Body or no?

[nobspeople]

In reading through the below article, it seems there's a divisive ideology over rather the body of jesus was physically raised at the resurrection or not.
For discussion:
Do you believe jesus physically rose or not?
Why does it matter one way or the other?
Or does it not matter and why?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/baptists-hol ... 43339.html

[1213]

...if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory...

By what I know, it is contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so.

By what I know, it is not contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so. See how that works?

Why do you think it is reasonable to think people are contradictory? Do you have the same principle in all cases? Should I also interpret you contradictorily?

[TRANSPONDER]

...if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory...

By what I know, it is contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so.

By what I know, it is not contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so. See how that works?

Why do you think it is reasonable to think people are contradictory? Do you have the same principle in all cases? Should I also interpret you contradictorily?

It isn't a matter of interpreting him, me or you 'contradictarily'. It is the arguing out of the (demonstrable) contradictions in the Bible (specifically and outstandingly, the resurrection) and seeing whether the excuses, explanations and 'Interpretations' stand up. Interpretation of the faitjhbased kind: "There is probably some perfectly good explanation... you have to make allowances for human error (not that much, chum) or We must just Have Faith' (no, we must not). fails in the end and in every case i have even known, Faith - based denial is the last resort (though some have long after come to realise, they were lying to themselves). Which is when we might then legitimately interpret you as contradictory, but be of good heart, you are far from being the only one.

[cms]

No. I don't believe that Jesus' physical body got up and walked around, nor did he appear in some sort of spiritual body as in a ghost. To me, Jesus' body are those that believe in His words and follow in His footsteps. I think it does matter because otherwise, we might all still be living in the dark ages, having to perform pagan ritual sacrifices, burning incense, etc.etc.

[nobspeople]

No. I don't believe that Jesus' physical body got up and walked around, nor did he appear in some sort of spiritual body as in a ghost. To me, Jesus' body are those that believe in His words and follow in His footsteps. I think it does matter because otherwise, we might all still be living in the dark ages, having to perform pagan ritual sacrifices, burning incense, etc.etc.

What do you think happened to the physical, dead body? Anything special or unique?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll give cms this much - if it was not a question of Jesus' body rising from the dead as evidence of his message, then it doesn't matter what happened to the body, as Paul seems to imply (I argue that it was the spirit that rose in his view and thus, that of the disciples and nobody cared about the body). Thus it could have stayed there in Arimathea's tomb on the Mount of Olives and for all we know is still there (1) or even for that matter moved to the Talpiot tomb, though heaven knows why.

But of course there's a problem. which is that rumours of a missing body were already circulating in Matthew's time, because he reports it. Much depends on when Matthew's gospel was written, but I would say that the
evidence is that it was considerably after the Original Gospels of which Mark itself is an adaptation, incorporating additions of his own (elaboration of the death of the baptist , Piilate's surprise and - together with Matthew - the - Other Bethsaida/Decapolis material - NOT found in Luke, and thus called the 'great omission', though rather it is the Great Addition) to the Original Gospel, which is now lost, like Q document and I suspect a few histories that Do tell us about the Actual Jesus. Matthew adds a lot, including material required by later Christianity, notably a Nativity which John hadn't got around to inventing though he saw the need for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem,. So I'd put Matthew as late as Luke and while we can't carbon date Gospel - text I'd suggest the later 2nd c as John is the mid 2nd.

The point being that if time enough had passed that Christian writers would be inventing Nativities and Resurrections, it was long past the time Christians were shouting their claims like 'The tomb was empty', and thus the Jews came up with an explanation: 'The disciples stole the body'.

But there's Another thing: Matthew would be late enough to want to invent - as well as the need for a Resurrection, Bethlehem birth AND a virgin birth too, but an entire cagmag and folderole about a Tomb guard (known to nobody else) because not only twas he claim of the empty tomb known, but the of the Jewish explanation was bothering him. So the empty tomb -story might start to look quite early after all. Early enough to be a real empty tomb, perhaps?

But if so, then maybe early enough to be a real 'the disciples stole the body'. It could either mean that the empty tomb was invented (I've given the evidence for that) or if it was true, the evidence of the Crucifixion is that the disciples Did take the body. Otherwise It was just as Paul said - the corporeal Jesus didn't matter and it was only the spirit that was important.

(1) I once had an idea of visiting Israel and trying to identify it - That Hasmonean relic on the Religious tourist itinerary is Not the real tomb any more than the Via Dolorosa is or could be Jesus' route to his crucifixion. Sorry HolylLand tour companies. Bribes from tour guides (once tourism starts again, if ever) for me to keep my mouth shut may be made to any Atheist organisation other than 'Atheists for Jesus'.

[cms]

What do you think happened to the physical, dead body? Anything special or unique?

nobspeople, I don't really know to tell you the truth. Like Transponder said,it could have been stolen or the story was made-up. But I don't think that was the kind of resurrection these people were looking for. Then again, I do believe in the Shroud of Turin. Strange, I know.

[nobspeople]

What do you think happened to the physical, dead body? Anything special or unique?

nobspeople, I don't really know to tell you the truth. Like Transponder said,it could have been stolen or the story was made-up. But I don't think that was the kind of resurrection these people were looking for. Then again, I do believe in the Shroud of Turin. Strange, I know.

Thanks for the response and being honest!

[TRANSPONDER]

What do you think happened to the physical, dead body? Anything special or unique?

nobspeople, I don't really know to tell you the truth. Like Transponder said,it could have been stolen or the story was made-up. But I don't think that was the kind of resurrection these people were looking for. Then again, I do believe in the Shroud of Turin. Strange, I know.

Turin shroud, eh? I read quite a bit about that in the pre -debate days when of course the discovery of it being a negative image of a stunningly convincing human figure and the issuing of several arguments that it was what it was claimed to be, on the evidence. Oddly like the whole resurrection story, the shroud was either a fabrication or - if true - evidence that Jesus did not resurrect.

It might be worth it's own thread.

[brunumb]

What do you think happened to the physical, dead body? Anything special or unique?

nobspeople, I don't really know to tell you the truth. Like Transponder said,it could have been stolen or the story was made-up. But I don't think that was the kind of resurrection these people were looking for. Then again, I do believe in the Shroud of Turin. Strange, I know.

Turin shroud, eh? I read quite a bit about that in the pre -debate days when of course the discovery of it being a negative image of a stunningly convincing human figure and the issuing of several arguments that it was what it was claimed to be, on the evidence. Oddly like the whole resurrection story, the shroud was either a fabrication or - if true - evidence that Jesus did not resurrect.

It might be worth it's own thread.

The shroud has been done to death in discussion forums. The figure is anatomically incorrect and nothing more than a painting.

The shroud first emerged historically in 1354, when it is recorded in the hands of a famed knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, seigneur de Lirey. In 1389, when it went on exhibition, it was denounced as false by the local bishop of Troyes, who declared it “cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it."

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. In which case I wouldn't blame everyone for not wanting to revisit it.