sense if they believed or participated in a fraud. Why be exiled or even executed for a trick?

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

But was their supposed witnessing provably contemporaneous with the event? Do we have any first hand written accounts from them demonstrating that they immediately risked their outspoken claims and supposed observations? Or are all purported reports rendered long after the fact?

[chestertonrules]

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?

I don't believe that the actions of the apostles after the resurrection make sense if they believed or participated in a fraud. Why be exiled or even executed for a trick?

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

But was their supposed witnessing provably contemporaneous with the event? Do we have any first hand written accounts from them demonstrating that they immediately risked their outspoken claims and supposed observations? Or are all purported reports rendered long after the fact?

Of course we have first hand written accounts. Have you read the Acts of the Apostles?

We know that James, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and others were killed for their faith. Why would they go to such extremes for a fraud?

I suppose you could make the case that they were victims of a fraud, but then you must decide who perpetuated the fraud and for what purpose.



Also, your tag line is a blatant misstatement of Christian beliefs.


FYI, from the Catholic Catechism:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:


All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

[Flail]

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?

I don't believe that the actions of the apostles after the resurrection make sense if they believed or participated in a fraud. Why be exiled or even executed for a trick?

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

But was their supposed witnessing provably contemporaneous with the event? Do we have any first hand written accounts from them demonstrating that they immediately risked their outspoken claims and supposed observations? Or are all purported reports rendered long after the fact?

Of course we have first hand written accounts. Have you read the Acts of the Apostles?

We know that James, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and others were killed for their faith. Why would they go to such extremes for a fraud?

I suppose you could make the case that they were victims of a fraud, but then you must decide who perpetuated the fraud and for what purpose.



Also, your tag line is a blatant misstatement of Christian beliefs.


FYI, from the Catholic Catechism:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:


All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

Neither the recorded Acts of the Apostles nor any other writing that I am aware of was written contemporaneous with the Resurrection....but long after the fact. As to why they were outspoken despite the consequences is not demonstrably due to 'facts' any more than to do with 'supposition, emotion and indoctrination'. Many people in the history of mankind have become emotionally invested to great extent in matters not demonstrably supportable or reasonable and much to their detriment.

[EduChris]

...If such a story were told about some other non-Christian religious figure, Christians would discount it...

You are forgetting about the context, the probabilities as they relate to prior conditions. We don't just look at the final result to determine probabilities, we have to take into account the prior probabilities.

But you deflected my question. The fact is, no matter how much evidence there is in favor of any particular "miracle," it is always possible to continue insisting that "miracles can't happen," and therefore that any particular, unique "miracle" could not have happend.

[Student]

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?

Perhaps it might better be explained by the possibility that there never was a burial.

It was extremely unusual for the victim of crucifixion to be afforded the dignity of a decent burial. The usual practice was for the body to be left on the cross to rot, to act as a reminder to the local populace of what to expect if they opposed Roman rule.

.
All of the Gospels make a point of Joseph of Arimathea asking Pilate for the body. For example:

“Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.�

It does not sound all that unreasonable that Pilate, remembering how popular Jesus was only a few days before and knowing the fickleness of mobs, might want the whole affair over and done with. Seeing the pitiful rotting body might sway public opinion and he had just put down one uprising.

“Mark 15:6 …A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.�

John even adds another reason for taking down the body.

“John 19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.�

The gospel writers appear to be aware of the problem and take measures to address it. Jesus getting buried is not really that big of a deal.

Hi TGA
Far from being the sensitive and rather reticent character of the gospels, Pontius Pilate was known from history to be a cruel and brutal sadist, totally impervious to the sensitivities of his Jewish subjects.

He is most unlikely to have acceded to any request to remove a body from the crucifixion site especially one convicted of treason/rebellion. His idea of political expediency would most likely have been to crucify anyone making the request!(Pilate was eventually removed from office after overseeing the massacre of about six thousand of Samaritan pilgrims c.AD36)

The Romans had considerable experience of Messianic claimants and knew that making a bid for national independence was something that was expected from the Messiah. Consequently they crucified quite a number of “Messiah’s� including Judas the Galilean in 6CE together with 2000 of his followers. Later his two sons, Jacob and Simon were arrested and crucified c.47CE on a similar pretext.

Consequently, to the Romans, anyone claiming to be the Messiah would be committing an act of open rebellion. If Pilate had Jesus executed, it was most probably for this reason.

The accounts of Jesus trial before Pilate are almost certainly fictitious as are the accounts of Jesus betrayal by Judas and the trial before the Sanhedrin. They were, in my opinion, created with the sole purpose of exonerating the Romans for the death of Jesus at the expense of the Jews.

The ‘trial’ of a non-Roman citizen, especially one charged with treason/rebellion, was little more than a brutal formality with only one outcome.

There was no such thing as due process for a non-Roman citizen.

Slaves and non-citizens were automatically considered unreliable witnesses; their testimony could only trusted after they were first tortured. So they were routinely tortured until they admitted their guilt or died under cross examination which ever came sooner. So not much chance of acquittal!

For acts of rebellion/treason Roman law required the crucified body to be exhibited on the cross long after death. It was simply not permitted for the body to be given a decent burial and so, to continue the humiliation, the body was either left to rot or dismembered and thrown on any convenient rubbish dump.

Perhaps an indication of how rare it was to permit the victim of crucifixion to be buried is the fact that despite the many tens of thousands who were crucified in Palestine under Roman rule, and the many hundreds of grave sites that have excavated, there is only one documented instance of the body of a victim of crucifixion being discovered. (a body found by accident at a building site in a suburb north of Jerusalem in 1968)

[chestertonrules]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 345#421345]Flail[/url [/quote]

Neither the recorded Acts of the Apostles nor any other writing that I am aware of was written contemporaneous with the Resurrection....but long after the fact. As to why they were outspoken despite the consequences is not demonstrably due to 'facts' any more than to do with 'supposition, emotion and indoctrination'. Many people in the history of mankind have become emotionally invested to great extent in matters not demonstrably supportable or reasonable and much to their detriment.[/quote]


Can you name someone who voluntarily chose a brutal execution for an acknowledged hoax?

I think history is quite clear that the apostles believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

If the body of Jesus was left on the cross or known to have been taken they would not have believed. His multiple appearances after his resurrection would explain the actions of the apostles. What else would?



I notice that you haven't changed your slanderous insult to Christians in your tag line.

Do you plan to?

[Flail]

...If such a story were told about some other non-Christian religious figure, Christians would discount it...

You are forgetting about the context, the probabilities as they relate to prior conditions. We don't just look at the final result to determine probabilities, we have to take into account the prior probabilities.

But you deflected my question. The fact is, no matter how much evidence there is in favor of any particular "miracle," it is always possible to continue insisting that "miracles can't happen," and therefore that any particular, unique "miracle" could not have happend.

Although I suppose it is possible for a 'miracle' to occur, the burden of proving that it did would necessarily be high. In the entire history of humankind not one BibleGod miracle has been verifiably demonstrated; not by anyone at any time or place to this day. On the contrary, and particularly with the advent of scientific and technological methods of recording and verification, many otherwise and presumably inexplicable occurrences have been reasonably explained, and not a single such occurrence has been shown as 'BibleGod miraculous'. On what basis then would we presume that the events reported in the Bible by the ancients as miracles were not otherwise explainable?

[ThatGirlAgain]

...If such a story were told about some other non-Christian religious figure, Christians would discount it...

You are forgetting about the context, the probabilities as they relate to prior conditions. We don't just look at the final result to determine probabilities, we have to take into account the prior probabilities.

But you deflected my question. The fact is, no matter how much evidence there is in favor of any particular "miracle," it is always possible to continue insisting that "miracles can't happen," and therefore that any particular, unique "miracle" could not have happend.

First, I am not claiming that "miracles can't happen". I am saying that the story being told does not sound all that convincing. I would expect Jesus to do something more attention grabbing for the main event. And I would expect the Holy Spirit to do a better job as editor. (NB: NOT being facetious here.)

I am not talking about probabilities but the fact that a different and more mundane explanation seems to leap off the page unless one already believes the story. Please understand I am not a "bible-basher". See for example my defense of Jesus being buried instead of left to rot in my first post above. There are a lot of things about the Passion Week story that ring true when you read between the lines. But IMO the climax fails to convince.