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]

Debate, according to dictionary.com, means
Quote:
"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.

Don't get me wrong. I have no power to banish you from this forum, and I am certainly not threatening you with any such thing. In fact I feel that way to many people are banned as it is. However a debate is based on an examination of the facts. If, for example, if you feel free to declare yourself to be the all wise and knowing Grand Poodunk of Fufu whose declarations represent truth by decree, then no discussion of the facts is possible. If you feel that you need not be bound by logic, then a productive discussion is pretty much out the window, since you have given yourself the freedom to declare to be true, whatever it is that makes you happy. No matter how illogical. Reindeer can fly, for example, because Santa has magic by your decree.

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.

No one here hates God in the same way that no one here hates Santa Claus. And no one that I am aware of is expressing the view that the Earth came into being from nothing.

[bjs]

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?

I must be having a slow day (I have lots of them), because I am struggling to understand your central point. Why don’t the Gospels record one of the disciples or someone like that being present for the resurrection? Well, because they weren’t there.

It almost feels like you are trying to make the Gospels function like works of fiction, where if we want someone to be present for the resurrection then we put them there. Or if we want the various accounts of witnesses to lead to a definite conclusion, then we iron out all confusion or varying points of view.

That can work in fiction, but if (as I contend) the gospels are historical then that doesn’t happen. It would be great if someone was present for the resurrection, but that’s not how it happened. Seeing a formally dead man alive again seems sufficient evidence for them to say that there was a resurrection, even if they didn’t see it.

It might be nice if different people held the same point of view and focused on the same things, but that’s not how human nature works. If the Gospels were fiction then everything might fit neatly together, but since they speak of events from real life a certain level of confusion is to be expected.

[d.thomas]

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?

I must be having a slow day (I have lots of them), because I am struggling to understand your central point. Why don’t the Gospels record one of the disciples or someone like that being present for the resurrection? Well, because they weren’t there.

It almost feels like you are trying to make the Gospels function like works of fiction, where if we want someone to be present for the resurrection then we put them there. Or if we want the various accounts of witnesses to lead to a definite conclusion, then we iron out all confusion or varying points of view.

That can work in fiction, but if (as I contend) the gospels are historical then that doesn’t happen. It would be great if someone was present for the resurrection, but that’s not how it happened. Seeing a formally dead man alive again seems sufficient evidence for them to say that there was a resurrection, even if they didn’t see it.

It might be nice if different people held the same point of view and focused on the same things, but that’s not how human nature works. If the Gospels were fiction then everything might fit neatly together, but since they speak of events from real life a certain level of confusion is to be expected.

Does it ever occur to you that you just might be extremely gullible when it comes to Bible stories? I ask sincerely, I am not being provocative in any way, I am just asking you.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Does it ever occur to you that you just might be extremely gullible when it comes to Bible stories? I ask sincerely, I am not being provocative in any way, I am just asking you.

gul·li·ble [guhl-uh-buhl] adjective
easily deceived or cheated. Synonyms
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.

Does believing stories of a resurrected corpse that ultimately flies away, and of hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about as unassailable facts of history constitute simple gullibility? Or is something more insidious involved here? Like a lifetime of programming and brain washing. How else do we explain this spectacle of modern adults living in the 21st century accepting these particular ancient fairy tales so innocently and trustingly?

[catalyst]

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?

I must be having a slow day (I have lots of them), because I am struggling to understand your central point. Why don’t the Gospels record one of the disciples or someone like that being present for the resurrection? Well, because they weren’t there.

It almost feels like you are trying to make the Gospels function like works of fiction, where if we want someone to be present for the resurrection then we put them there. Or if we want the various accounts of witnesses to lead to a definite conclusion, then we iron out all confusion or varying points of view.

That can work in fiction, but if (as I contend) the gospels are historical then that doesn’t happen. It would be great if someone was present for the resurrection, but that’s not how it happened. Seeing a formally dead man alive again seems sufficient evidence for them to say that there was a resurrection, even if they didn’t see it.

It might be nice if different people held the same point of view and focused on the same things, but that’s not how human nature works. If the Gospels were fiction then everything might fit neatly together, but since they speak of events from real life a certain level of confusion is to be expected.

Despite it not being in the NT, the Gospel of Peter claims that "peter" was in fact an eye-witness to the assumed resurrection. One has to wonder why it was not included in the canonised version. Perhaps it has much to do with the convoluted claims he made, of a mountain-sized jesus with two mountain-sized angels in tow and a ...WALKING AND TALKING (no less) CROSS, which allegedly had a conversation with God in heaven.

What I find most interesting about this is, IF Peter did actually witness such a thing, wouldn't one assume that he would tell other people of it and, considering it IS such an extraordinary story and all, that those he told WOULD remember it and pass such a fantastic story on? Why did they not report it as Peter claims to have seen it??

Something though to go back to Joey's OP...sort of. Joey, I have a hard time believing that a common criminal executed by crucifixion, would have been buried in the respectful way bible jesus was alleged to have been. It was standard procedure at the time for anyone executed in such a way, to be left there hanging for days and then taken down and either just dumped so animals could scavenge or dumped in a public grave. Given the fact too that bible jesus was allegedly a blasphemer, I doubt whether a respectful Jewish burial would have been on the cards, so, the anointing and being wrapped in linens, would not have happened.

To finish, realising the above info Joey, seems to me there would not have been any entombing to begin with for biblejesus to either; leave their through some divine, miraculous way, NOR would there have been any a helping hand to get him out of the tomb, as he would not have been buried in a tomb in the first place.

Oh... before any christians bring up Joseph of Arimathea, you guys are going to have to provide info to support how and the reasons why he allegedly got involved in the first place. Oh.. while you are there... also perhaps let me know just WHERE Arimathea allegedly was for this Joseph to be from there?

Catalyst.

[Fleur16]

Does it ever occur to you that you just might be extremely gullible when it comes to Bible stories? I ask sincerely, I am not being provocative in any way, I am just asking you.

gul·li·ble [guhl-uh-buhl] adjective
easily deceived or cheated. Synonyms
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.

Does believing stories of a resurrected corpse that ultimately flies away, and of hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about as unassailable facts of history constitute simple gullibility? Or is something more insidious involved here? Like a lifetime of programming and brain washing. How else do we explain this spectacle of modern adults living in the 21st century accepting these particular ancient fairy tales so innocently and trustingly?

According to history, Jesus Christ was definitely crucified. So that leaves us with a few options regarding the Resurrection: 1) The Disciples stole the body. 2) Jesus had a twin. 3) The body was eaten by dogs. 4) Jesus wasn't really dead. 5) Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Here's the problem with...
1: Why would the Disciples (and some of their families) die for a lie if they had stolen the body? This is senseless.

2: We would know if Jesus had a twin. The writings of his family and friends would confirm this. And his half-brother, James, did not look as he did.

3: If the body was eaten by dogs, bones would have been left behind-- so this doesn't answer why the tomb was empty.

4: The nature of crucifixion and the torture received before was so horrific that no one could have survived it. If asphyxiation didn't kill him, then blood loss or being speared would have.


...so that leaves us with #5 as the only plausible explanation.

[chestertonrules]

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?

How do you know what the chief priests told Pilate?

My point, which you don't seem to be getting, is that the actions of the apostles are not consistent with anything other than a miracle.

Either the miracle happened or they were fooled, IMO.

I don't think their actions are consistent with conpirators in a fraud given the obstacles and consequences that they knew would result from spreading their faith.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

According to history, Jesus Christ was definitely crucified. So that leaves us with a few options regarding the Resurrection: 1) The Disciples stole the body. 2) Jesus had a twin. 3) The body was eaten by dogs. 4) Jesus wasn't really dead. 5) Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Here's the problem with...
1: Why would the Disciples (and some of their families) die for a lie if they had stolen the body? This is senseless.

2: We would know if Jesus had a twin. The writings of his family and friends would confirm this. And his half-brother, James, did not look as he did.

3: If the body was eaten by dogs, bones would have been left behind-- so this doesn't answer why the tomb was empty.

4: The nature of crucifixion and the torture received before was so horrific that no one could have survived it. If asphyxiation didn't kill him, then blood loss or being speared would have.


...so that leaves us with #5 as the only plausible explanation.

Here's a possibility you omitted.

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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

How do you know what the chief priests told Pilate?

Here is what the NT says on the subject.

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."

Take it up with Matthew. In fact, perhaps you should actually read Matthew.

My point, which you don't seem to be getting, is that the actions of the apostles are not consistent with anything other than a miracle.

The actions of the apostles are EXACTLY consistent with what the chief priests told Pilate they feared the disciples intended to do. Notice also that the majority of the apostles disappear from the story of Acts after Peter escapes from prison. Acts is largely the Paul Story after that.

[catalyst]

According to history, Jesus Christ was definitely crucified. So that leaves us with a few options regarding the Resurrection: 1) The Disciples stole the body. 2) Jesus had a twin. 3) The body was eaten by dogs. 4) Jesus wasn't really dead. 5) Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Here's the problem with...
1: Why would the Disciples (and some of their families) die for a lie if they had stolen the body? This is senseless.

2: We would know if Jesus had a twin. The writings of his family and friends would confirm this. And his half-brother, James, did not look as he did.

3: If the body was eaten by dogs, bones would have been left behind-- so this doesn't answer why the tomb was empty.

4: The nature of crucifixion and the torture received before was so horrific that no one could have survived it. If asphyxiation didn't kill him, then blood loss or being speared would have.


...so that leaves us with #5 as the only plausible explanation.

Here's a possibility you omitted.

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?

Or another possibility. Bible jesus is nothing but a mythological figure.. a man-made construct....nothing more.

I appreciate that christians usually bring out what they consider "big guns" as to the whole thing and bring the alleged writings of josephus into the equation over this. Fact is though, even the sturdiest of christian scholar now appreciate that much of what josephus had to say as to this alleged "christ" model, was a latter interpolation thanks to the likes of Eusebuis and his ilk. As such, there is no ACTUAL historical reference to support the notion that the bible jesus character was EVER crucified, let alone rose from the dead in such a way and frankly, if per other NT commentary, IF he did, then also others that had been dead for YONKS longer also apparently zombied their way around the place too at the time, so when it comes down to it, what bible jesus supposedly did, was no unique feat!



Catalyst.