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?

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

You can read the Resurrection story and take it in any number of ways whether metaphoric, allegorical or philosophical, but any literal take on it is just not reasonably available to us in my view.

We don't have enough facts; we don't have any facts, and as to the supernatural claims, these are accounts which defy common sense, logic and every reasonable, natural circumstantial explanation. All we have are stories and claims; and the only way, IMO, one could consider them as 'literally true', is with strong and repeated doses of indoctrinated dogma and emotional ritualizing.

Starboard Tack wrote:

I think that is quite reasonable as long as you begin your consideration from the standpoint that supernatural intervention is a priori disallowed, either because it doesn't happen, or can't happen. However, a physical bodily resurrection best explains the background data, and alternature theories are mainly unsupported by any evidence and only preferred by some because however unsupported they are, they are considered superior because they deny the involvement of God.

On the other hand, I think that myth, legend and indoctrination best explain the background data of the Resurrection story, although any theory is just that, theory, since we don't have facts to go on; it's all conjecture.

I suppose that supernatural intervention into the world is possible, but I think we should demand verifiable evidence of any claim which purports it since it is an easy claim to make and because no single supernatural event has ever verifiably occurred at any time or place in history of mankind. Demanding a high burden of proof via verifiable evidence is particularly important if we are using supernatural intervention as a starting point for judging who among us is saved and who is condemned to hell. I don't disallow the possibility of 'Gods'; as an Ignostic I just don't think we've discerned any up to this point in time and history; of course I could be wrong, but if you're going to claim that you are right as to any particular God belief, I'm going to need to see your verifiable evidence.

Starboard Tack wrote:

Perhaps this is where faith comes in. Faith allows the Christian to accept the best explanation that fits the facts, where a lack of faith requires that the best explanation be rejected. Makes me wonder who has the greater faith - the Christian or the critic?

I am not a big fan of un-evidenced faith. Although I have come to respect those that have it, I find it irrelevant to my skeptical, humanistic, open-minded worldview. To me, un-evidenced, religious faith leaves too many people behind and tends to close minds rather than open them.

Flail wrote;

Having read literally thousands of inaccurate 'eye witness' accounts and law enforcement investigative reports in my day, the mere suggestion that any of the long 'after the fact' hearsay Biblical Resurrection accounts are accurate, indicates indoctrination rather than careful, thoughtful examination.

Starboard Tack wrote:

...Second, eye witness testimony is frequently suspect, but what is described in the Gospels is not an eye witness seeing an event. It is scores of witnesses veiwing multiple events over days. Not the same thing, although equated as such by critics.

Hardly...It is an author's second hand hearsay rendition of unidentified people claiming to have viewed supernatural events some decades previous.

Starboard Tack wrote:

Finally, the evidence that God exists is both logically superior and more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, claims that supernatural intervention can't happen remains an assertion that is inferior, IMHO, to the assertion that he does exist.

I do not claim that supernatural events could never happen; neither do I claim that 'Gods' do not exist; I have no real idea on either point, but remain open minded. As to claims that 'Gods' do not in fact exist, I must demand verifiable evidence to support such claims; likewise, as to claims that 'Gods' do in fact exist, I must have verifiable evidence to support such claims; as to a claim that a particular 'God' exists and has judged some of us 'saved' and some of us 'condemned' I demand verifiable evidence to support such a claim, and I do not accept either hearsay, dogma, indoctrinated faith or emotionalism as verifiable evidence.

[otseng]

Fuzzy, in this case you have combined your usual muddled thinking with a willingness to use dishonesty to make a point.

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making comments of a personal nature.

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.

[Starboard Tack]

Flail wrote:

You can read the Resurrection story and take it in any number of ways whether metaphoric, allegorical or philosophical, but any literal take on it is just not reasonably available to us in my view.

We don't have enough facts; we don't have any facts, and as to the supernatural claims, these are accounts which defy common sense, logic and every reasonable, natural circumstantial explanation. All we have are stories and claims; and the only way, IMO, one could consider them as 'literally true', is with strong and repeated doses of indoctrinated dogma and emotional ritualizing.

Starboard Tack wrote:

I think that is quite reasonable as long as you begin your consideration from the standpoint that supernatural intervention is a priori disallowed, either because it doesn't happen, or can't happen. However, a physical bodily resurrection best explains the background data, and alternature theories are mainly unsupported by any evidence and only preferred by some because however unsupported they are, they are considered superior because they deny the involvement of God.

On the other hand, I think that myth, legend and indoctrination best explain the background data of the Resurrection story, although any theory is just that, theory, since we don't have facts to go on; it's all conjecture.

Yes, I am trying to understand the development of the myth theory on this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=18824. So far, I haven't received much satisfaction on how such a ridiculous myth could come about. Unless, of course it is not myth at all, but I'm happy to pretend that it is, while hoping someone can provide some reason why entertaining this possibility makes any sense at all. Nothing yet, but maybe....

I suppose that supernatural intervention into the world is possible, but I think we should demand verifiable evidence of any claim which purports it since it is an easy claim to make and because no single supernatural event has ever verifiably occurred at any time or place in history of mankind.

Well, of course that is false since the big bang itself requires that something outside space and time was required to have brought space time into existence, or at least the predominance of evidence certainly points in this direction. Supernatural causation appears quite well demonstrated.

Demanding a high burden of proof via verifiable evidence is particularly important if we are using supernatural intervention as a starting point for judging who among us is saved and who is condemned to hell.

When you say "verifiable evidence" of the supernatural, you are referring to evidence that would pass the methodological naturalism test of validity, are you not? If so, you are asking to prove something by a means that a priori denies the something can exist. Rather a stacked deck, don't you think? A more reasonable test would be to eliminate the natural causation possibilities and when they are shown to be unreasonable, then entertain the supernatural possibilities. Most naturalists are not willing to do this, perhaps fearing the consequences of the discovery, what with the 'hell' factor you mentioned and all.

I don't disallow the possibility of 'Gods'; as an Ignostic I just don't think we've discerned any up to this point in time and history; of course I could be wrong, but if you're going to claim that you are right as to any particular God belief, I'm going to need to see your verifiable evidence.

Nope, can't do that. I can demonstrate that logically a personal God must exist and would be happy to hear to hear any refutation of that logic. I can only infer that the God of the Bible is closest to the description of God since the Bible seems to conform best to observable reality. Additionally, since different religions make conflicting truth claims, either they are all false, or only one them is true. No other option exists, and on that basis, since I am a theist, I find the God of the Bible most compelling.

Starboard Tack wrote:

Perhaps this is where faith comes in. Faith allows the Christian to accept the best explanation that fits the facts, where a lack of faith requires that the best explanation be rejected. Makes me wonder who has the greater faith - the Christian or the critic?

I am not a big fan of un-evidenced faith. Although I have come to respect those that have it, I find it irrelevant to my skeptical, humanistic, open-minded worldview. To me, un-evidenced, religious faith leaves too many people behind and tends to close minds rather than open them.

Sounds like your definition of truth is that which doesn't leave people behind. Do you think that a rational definition? Truth by popular vote?


Flail wrote;

Having read literally thousands of inaccurate 'eye witness' accounts and law enforcement investigative reports in my day, the mere suggestion that any of the long 'after the fact' hearsay Biblical Resurrection accounts are accurate, indicates indoctrination rather than careful, thoughtful examination.

Starboard Tack wrote:

...Second, eye witness testimony is frequently suspect, but what is described in the Gospels is not an eye witness seeing an event. It is scores of witnesses veiwing multiple events over days. Not the same thing, although equated as such by critics.

Hardly...It is an author's second hand hearsay rendition of unidentified people claiming to have viewed supernatural events some decades previous.

Ah, I see. You base your equation of individual eye witness testimony to the hundreds of witnesses mentioned in the NT on the basis of a rejection of the truth of the accounts in the NT. Does that mean that if the case is made that the NT accounts are likely true, that they would count as large population eye witness testimony? Or is it the content of the witnesses' testimony that you object to?

Starboard Tack wrote:

Finally, the evidence that God exists is both logically superior and more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, claims that supernatural intervention can't happen remains an assertion that is inferior, IMHO, to the assertion that he does exist.

I do not claim that supernatural events could never happen; neither do I claim that 'Gods' do not exist; I have no real idea on either point, but remain open minded. As to claims that 'Gods' do not in fact exist, I must demand verifiable evidence to support such claims; likewise, as to claims that 'Gods' do in fact exist, I must have verifiable evidence to support such claims; as to a claim that a particular 'God' exists and has judged some of us 'saved' and some of us 'condemned' I demand verifiable evidence to support such a claim, and I do not accept either hearsay, dogma, indoctrinated faith or emotionalism as verifiable evidence.

With respect, it really does sound like an Ignostic is an atheist that can't spell. Verifiable evidence in the sense you mean - interviews with witnesses to the resurrection, perhaps video of the resurrected Christ - probably aren't going to happen. In my opinion, you'll have your evidence soon enough, and what that means and whether it is a simple fantasy of mine is a question of eschatology, I suppose.

[d.thomas]

Flail wrote:

You can read the Resurrection story and take it in any number of ways whether metaphoric, allegorical or philosophical, but any literal take on it is just not reasonably available to us in my view.

We don't have enough facts; we don't have any facts, and as to the supernatural claims, these are accounts which defy common sense, logic and every reasonable, natural circumstantial explanation. All we have are stories and claims; and the only way, IMO, one could consider them as 'literally true', is with strong and repeated doses of indoctrinated dogma and emotional ritualizing.

Starboard Tack wrote:

I think that is quite reasonable as long as you begin your consideration from the standpoint that supernatural intervention is a priori disallowed, either because it doesn't happen, or can't happen. However, a physical bodily resurrection best explains the background data, and alternature theories are mainly unsupported by any evidence and only preferred by some because however unsupported they are, they are considered superior because they deny the involvement of God.

On the other hand, I think that myth, legend and indoctrination best explain the background data of the Resurrection story, although any theory is just that, theory, since we don't have facts to go on; it's all conjecture.

I suppose that supernatural intervention into the world is possible, but I think we should demand verifiable evidence of any claim which purports it since it is an easy claim to make and because no single supernatural event has ever verifiably occurred at any time or place in history of mankind. Demanding a high burden of proof via verifiable evidence is particularly important if we are using supernatural intervention as a starting point for judging who among us is saved and who is condemned to hell. I don't disallow the possibility of 'Gods'; as an Ignostic I just don't think we've discerned any up to this point in time and history; of course I could be wrong, but if you're going to claim that you are right as to any particular God belief, I'm going to need to see your verifiable evidence.

Starboard Tack wrote:

Perhaps this is where faith comes in. Faith allows the Christian to accept the best explanation that fits the facts, where a lack of faith requires that the best explanation be rejected. Makes me wonder who has the greater faith - the Christian or the critic?

I am not a big fan of un-evidenced faith. Although I have come to respect those that have it, I find it irrelevant to my skeptical, humanistic, open-minded worldview. To me, un-evidenced, religious faith leaves too many people behind and tends to close minds rather than open them.

Flail wrote;

Having read literally thousands of inaccurate 'eye witness' accounts and law enforcement investigative reports in my day, the mere suggestion that any of the long 'after the fact' hearsay Biblical Resurrection accounts are accurate, indicates indoctrination rather than careful, thoughtful examination.

Starboard Tack wrote:

...Second, eye witness testimony is frequently suspect, but what is described in the Gospels is not an eye witness seeing an event. It is scores of witnesses veiwing multiple events over days. Not the same thing, although equated as such by critics.

Hardly...It is an author's second hand hearsay rendition of unidentified people claiming to have viewed supernatural events some decades previous.

Starboard Tack wrote:

Finally, the evidence that God exists is both logically superior and more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, claims that supernatural intervention can't happen remains an assertion that is inferior, IMHO, to the assertion that he does exist.

I do not claim that supernatural events could never happen; neither do I claim that 'Gods' do not exist; I have no real idea on either point, but remain open minded. As to claims that 'Gods' do not in fact exist, I must demand verifiable evidence to support such claims; likewise, as to claims that 'Gods' do in fact exist, I must have verifiable evidence to support such claims; as to a claim that a particular 'God' exists and has judged some of us 'saved' and some of us 'condemned' I demand verifiable evidence to support such a claim, and I do not accept either hearsay, dogma, indoctrinated faith or emotionalism as verifiable evidence.

Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more, and since there is no verifiable evidence to support god claims either way I don't think the question of god's existence or its non existence is meaningful. God can't be distinguished from nothingness so I don't see the need to bother with the God question, it's just not important.

A physical bodily resurrection requires an explanation and until then what we have is a story, and there is no doubt that people like to tell stories.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Flail in post #4]

[Replying to ThatGirlAgain in post #6]

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 difficult to take The Resurrection seriously under this circumstances

But Priests and Pastors and Reverends can help!
Here:

In order to render such stories as having actually occurred one needs to gather the credulous and indoctrinated together in an appropriate setting for creating an emotional rather than an intellectual response...it's the stuff of movies and church....music and stage props and lofty preaching coupled with ritual practices and chanting are common techniques used to overcome critical thinking, wherein all like and desirous minds can agree....and voila, myth becomes fact.

[fredonly]

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?

None of the above. There's no evidence of an empty tomb outside of Mark's empty tomb narrative (later copied and embellished by others). The story conveys Mark's belief that Jesus rose bodily from the dead; it's not a bit of investigative journalism, enquiring into some reported discovery of an empty tomb.

Crucifixion entails death and long term display of the corpse - not a burial in a private tomb. IMO, it makes no sense to separate one story element (empty tomb), treat it as true, and then consider alternative explanations for it. It's like saying, "Oz must be real, because where else could the yellow brick road have led to?"

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.I see various layers of possibility here. The least likely being that it was a resurrection as the Church dogma claims today (not, I would say, what Paul and thus the 123 believed)

next to that is garbled memories of those who were there (which is rather the excuse the apologists make for the contradictions, then the plan to knock Jesus out so he was thought dead and then swipe him out of the tomb.

There are problems with that, of course. Why leave the tomb open?

And the conclusion I came to when i actually understood that the resurrection is a coherent story with slight differences - it is pretty much all different. Realising that the raising of Lazarus (which looks like a record of a faked miracle) has to be invention, much though it made me sad to realise it and thus I came to realise the resurrection stories are independent inventions. They have got to be.

Which begs a couple of questions. Why them does it fit the historical scene so well? Well partly because they could describe scenes they know. The fact that raising of Lazarus reads like a report convinced me, but if that is fabricated, why can't the rest be?

Sure, there is much historical material here. Mainly because I have reason to believe there is a basic true story. But there is a lot wrong from the revision of the actual events into a Christian story. Pilate is not the weak appeaser of the gospels, nor is the Blasphemy charge anything other than nonsense and is of course not used at the trial. Nor (on all evidence) was there a Passover release custom (indeed there is evidence it wasn't Passover anyway).

Thus a basic story is there but the details betray Christian invention. Just a tint one John says Caiaphas was High priest for that year. It is an odd way to put it when he'd been in that position for the last ten years. It suggests that John had some historical info but didn't know it himself.

So what about the empty tomb? They all agree that. Aside that an empty box does not mean the contents flew up (or sideways) to heaven, there are some oddities about the empty tomb.

The writers don't seem to know why they went there. Sure, taking spices along is given by Mark and Luke - one of the few times they agree and Matthew doesn't It looks like Matthew removed that because he was worried that they couldn't obtain or prepare spices on the Sabbath (wearing my theist hat I can explain that, but Matthew wasn't as smart as he thought he was) and John gives no reason.

Excuses and apologetics apart, it is clear that alteration was going on. Then,why was the tomb open? Jesus could walk through walls. And as i said, IF the disciples took the body, close the door after them and no -one would suspect anything.

With a heavy heart I concluded it had to be open so the women could see it was empty. The story needed them to go there and be able to look inside. Proof that Jesus had risen.

Errrr... obviously that wouldn't do, so the synoptics have an angel parked outside to explain everything. John (who never read the synoptic version) has no such thing, and Mary says Jesus is gone and she doesn't know where and Jesus only pops up later - long after he has supposedly appeared to her and the other. as per Matthew.

This I conclude that, though it was an early and common claim, the empty tomb was invented to try to produce some evidence that Jesus had risen, which although in spirit to Paul and the 12, was needed by the Greek Christian writers to be a walking body, still with bullet holes in.