Where is Jesus' body now?

[Andy]

I'm willing to accept that you believe that, if you do.

You asked for opinions, yet here you are questioning an opinion.  That doesn't seem to match your original claim.

I don't remember claiming that I wouldn't be asking questions on them. Feel free to not answer them.

I'm not sure how to take it that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that it is now nowhere. Did it just vanish? What body was Jesus using between resurrection and ascension?

OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know that the resurrected Jesus was able to walk through walls and do other things that a normal body would not have been able to do (there are no such claims prior to his death, other than his walking on water - Matthew 14: 22ff).  This suggests that his post-resurrection body was no longer a fully human body - even though people were able to touch him and feel the scars of his crucifixion, and he was able to eat solid food.  Now, if he was nothing more than a human being in the first place, how could this be?  If, on the other hand, he was God in human form, why couldn't this have taken place?  In this latter case, his body could, literally, have been transformed thus making the need for it to exist 'elsewhere' obsolete.

Let's take a scientific example.  We all now that certain elements have half-lives, during which they decay and become a different element.  Are we to believe that the original element is still out there somewhere, just waiting to be discovered perhaps as a 'skeletal' form of that element?  Not a perfect example, but then is there actually a perfect example of a lot of what happens in everyday life?

His body before the resurrection does seem to be have been able to pull off feats just the same as it did post-resurrection. I don't see how you can say he had a normal body that can walk on water and do other miraculous stuff, and then say that he has a human body+ post-resurrection as if the miraculous stuff he did then was somehow distinct from the ones pre-resurrection.

But anyway, regardless of that, let's take it that he has a normal human body and then had a transformed human body after the resurrection. What was it transformed into? If you're happy to go with what I said before, what is the +?

[Andy]

Where is Jesus' body now?

A joke! I presume?

We know Christ rose from the dead and we know he ascended up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father... WITH his body...

No, it's not a joke. I don't expect to get the same answer from everyone.

And you haven't.  Unfortunately, some of the responders have failed to attempt to provide an answer, just tried to diss others' suggestions.

What's your opinion - and just why do you want to know?

What's my opinion on what - Jesus' body?

I ask because I see some potential discrepancies, depending on what is believed, but I'm not going to build up a straw man if no-one believes it. That's why I ask first.

[ad_orientem]

Where is Jesus' body now?

Heaven, for that is where he lives and reigns.

[Shaker]

OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know

Believe.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know

Believe.

Surely the predication on taking it 'if we accept it as correct' allows this formulation

[Shaker]

And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?  'This document is correct because I assume it to be correct, therefore it is correct' may very well satisfy Hopeless and his cohorts but down here in the real world normal people don't act that way.

[Hope]

OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know

Believe.

No, if we take the position, at least for now, that the documents in question are correct, then we KNOW, because we are taking what they say to be correct.

I know that some here find accepting the NT material to be a problem, but it is documentary evidence, it is not word for word evidence that tends to poinbt to collaboration and it is supported to some degree by contemporary records.  Therefore, to simply suggest that 'taking it as correct' is mere belief, is actually to misrepresent it.

[Hope]

And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?  'This document is correct because I assume it to be correct, therefore it is correct' may very well satisfy Hopeless and his cohorts but down here in the real world normal people don't act that way.

Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds (see my previous post).  I have been involved in this debate for well over 40 years now, and I have yet to find anyone produce an argument that does anything more than 'suggest' that the NT documents aren't legitimate evidence.  Certanly no-one here has ever managed to make a convincing argument.  That is not to say that we might not - in time - find some evidence that makes the idea of their legitimacy unacceptable, but 2000-odd years of effort hasn't produced much.

To concentrate on the single question

And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?

Over the centuries, several alternative explanations have been posited, yet no supporting evidence that stands up to questioning is ever provided.  As such, the evidence of the NT documents has to be accepted as at least one legitimate explanation, especially as no evidence that conclusively denies this legitimacy has ever been proposed.

One can choose not to believe its legitimacy, but then of course, we get back to that knotty problem of 'metaphysical' evidence opposed to 'physical' evidence.  In other words you get back to 'belief' against 'belief'.

[Shaker]

Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds

There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.

And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.

(see my previous post).

I'd rather not.

I have been involved in this debate for well over 40 years now

I can well imagine

and I have yet to find anyone produce an argument that does anything more than 'suggest' that the NT documents aren't legitimate evidence.  Certanly no-one here has ever managed to make a convincing argument.  That is not to say that we might not - in time - find some evidence that makes the idea of their legitimacy unacceptable, but 2000-odd years of effort hasn't produced much.

To concentrate on the single question

And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?

Over the centuries, several alternative explanations have been posited, yet no supporting evidence that stands up to questioning is ever provided.  As such, the evidence of the NT documents has to be accepted as at least one legitimate explanation, especially as no evidence that conclusively denies this legitimacy has ever been proposed.

One can choose not to believe its legitimacy, but then of course, we get back to that knotty problem of 'metaphysical' evidence opposed to 'physical' evidence.  In other words you get back to 'belief' against 'belief'.

No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.

But hey: now that I've pointed it out yet again, it's the perfect opportunity for you to waste some more electrons on bitching and whining about it rather than adducing evidence for your claims.

[Hope]

Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds

There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.

We're not talking about the rationality of the event, Shaker.  We're talking about the rational nature of the evidence that is being presented, or are you suggesting that written documentation is insufficiently rational a means of presentation.

And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.

Precisely, but there is plenty of methodology for determining whether the written documentation that is used to support such a claim is in any legitimate.  For instance - and again you have been told this on numerous occasions - there is what I've heard referred to as linguistic fingerprinting - ie is the language used appropriate to the claimed date of authorship; does the language deal with ideas and concepts that were around at the time; ...?  Then there are other corrobative methods - is the subject of the documentation mentioned by contemporary writers; is the material (if from more than one author) sufficiently different to rule out plagiarism or collaboration? 

Only once one has ruled out all the possible questions about the documentation can one begin to question its contents.

All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'.  That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).

No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.

Not according to the linguists I have heard on this area.  If you are going to challenge the validity of the documentation, you have to do more than simply say that 'what is claimed can't have happened; therefore the doumentation is invalid'.  In a case like this, where there 3 or 4 different possible options, you have got to show that one or more of those alternative options is correct.

[jjohnjil]

Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds

There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.

We're not talking about the rationality of the event, Shaker.  We're talking about the rational nature of the evidence that is being presented, or are you suggesting that written documentation is insufficiently rational a means of presentation.

And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.

Precisely, but there is plenty of methodology for determining whether the written documentation that is used to support such a claim is in any legitimate.  For instance - and again you have been told this on numerous occasions - there is what I've heard referred to as linguistic fingerprinting - ie is the language used appropriate to the claimed date of authorship; does the language deal with ideas and concepts that were around at the time; ...?  Then there are other corrobative methods - is the subject of the documentation mentioned by contemporary writers; is the material (if from more than one author) sufficiently different to rule out plagiarism or collaboration? 

Only once one has ruled out all the possible questions about the documentation can one begin to question its contents.

All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'.  That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).

No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.

Not according to the linguists I have heard on this area.  If you are going to challenge the validity of the documentation, you have to do more than simply say that 'what is claimed can't have happened; therefore the doumentation is invalid'.  In a case like this, where there 3 or 4 different possible options, you have got to show that one or more of those alternative options is correct.

Hope, all the documentation may well be correct, no one is bothered one way or the other if places and certain governors names tally with other historic documents. Many novel writers go to a great deal of trouble to get all the various geographic and historic facts right before they spin a tale between them.

The only thing most of us argue about are  the supernatural aspects, the virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water etc.  These are where the theist and the atheist disagree. 

If you can find anything other than the bible stories to back up those claims, we would all listen.

[ippy]

Car park? Jerusalem?

Ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

The basis of Christianity is empty

But I suppose that is organised Church Christianity.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

The only thing most of us argue about are  the supernatural aspects, the virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water etc.  These are where the theist and the atheist disagree. 

But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.  Surely, once the claims had begun to become public, Jewish writers would have sought out witnesses who could prove that such events didn't happen?  Is there such evidence?  Remembere that the Jewish authorities pushed for the execution of this guy specifically to stop what they saw as his blasphemy from spreading - yet by this very act - they helped it spread.  Would they not have wanted to provide evidence to their people that what was being claimed was untrue?

If you can find anything other than the bible stories to back up those claims, we would all listen.

Would you?  If you find the supernatural aspects hard to accept, why would any additional documentation make you change your way of thinking?  It would still be documentary evidence of supernatural events.
 

[Alien]

Car park? Jerusalem?

Ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'.  That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).

You see this from a lot of non-believers here, but not all. jjohnjil doesn't seem to be one of them. There is indeed no methodology for the supernatural claims, but there certainly is for other aspects of the gospels and the epistles. I do not think the value of the NT writings stands or falls on its supernatural claims, and you yourself are always stating that the life of God's Kingdom begins right here.

[Hope]

Car park? Jerusalem?

Ippy

Sorry, I can't help you there.  I'm told that the Jerusalem municipality and the Ministry of Transportation began to operate three Park and Ride lots back in 2011 with a total of 1,000 spaces along the light rail route. Not sure what other parking facilities there are.

[Shaker]

But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.

The same howling fallacy not only within the same day but within a few hours.

It must be a record.

[cyberman]

It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.

Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.

[Hope]

Can you provided evidence that fairies aren't hiding at the bottom of my garden? Virgin birth, resurrection and walking on water are just as unbelievable!

As are many scientific 'discoveries' that we only hear about at 3rd or, at best 2nd, hand Floo.  I doubt that many here have actually experienced or been part of the discoveries that are referred to on this forum, especially the more esoteric ones.

[jeremyp]

It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.

More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.

More than likely it would not have been put in a tomb.  As a criminal he would probably have been buried in an unmarked - possibly mass - grave.

[Hope]

But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.

The same howling fallacy not only within the same day but within a few hours.

It must be a record.

No, Shaker; you have already been unable to provide any evidence in support of your world view.  All I'm now asking is that you provide me with a reason for not understanding what happened in 1st century Palestine, as described in the New Testament documents, in the way I do.

As you already know, reliance on purely physical, scientific reasoning doesn't cut it.

[Hope]

Can you provided evidence that fairies aren't hiding at the bottom of my garden? Virgin birth, resurrection and walking on water are just as unbelievable!

So clearly if extra-Biblical evidence was to be presented, it wouldn't make you change your mind, Floo.

[jeremyp]

3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;

Yes it is so unlikely that we must discount it...

4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.

Oh, actually, this one is impossible.  How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection.  I sense confirmation bias at work.

[Hope]

3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;

Yes it is so unlikely that we must discount it...

Well, a lot of people over the centuries have tried to find the evidence for this particular option; they have come nowhere near doing so.  Obviously, it and the other alternative options constantly reoccur in my and other Christians' minds - but we have nothing to indicate that the ideas have any validity.

4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.

Oh, actually, this one is impossible. 

Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?

How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection.  I sense confirmation bias at work.

jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using - with the exception that we do not believe that the physically scientific is the only dimension that is acceptable within such standards.