Cross Examiner

After years of exhaustive research, carefully examining the record regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you are confident that:

Peter Kirby

Where's the option for execution but no tomb burial? There are three ways that I specify that this could happen in my essay recently published in The Journal of Higher Criticism (titled "The Case Against the Empty Tomb" -- Word document available if you e-mail me).

1. Jesus was left hanging on the cross for the birds. This possibility is highlighted by several ancient references. See Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), p. 16. Also see Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), v. 2, pp. 1207-1208.

2. The Romans disposed of the body, perhaps in a “limed pit.” Marianne Sawicki, Seeing the Lord: Resurrection and Early Christian Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 257.

3. The body of Jesus was buried in a criminal’s grave by Jews. For this possibility, see the procedure as described in Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5.

The fourth non-empty-tomb possibility that I mention is that the body of Jesus remained in the tomb, but it's not my favorite.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings all,

I voted "Jesus did not exist"
but thats not exactly how I see it.

I think Iesous Christos DID exist (e.g. in the mind of Paul) as a spiritual entity some sort - and that in Paul's mind this Iesous Christos produces something like what we might call a "soul" now.

I think its obvious that Paul believed Iesous Christos EXISTED - but its NOT obvious HOW he existed.

Thus, I try to use phrases such as :
"Jesus was not a historical person"
or
"Jesus did not exist PHYSICALLY"

Iasion

Peter Kirby

Quibble: shouldn't it say, "his tomb was empty"? His tomb, if it ever was, exists no longer (in the form of a tomb).

best,
Peter Kirby

Family Man

I'd have to say that I agree with Peter in that your list is not exhaustive. The true answer is probably not in there, but in Peter's

Having said that, it ought to be obvious that your last option, that we'll never really know, is correct regardless of whatever option you choose to believe. It's one of the great conveniences of Christianity -- we'll never really know, will we?

Cross Examiner

yeah yeah I know. It could've been more precise. It can always be more precise. I whipped this out in 5 min and wanted to get the general pulse at infidels only. IMO, mission accomplished.

You'll note that I chose "confidence" (or not) in the resurrection over "know"-ing (or not) that the resurrection occurred. This was one of the few intentional forethoughts I had before creating the poll

Regards,
BGic

Family Man

I am very confident that the body of Jesus rotted away just like almost every other person in the history of the world, probably in the limepit or the criminal grave. Ultimately, however, there is no way of knowing exactly what happened.

I apologize for the pedantry, but your last option states knowledge, which is why I posted the way I did. But I do understand now what you meant.

WinAce

I'm favoring the hypothesis that the empty tomb was a post-70 AD embellishment and Jesus' body was disposed of elsewhere.

However, the advantage of an empty tomb hypothesis would be that it offers an easy explanation for the origin of the resurrection belief. If there was an apparent lack of a body where it "should have" been, I can easily envision the early Christian movement regrouping and assuming this was God's plan all along.

Then again, the resurrection belief can be accounted for in other ways. Misidentification, hallucination of one of the disturbed women, a bunch of people getting together and "feeling Jesus inside their hearts" despite the fact he was dead, etc.

Asha'man

My "most likely series of events" is that a man named Jesus was stoned and hanged around 78BC, under King Jannai or his wife Helene. His body was taken down and buried before nightfall, and the story ended there.

More than a century later, a new cult was building it's mythology, and the name of Jesus was distantly recalled.

There was no physical Jesus in the first century, just myth, but there was an earlier historical Jesus who lent his name and location to the myth.

Koyaanisqatsi

And let's not forget that the creator of this myth (Mark) states quite clearly that the tomb was not empty; there was a "young man" in white robes sitting in the already open tomb. Why this man is not identified or questioned is left to the apologetic that he was an angel (as augmented by Matthew), which means that the author of Mark did not know what the term for "angel" was (which is clearly not the case, since he uses it previously).

IMO, the author of Mark is telling you exactly what happened (if anything). Jesus' body was either never put in the tomb to begin with, or simply moved in order to promulgate the resurrection myth.

That no one (either theist or atheist) ever seems too concerned about the fact that the tomb was open when the Mary's came and sitting inside it was an anonymous young man (yes, "young man" and not "angel") who implants the resurrection myth in the minds of these uneducated, grief stricken loved ones, who would not only be prone to believe anything they were told at that point, but desiring to hear such miraculous news and would therefore be the perfect tools for spreading a resurrection myth is beyond me.

This notion that these people were all somehow intelligent, well educated skeptical people is nonsense. Remember, all of them already believed in godhead and, apparently, that the dead could rise and men could walk on water and that an imaginary fairy god king-like being could smite their enemies and that demons caused sickness and possession (in pigs, no less) and that snakes and burning bushes and donkeys could speak, etc., etc., etc.

It would be the easiest thing in the world (and apparently was) to trick them into believing any thing one wanted them to believe; particularly the women who came to mourn the loss of their loved one, who they already, apparently, believed was a messenger from god in some manner due to his alleged "miraculous" healings (that now, after I've read all of the hashish/cannibus threads regarding the oil used to annoint the sick, makes fraud all the more apparent).

It would be similar to us going to the Bikini Atols and convincing the locals that relocating them in order to test our atomic weapons was ordained by god (which is precisely what we did, after first having indoctrinated those islanders into christianity long before). People that already believe such things are not, almost by definition, very critical thinkers.

Why, however, more atheists around these parts simply accept the apologetic that the "young man" sitting in the open tomb was supposed to be an angel is beyond me.