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?

[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.

[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."

More proud ignorance.

Disappointing.

Cool.

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

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

You've chosen your name well!

Wish I could say the same for your'n.

Unfortunately, you arguments are not so well chosen.

It would seem that "Please present these folks for cross-examination" would be "not so well chosen", in light of the fact chestertonrules is unwilling or unable to do just that.

[bjs]

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?

I think that this demonstrates my point well. The miraculous is assumed to be nonsensical in order to prove that it is nonsensical. In logic that is called begging the question.

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?

Is this suggesting that since some evidence for something in history has been faked, that means that this specific set of evidence has been 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.

I thought that was the Christians line. “Produce a corpse and we will stop saying that Jesus is alive.�

[Goat]

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?

I think that this demonstrates my point well. The miraculous is assumed to be nonsensical in order to prove that it is nonsensical. In logic that is called begging the question.

Since there are more mundane explanations available, that can indeed be reproduced at will, the bar for evidence to claim something extra ordinary happened is higher than 'This book said so'

Some ideas need a higher level of standard of evidence to be accepted than 'it's in this book'.

Do you have any actual evidence beyond 'this book said so'??? , or 'I have a feeling'.

When Einstein predicted space would curve around the mass of the sun, his idea was not accepted until observations could be made that match his prediction/ Can you do something similar for a miracle?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 34:

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

I think that this demonstrates my point well. The miraculous is assumed to be nonsensical in order to prove that it is nonsensical. In logic that is called begging the question.

The only question I'm "begging" is...

Do you, bjs, contend that it is "nonsensical" to note that folks have interacted with corpses?

Has there never been an instance where evidence was faked?

Is this suggesting that since some evidence for something in history has been faked, that means that this specific set of evidence has been faked?

Looks like I gotta do some more question begging...

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.

I thought that was the Christians line. “Produce a corpse and we will stop saying that Jesus is alive.�

It may well be such.

This, however, does nothing to preclude you or others from actually producing this corpse.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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.

Yes, you all start down the road and then at some point you realize that you don't like the direction this particular journey is taking you and you abruptly quit. And then you tend to accuse us of belittling you and treating the claims you have refused to defend with contempt. Little wonder.

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.

A actual supernatural miracle, should one actually occur, would by definition be totally outside the realm of common experience. The CLAIM of a miracle however, is as common as that most common of human currency, the human imagination. To establish that an ACTUAL miracle has occurred, all possibility that the claim is nothing more then human imagination at work must be eliminated. That is not to much to expect.

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.

Yes, the story of a flying reanimated corpse has all the earmarks of being fabricated, as does the story of hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem. That you don't even seem to recognize this obvious fact goes straight to the credibility of what you are claiming to be true, and testifies to the power of your religious indoctrination. But if you really do have a case then make it! SERIOUSLY! Christians trumpet their beliefs as if they are unassailable, and then when they find their most sacred beliefs being successfully assailed they turn tail and disappear. So instead of disappearing, MAKE YOUR CASE. And notice that I have chosen to debate you on what the NT actually SAYS, point by point.

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. Do you agree or disagree?

[micatala]

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.

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.

Moderator Warning



chestertonrules needs to remember that members are obligated to provide evidence for the claims they make. The first post seems to be both a mild personal attack and an attempt to evade that responsibility. Remember this is a debate forum.

The second post adds to the transgression by responding to a challenge for evidence with more evasion and insult.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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?

[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.