What happened to the body?

[robrecht]

As this is my first post here, I thought I'd kick it off with a surprisingly easy question for any atheist to answer: If Jesus of Nazareth was not raised by God then where did his body go?

We have a whole range of options, those often put forward by apologetics are unlikely and convoluted scenarios designed to push us towards the theory of bodily resurrection. One of the key pieces of evidence against a bodily resurrection however is that the earliest writers of the New Testament (Paul and the author of Mark) do not appear to know anything about it.

What Paul understood by Jesus' resurrected body is certainly debatable, but the author of the gospel of Mark certainly believed in the empty tomb.

"James" says nothing about it either (in fact everything James seems to know about Jesus comes straight from just one sermon he gave, interesting that). It's not a part of their belief-set, even though it is a part of the belief-set of Matthew, Luke, and John (or whoever wrote those gospels). Once we know this we're laughing. It's important to note I'm not saying that Paul and Mark did not have the belief that Jesus was raised to the celestial realm after his death, only that they say nothing about him appearing to people for forty days before that. And they simply believe in a spiritual resurrection of the dead, not a physical resurrection which is what is meant by the term when Christians use it. ...

Why do you think that Mark believed only in a spiritual, non-physical resurrection? Do you have any evidence for this?

... Indeed he simply believes the spirit of Jesus was raised to the celestial realm, not the physical body. In fact he goes on and on about this in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says there are "terrestrial bodies" and "celestial bodies", take note of verse 50 where he says specifically "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable", as mentioned earlier this is a direct contradiction to the later Christian doctrine of the resurrection. ...

This is not a contradiction of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, wherein we believe that all, not merely Jesus, will indeed be raised incorruptible and imperishable.

[Adrift]

Wasn't Carrier a member here for a while? Long time ago. I think JP ran him off.

If he was I don't remember it. Robert Price stopped in once, but LPOT annoyed him, and he left.

[Sparko]

If he was I don't remember it. Robert Price stopped in once, but LPOT annoyed him, and he left.

maybe that is who I am thinking of then. I know it was one of those "Jesus was a myth" fellas.

[element771]

If he was I don't remember it. Robert Price stopped in once, but LPOT annoyed him, and he left.

I remember when that happened.

[psstein]

What Paul understood by Jesus' resurrected body is certainly debatable, but the author of the gospel of Mark certainly believed in the empty tomb.

I would agree. I would also submit that Paul believes in a bodily resurrection, not a spiritual one.

The spiritual resurrection stems from the early days of NT scholarship, where liberal Protestants (like Von Harnack, Bultmann, Schweitzer) didn't believe in miracles, but wanted to believe in the claim of the Resurrection.

[shunyadragon]

Spiritual reserection?
Jesus ate with his followers after his resurrection. He showed Thomas his wounds. None of that is possible if it was a spiritual reserrection.

Be careful claiming what is possible or impossible concerning the metaphysical nature of what God may will to be.

[Carrikature]

As you likely know, the spiritual resurrection argument is one of the major arrows in the mythicist quiver, and to the consternation of historians everywhere, it's extremely popular among online atheists.

As I've previously mentioned on this forum, I once witnessed a conversation between a mythicist and a standard non-mythicist atheist where the mythicist was condemning the non-mythicist atheist for not endorsing mythicism. The mythicist's argument was that it didn't matter whether or not Jesus truly was historical. What was most important was to dissuade Christians (and people in general) from that belief, and in that way put the nail in the coffin of Christianity once and for all. He was convinced that no other argument could carry as much force. If this meant ignoring historical reality, well then the truth be damned. The ends justified the means.

Thankfully the non-mythicist atheist wasn't going for it, but I found the conversation extremely revealing. It also happens to fit Carrier's own mission statement,

"So great is the threat of this superstition against individuals, against society, against knowledge, against general human happiness, that it would be immoral not to fight it. . . . It was then that I realized, because of this threat and because of my own experience in not being able to find like-minded people to share thoughts with, I had to state my case and publish as much as I could to help others like me and to defeat the nonsense and lies that I saw being spread everywhere, and to answer the constant barrage of redundant questions I had faced ever since I allowed the Christian public to know I'm an atheist. And so began my online presence, eventually landing here as a member of the Internet Infidels."

This doesn't even read like a mission statement, let alone an "end justifies the means" approach.

[shunyadragon]

I would agree. I would also submit that Paul believes in a bodily resurrection, not a spiritual one.

The spiritual resurrection stems from the early days of NT scholarship, where liberal Protestants (like Von Harnack, Bultmann, Schweitzer) didn't believe in miracles, but wanted to believe in the claim of the Resurrection.

I believe that a spiritual Resurrection would also be a miraculous event.

[shunyadragon]

If you are going to have a discussion about the Resurrection, at least start with is widely accepted by actual scholars and not internet "academics". Just because you admit that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection, doesn't mean that you agree that they are correct. I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman argues for a bodily resurrection just as an example.

I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman does not argue for a bodily Resurrection. He is basically at present a non-believer. References to follow. He does give a rather lengthy discussion as to why early Christians believed and what it meant to them, and therefore later Christians believed in a bodily Resurrection.

[Adrift]

This doesn't even read like a mission statement, let alone an "end justifies the means" approach.

lol. Yes it does.

[robrecht]

I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman does not argue for a bodily Resurrection. He is basically at present a non-believer. References to follow. He does give a rather lengthy discussion as to why early Christians believed and what it meant to them, and therefore later Christians believed in a bodily Resurrection.

I suspect, from context, that element's point was that Bart Ehrman would interpret Paul as believing in a bodily resurrection, not that Ehrman himself believes in a bodily resurrection. Ehrman understands the ancient Greek belief in the actual and even superlative reality of spiritual/celestial/incorruptible realm. Thus, I understand element to be probably saying something like this:

... Just because you admit that the early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection, doesn't mean that you agree that they are correct. I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman argues [that Paul believed in] a bodily resurrection [without agreeing with Paul,] just as an example.

It is more of a modern distinction to speak of a contrast between the body and the spiritual. Paul believes that Christ was raised with a spiritual body. Spiritual and body are not contrasting opposites for Paul.

[Adrift]

I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman does not argue for a bodily Resurrection. He is basically at present a non-believer. References to follow. He does give a rather lengthy discussion as to why early Christians believed and what it meant to them, and therefore later Christians believed in a bodily Resurrection.

shunya, neither OBP nor element771 were suggesting that the atheists/agnostics they were referring to believe in either a spiritual or bodily resurrection. It was clear to EVERYONE except you that what OBP and element771 were saying is that the people they are referring to claimed that Biblical authors or the early church believed in a spiritual or bodily resurrection.

I know you are easily confused, but you do realize that Bart Ehrman can claim that the early church believed in a bodily resurrection without himself believing in the bodily resurrection, correct?, That's what element771 meant. That's what everyone except you understood him to mean.

[Jedidiah]

Be careful claiming what is possible or impossible concerning the metaphysical nature of what God may will to be.

[b] 43 and he took it and ate before them.

[DesertBerean]

Wasn't Carrier a member here for a while? Long time ago. I think JP ran him off.

He was. There was a discussion about a radio debate he was to have with a Christian where he misrepresented the results of the debate, and Holding got on his case about it. So did someone else, I don't recall who. He dropped out after that I think.

[TheWall]

Thank you for standing up for me Jed.