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?

[Goat]

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

Out of the alleged apostles, can you show that any of them actually chose a brutal execution?

Please, show this evidence if you have it.

[chestertonrules]

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

Out of the alleged apostles, can you show that any of them actually chose a brutal execution?

Please, show this evidence if you have it.

To state my position more accurately, the apostles chose to continue preaching about Jesus knowing that they were risking their lives by violating both Jewish and Roman Law.

Do you need evidence for this?

[Goat]

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

Out of the alleged apostles, can you show that any of them actually chose a brutal execution?

Please, show this evidence if you have it.

To state my position more accurately, the apostles chose to continue preaching about Jesus knowing that they were risking their lives by violating both Jewish and Roman Law.

Do you need evidence for this?

WHy, it's a claim you make, so , can you show that not only it's a case, but they knowingly risked their lives.??? Do you know they wouldn't have recanted if offered a choice?

Also, please show that they were breaking "Roman and Jewish law".

[bjs]

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?

[chestertonrules]

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

Out of the alleged apostles, can you show that any of them actually chose a brutal execution?

Please, show this evidence if you have it.

To state my position more accurately, the apostles chose to continue preaching about Jesus knowing that they were risking their lives by violating both Jewish and Roman Law.

Do you need evidence for this?

WHy, it's a claim you make, so , can you show that not only it's a case, but they knowingly risked their lives.??? Do you know they wouldn't have recanted if offered a choice?

Also, please show that they were breaking "Roman and Jewish law".

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

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

...
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.

Is it "nonsensical" to note that folks have interacted with corpses?

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.

Has there never been an instance where evidence was faked?

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.

So then, produce the corpse and there's no need to rely on written accounts.

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.

Now if only we could get folks to understand that making unsupported assertions is "pointless".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

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?

Peter Popoff was exposed as a fraud...

[youtube][/youtube]

But danged if he don't keep preaching.

Whether you believe something or not says little about whether that belief is true and factual.

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

Please present these folks for cross-examination.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
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.

"The fact is, no matter how much one continues to seek evidence, it is always possible to accuse others of rejecting said evidence for some otherwise nefarious or unrealistic reason."

It's also possible to present such evidence for examination. Unfortunately, it would seem, the only "evidence" we have is the book making the claim.

I'm noticing a trend in this thread, where folks seem far more willing or able to defend these claims by accusing others of rejecting evidence, as opposed to actually offering up for evidence anything beyond the book making the claims.

(edit to remove a "the" that didn't need to be there)

[JoeyKnothead]

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."

[chestertonrules]

From Post 12:

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?

Peter Popoff was exposed as a fraud...

[youtube][/youtube]

But danged if he don't keep preaching.

Whether you believe something or not says little about whether that belief is true and factual.

Their witness supports a miraculous event.

Please present these folks for cross-examination.

You've chosen your name well! Unfortunately, you arguments are not so well chosen.