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?

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

[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.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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.

[chestertonrules]

From Post 25:

You are not well informed on this subject. I'm not going to spend time researching the obvious. Sorry.

"Instead of presenting evidence, and hushing you up, I'm just gonna ignore challenges to my claims."

More proud ignorance.

Disappointing.

Cool.

chestertonrules will present his evidence regarding the matter in 3...2...

You shouldn't be posting on this topic if you are so ignorant of history.

Jewish Law forbids any man to claim to be God. Roman law demanded bowing to Caesar.

Both of these laws are preached against and violated by Christians, including the very first Christians.

[David 2.0]

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?

First thing that came to mind?

"No, he's only "Mostly Dead". You know what to do when they're "All Dead"? You look through their pockets for loose change."-Miracle Max

Second thing that came to mind?

The best explanation is the one that most closely resembles the truth. Regardless of how I feel about the answer, or how unlikely the event seems.

Is resurrection impossible?

The threshold of death is known to be cheatable.
Which is to say that one can be dead and revived.

Clinically dead, thought to be dead, died three times on the way to the hospital...

On some level I know that it is possible for a human to die and then come back on line. A resurrection so to speak.

So in my mind the possibility of a non supernatural explanation can be made...

Additionally part of the context of the resurrection story is that Jesus is God. If this turns out to be true the "resurrection" issue may turn out to be a strawman of sorts.

God can't "die" so what is exactly involved in a resurrection?

How do I look for the "best explanation" in a situation that allegedly involves a God/Man?
Am I trying to compare apples and oranges?

So...

On some level resurrections are known to happen.
Jesus may be God, if so "best explanation" is a false comparison.
The event is shrouded by history. Not much unbiased detail outside of the bible.

Of course there is my philosophical side.
How crazy is resurrection?
Is it more unlikely than Universe? Life?


So...

I guess I would say that Jesus's friends fiddled with his body?
Really just a shot in the dark though...

Fine, I'll go with C, I don't know/undecided.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

Actually I have. By all accounts it was written by the author of Gospel Luke, a follower of Paul and NOT an eyewitness to any of the events chronicled in the Gospels. Neither was Paul, for that matter.

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

Outside of James the brother of John, we don't know that at all because there is no record of it.

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

James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa. Please show us anywhere in scripture where any one of the other apostles was brutally executed.

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

It's clear from Acts that the apostles were responsible for spreading the RUMOR of the resurrected Jesus. Just as the priests feared they intended to do.

Matthew 27
[64] "Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."

What the apostles actually believed themselves is another matter.

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?

The body of Jesus WAS known to have been taken... it was given to his DISCIPLES by Pilate. No one but his disciples ever saw the body of Jesus again. The historical record makes NO CLAIMS of multiple appearances of the resurrected Jesus whatsoever for about a quarter of a century or so. The earliest recorded mention of the resurrected Jesus occurs in 1 Corinthians, written by Paul just about a quarter of a century after the Gospels indicate that Jesus was executed. Prior to the letters of Paul there is no record of Jesus at all. And Paul was not a personal witness to any of the events claimed in the Gospels.

[Moses Yoder]

And Paul was not a personal witness to any of the events claimed in the Gospels.

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. 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.

[chestertonrules]

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

Actually I have. By all accounts it was written by the author of Gospel Luke, a follower of Paul and NOT an eyewitness to any of the events chronicled in the Gospels. Neither was Paul, for that matter.

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

Outside of James the brother of John, we don't know that at all because there is no record of it.

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

James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa. Please show us anywhere in scripture where any one of the other apostles was brutally executed.

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

It's clear from Acts that the apostles were responsible for spreading the RUMOR of the resurrected Jesus. Just as the priests feared they intended to do.

Matthew 27
[64] "Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."

What the apostles actually believed themselves is another matter.

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?

The body of Jesus WAS known to have been taken... it was given to his DISCIPLES by Pilate. No one but his disciples ever saw the body of Jesus again. The historical record makes NO CLAIMS of multiple appearances of the resurrected Jesus whatsoever for about a quarter of a century or so. The earliest recorded mention of the resurrected Jesus occurs in 1 Corinthians, written by Paul just about a quarter of a century after the Gospels indicate that Jesus was executed. Prior to the letters of Paul there is no record of Jesus at all. And Paul was not a personal witness to any of the events claimed in the Gospels.

Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection in the book of Acts.

There is ample historical evidence of the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, Andrew and other apostles. I'm not sure why you are unaware of this but you can do a simple google search of early Christian writings for more.

The early Church preserved the record of Jesus as oral history while they travelled and spread the news. They eyewitness accounts were recorded in writing a few years later but that is irrelevant.

There would be no reason for the apostles to dedicate their lives to what they knew was a lie.


If you deny that the apostles were killed then we can't debate this issue. You are denying reality.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection in the book of Acts.

These would be the disciples that the chief priests suspected intended to play a hoax by taking the body and then spreading a false rumor, am I right? Written in the book of Acts by the author of Luke, who never met Jesus, either alive or dead.

There is ample historical evidence of the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, Andrew and other apostles. I'm not sure why you are unaware of this but you can do a simple google search of early Christian writings for more.

I don't need to Google them. I already know the answer. I am asking YOU for the evidence. You are the one making the claim.

The early Church preserved the record of Jesus as oral history while they travelled and spread the news.

In other words, it was a rumor for many years, spread by the disciples.

They eyewitness accounts were recorded in writing a few years later but that is irrelevant.

What eyewitness accounts are you referring to? Seriously!

There would be no reason for the apostles to dedicate their lives to what they knew was a lie.

Acts 4:
[34] "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

It appears as though they were doing pretty good for themselves, which seems to be an EXCELLENT reason to me.

If you deny that the apostles were killed then we can't debate this issue. You are denying reality.

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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

Previously:

You are not well informed on this subject. I'm not going to spend time researching the obvious. Sorry.

"Instead of presenting evidence, and hushing you up, I'm just gonna ignore challenges to my claims."

More proud ignorance.

Disappointing.

Cool.

chestertonrules will present his evidence regarding the matter in 3...2...

Presently...

You shouldn't be posting on this topic if you are so ignorant of history.

Do you not understand that I was commenting on the topic of your not presenting evidence?

I was not commenting on your take on biblical tales. I merely commented, as have the moderators, on your not presenting your evidence (up to that point in time).

Evidence.

Jewish Law forbids any man to claim to be God. Roman law demanded bowing to Caesar.

Both of these laws are preached against and violated by Christians, including the very first Christians.

I have little concern for the laws of ancients.

But hey, I do 'preciate you at least trying to support your assertions.