What if Jesus' body were found?

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok Walter,
Would have to fall into the hypothetical response group of the Realist. And I also think the Christian view is the only true Realist view of things as they are.

In the hypothetical scenario, the discovery would invalidate everything that forms the foundation of Christianity, that which is Real to us.

In the real world, that producing a body was never done strengthens our position that this is the Real way to view the world. Not only was it never done, there is no record of a first century attempt at producing a body or even a rumor of an existing body or peope that knew what happened to the body. Given this would be a logical counter and immediately occur to any one opposed to Chrisitianity as an effective end to these upstart Christians, the fact no body was produced (and any body would have done in those days) and neither did any one produce people who claimed to have seen a body or knew where it was hidden all support the reality there was no body to produce.

 

[WalterPlinge]

My thanks to DrBubbaLove and DanielRB for your replies.

Both are very interesting and make thought-provoking points, but I do believe that I will very shortly be bringing this thread to a close. Yes, I will respond to any further replies here, but that's all.

My reasoning for this change is as follows.

If you taken a look at 3sigma's thread, "Can Christians please justify their belief that God created human beings?" you'll see in my recent messages there that I've decided to re-think my approach to exploring Christianity here at C.F.
This is in the light of Packermann's observation about how modern Christian thought puts a great deal of emphasis on the subjective or "inner" and concept of personal truth. As he succinctly put it, "What matters is only what is true for me."

Packermann called this concept a denial of objective truth.
Objective truth in this case being the true nature of reality that applies to us all, whether we like it or not.
In my comments to 3sigma I call this external reality, truth with a capital T. The subjective, inner models of truth used by many Christians today I've labelled truth with a small t, to differentiate these two things.

If Packermann is correct in what he says then this radically changes how I can proceed in my exploration of Christianity by asking questions in this section. I have already suggested to 3sigma that he is wasting his time trying to constrain other people to keep to his Dictionary definitions of what certain words mean. I've also indicated that getting agreement on what the terms of your discussion mean (before actually discussing them) would be a more fruitful avenue of dialogue. As you will see, he has acknowledged my input but not really taken this idea on board.
Well, that is his choice.

Now to what I shall do next.

Yes, I would like to continue exploring Christianity here at C.F., but I am currently at a loss as to how I can successfully do that. The denial of a single, unifying, commonly-experienced reality (objective Truth) by the Christian community here at C.F. is, in my opinion, a serious impediment to communication. I'm sure that most people don't do it consciously, they've just acquired the habit from others and do it without thinking.

There seems to be a Christian assertion that knowledge of objective Truth can be "known" or "revealed" in a subjective and personal way, without the testing and agreement of others. As far as I can see this is reversing the proper order of things. It raises subjective truth (with a small t) above objective Truth (with a Capital T). It puts personal experience and subjective meaning above common experience and commonly-agreed meaning.

Personal, subjective meaning can never be tested to see if it is objectively True unless it is brought out into the external world of common experience.
For example, nobody can determine how much I love my partner Audrey, except by observing how I behave towards her. Nor can anyone experience the pain of my recent toothache (ouch!) for me or even know that I was suffering, except by observing me and looking for the tell-tale signs. The subjective reality of my life (the thoughts I think, the emotions I feel and the sensations I experience) are closed to others unless they can see the outward signs of them. Right now you are seeing the outward signs of my thinking in the words I've written here. This is our shared and common reality, otherwise known as objective Truth.

In the same way, the "inner", subjective knowledge that God loves you and you love God can only be determined by others by the way you act and speak. The subjective truth that you "know" His love can only be tested and measured by the objective Truths of your words and your behaviour, visible to others in our common reality.

Now can you see how a statement like, "God is real because I know it in my heart" can only ever be considered as subjective and personal "inner" truth?
No other person can experience this reality for you. If you really want to successfully communicate this concept with others you will have to try and find commonly-acceptable language and terms that work in the real world of objective Truth, our commonly-experienced reality.

There are those who might say that it's impossible to communicate like this. You either, "know God in your heart" or you don't. Or "God is beyond understanding and human description". Do you see how destructive to open lines of communication these ideas are?

This a denial of the supremacy of objective Truth and commonly-experienced reality. It emphasizes the importance of subjective, untestable ideas of "inner" truth and negates the possibility of commonly-agreed experience, making proper communication about our shared reality difficult or even impossible.

So you see, DanielRB and DrBubbaLove, I'm currently undecided as to how to carry on here at C.F. Without a radical rethink, I doubt that I can find a way of communicating properly here so long as the other members persist in treating their "inner" subjective knowledge of God as being the measure by which they "know" the truth. I'm sorry to say it, but I can never have any access to these subjectively "known" truths. All I can ever do is present ideas, thoughts and arguments in written form, hoping that there will be some level of understanding between us.

The recurring difficulties experienced by 3sigma in his threads and by myself here in this one suggest that a new direction is needed for better communication to flourish. Therefore I have decided on a three-pronged approach in the near future.

I will give some serious thought to the communication problems subjective "truths" give rise to and how to bypass or surmount them. In the meantime I will let this thread expire naturally, replying only in brief to any further messages. I do have other questions concerning scripture and will ask them in this section of C.F. in the near future.

Thanks again for your input.

Walter.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well the solidiers were clearly bribed by the Jewish leaders in Mattews version of that story. And as Matthew mentions when writing, that is still the story told today among many Jews; that the body was stolen. Agree the penalty for sleeping, but think just like today people will take risks, even great risks in exchange for money. The natural follow through to this story would be where is the body? If it were stolen, why is it never revealed either by traitors or by zealots? Not even in a hint of rumor in that regard in perserved docs.

Also do not think it is credible to suggest this is made up and yet so many people bought it with no account of a challenge. There would have been people who were around and could have said, "no it did not happen that way", or "we did not see Him or hear from any one that did", "in fact so and so said they knew where Jesus was buried". Yet we have no record of any such challenges. And the claim of His resurrection is certainly a central theme for the rest of the NT, so unless we also claim all these writings are also falsified, people would have known this was the Christian claim concerning His Death.

Jame's book is not odd to Catholics BTW, but his lack of silence is on the topic could be taken the other way as well. If it were a false claim being made by all these other Apostles and their disciples, why would James not write against it?

Picking and choosing docs to perserve is a nice theory too. However many docs they have kept are not the most flattering either toward our Church or some of the Fathers for example. So it is difficult to imagine people picking and choosing to reinforce one issue, resurrection in this case, but neglecting to do a better job of it in other areas.

The point was not so much that they died defending a resurrection that they would have to know was false, but died defending a faith that we would have to believe they knew to be based on lie. The Resurrection is a foundation of our faith, not just a story to be protected. If the resurrection was a lie, then enter religion is just a big fraud - perpetuated for what purpose we cannot say as none of the founders appear to have been rewarded or profited materially in this life for taking the stand. It is this aspect of the theory that it is all faked that makes the idea that someone would go to the grave protecting a fraud hard to imagine.

And while we agree some martyrs stories appear embellished, in at least one case we know one Apostle, the youngest lived a long life and died naturally. So it is not like we claim they all died protecting the story. John also certainly lived long enough to have been well aquianted with the beliefs of Christians near the turn of the century and there would be no arguing at that point that the resurrection is a central theme of all early Christian writers (non-biblical). John was there, so if the story had been made up later, he surely would have disputed it.

There are also enough well documented fueds within the first 300 years of the Church regarding beliefs that one would think the veracity of the resurrection story would have been challenged as well if there was any doubt or dubiousness in the origins of it. Yet it would be almost several thousand years before someone first proposes this theory. And yes I would say that is long enough to call into question the veracity of such claims, which is why I attempted to limit this dicusssion to as close to 1st century as we can.

There are flips to each side I suppose, but at some point one must ask what is more likely in trying to explain the events.

Would it have occured to those opposed to attempt to discredit the resurrection claim? Sure, as we already discussed the Bible says they knew the claims before hand and acted to discredit the story immediately. Why no stories of someone trying to produce a body? Maybe so many people had witnessed a resurrected Jesus that no one reputtable would agree to help support a story refuting it. You would need people, Jewish people willing to produce a body/remains and stick by the claim it was Jesus. On the surface that would seem to be relatively easy, just pay people to lie as they did the guards. But if enough people believed the story - even if they did not convert, it would not be a popular move politically to dispute it. Yet it would be the simplist and most obvious way to attack and discredit the early Church. So I do think it significant that we have no record of any one attempting it (in early history).

As to credibility we agree, the further away, removed from eye witnesses the harder it is to believe. Yet the first century record we have from witnesses is tossed today by many in favor of a fabricated modern re-creation from Dan Brown, which is treated as more credible and believable than the Bible or early Church accounts of the same events.

Anyway, interesting hypothetical.

 

[Stinker]

Psalm 16:10 (New King James Version)
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


According to the writer Luke in the mid 60s A.D., Peter, on the day of Pentecost, preached that Christ was bodily resurrected. He was said to have quoted King David from the Psalms, who was actually referring to the future Messiah whose dead body was not to be decayed:


Acts 2:25-27 (New King James Version)
25 For David says concerning Him:

‘ I foresaw the LORD always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.



I saw a post in this thread where they said that there was an ossuary found in Israel that possibly contained the bones of the brother of Jesus. His name was James 'the just' . This ossuary was a fake, and the person that committed this forgery is (or was) prosecuted. However, the other ossuraries that hold the name of Jesus and his wife Mary and their son, is still up for debate. Until there is conclusive evidence proving that this man's bones are the same bones of the main character of the New Testament, we Chrstians are correct to hold to our faith. If there are ever bones found proving Jesus was never resurrected, then anyone still wanting to hold to the concept of a spiritual resurrection should not attach the word 'Christian' to it.......in my opinion.

 

[LJSGM]

Hello.

I'd like to ask a hypothetical question of the members of this forum.

Let's say that tomorrow it was announced that the remains of a man with injuries fitting the description of Jesus Christ was unearthed in the Jerusalem area. These remains are exhaustively tested by the Jewish, Islamic, Christian and secular authorities. They are also examined by respected members of whatever denomination, brotherhood, congregation or fellowship you are affiliated with. The end results are definite and the evidence is overwhelming - these are bones of Jesus of Nazareth.

What would this mean to you?

It's not a good hypothetical since there is no way to prove that it was Jesus, and I can't think of much evidence that could be pointing to it either (other than the same wounds I guess, as you have suggested). Many people were crucified this way, and many had the name mary, joseph and jesus.

 

[DerSchweik]

Mod Hat On​

Thread Closed
​

Please READ the Posting Guidelines before posting in Exploring Christianity (EC)​

EC is for non-Christians to ask questions of Christians.
Only Christians may respond to the OP
ALL responses must be directed to the OP (no "sidebar" discussions)​

Mod Hat OFF​