why did jesus body disappear...

[angellous_evangellous]

i'll give credit where credit is due,
bart d ehrman's
jesus, interrupted

you didn't think i came up with this on my own?

haha - thought it looked familiar, lol.

I met Bart about this time last year. Nice guy.

 

[waitasec]

As I mentioned, he had to fulfill the prophecy in Psa 16:10 to prevent decaying in the grave. Not the case for us.

believers may want to call that a prophesy
but a lot of people would disagree

 

[waitasec]

haha - thought it looked familiar, lol.

I met Bart about this time last year. Nice guy.

i liked his sensitive approach
something i need to apply more often...

 

[james2ko]

believers may want to call that a prophesy
but a lot of people would disagree

So we've come full circle and ended up where we started Hope I was able to answer your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but answered nevertheless.

 

[waitasec]

So we've come full circle and ended up where we started Hope I was able to answer your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but answered nevertheless.

thanks for tryin'

 

[james2ko]

thanks for tryin'

BTW. I left out a few scriptures of Peter and Paul explaining why Jesus body was missing. Not that it will change anything but for the sake of completeness.

Act 2:27 For You will not leave My soul among the dead or allow Your Holy One to rot in the grave.

Act 2:31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades[the grave], nor did His flesh see corruption.

Act 13:35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO SEE CORRUPTION.'
​

 

[waitasec]

BTW. I left out a few scriptures of Peter and Paul explaining why Jesus body was missing. Not that it will change anything but for the sake of completeness.

Act 2:27 For You will not leave My soul among the dead or allow Your Holy One to rot in the grave.

Act 2:31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades[the grave], nor did His flesh see corruption.

Act 13:35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO SEE CORRUPTION.'
​

i appreciate your persistence
one thought came to mind... everything in acts was written after the fact to explain the missing body.
the psalm passage is a song of david...it's about david
consider the following verse

You will show me the way of life,
granting me the joy of your presence
and the pleasures of living with you forever
to me it's something a warrior king would say to god
my crude paraphrase...

"i know you won't let me fail/die because i'm doing this for you and you will grant me victory so that i may live forever by your side."

 

[Katzpur]

just like you said there is a transformation... not with jesus though
if you believe the bible jesus said, "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"

are you contradicting paul?
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven

all these scriptures you brought to my attention are speaking of the transformed heavenly bodies not our earthly ones...

There is a difference between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bones." "Flesh and blood" is a phrase used a half dozen or to times in the scriptures to denote a state or mortality or to represent mortal man. "Flesh and bones" is used once -- to describe Jesus Christ as a corporeal being, a resurrected man, whose body had been given new life by the spirit which had left it at death. There is nowhere in the scriptures where we are told that "flesh and bones" cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven," because it can. When we are resurrected (as when Christ was resurrected) we will receive a perfect immortal body, a corporeal body which is no longer subject to death or disease. Jesus ascended into Heaven with such a body where He sits today on the right hand of the Father.

 

[james2ko]

i appreciate your persistence
one thought came to mind... everything in acts was written after the fact to explain the missing body.the psalm passage is a song of david...it's about david consider the following verse

You will show me the way of life,
granting me the joy of your presence
and the pleasures of living with you forever
to me it's something a warrior king would say to god
my crude paraphrase...

"i know you won't let me fail/die because i'm doing this for you and you will grant me victory so that i may live forever by your side."

Every credible scholar and theologian on the planet knows Psalm 16:10 is talking about the resurrection of Christ not David. Why do you think "Holy One" is capitalized in all of the doctrinally sound translations?

Besides how could David be referring to himself as the "Holy One" when God wouldn't even let him build the temple because He considered David "a man of war that has shed blood"? (1 Chronicles 28:3)

I appreciate your effort.

 

[waitasec]

Every credible scholar and theologian on the planet knows Psalm 16:10 is talking about the resurrection of Christ not David. Why do you think "Holy One" is capitalized in all of the doctrinally sound translations?

Besides how could David be referring to himself as the "Holy One" when God wouldn't even let him build the temple because He considered David "a man of war that has shed blood"? (1 Chronicles 28:3)

I appreciate your effort.

i wouldn't say every credible scholar, only the ones that subscribe to your understanding. notice other translations like the new living translation or the amplified version does not have it capitalized
the NIV says "faithful one" or holy with a small "h"

if you read the context of the entire psalm it is not about jesus
it is called the song of david
not a psalm of the messiah...
you can cherry pick a few verses here and there but why do that? read it in it's context...

he refers to himself as the holy one because he was king david, wasn't he?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

There five options here from the most likely to the least likely
A. It just decomposed.
B. It is buried somewhere in an unmarked grave.
C. Jesus never existed in the first place.
D. He was cremated.
E. He rose bodily from the dead up to Heaven.

 

[waitasec]

There is a difference between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bones." "Flesh and blood" is a phrase used a half dozen or to times in the scriptures to denote a state or mortality or to represent mortal man. "Flesh and bones" is used once -- to describe Jesus Christ as a corporeal being, a resurrected man, whose body had been given new life by the spirit which had left it at death. There is nowhere in the scriptures where we are told that "flesh and bones" cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven," because it can. When we are resurrected (as when Christ was resurrected) we will receive a perfect immortal body, a corporeal body which is no longer subject to death or disease. Jesus ascended into Heaven with such a body where He sits today on the right hand of the Father.

the new living translation says
What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

the message says
I need to emphasize, friends, that our natural, earthy lives don't in themselves lead us by their very nature into the kingdom of God. Their very "nature" is to die, so how could they "naturally" end up in the Life kingdom?

i guess everyone has their own subjective point of view
if god were real then our collective experience would be objective...and this is just one of the many subjective points of views that are held...

 

[waitasec]

There five options here from the most likely to the least likely
A. It just decomposed.
B. It is buried somewhere in an unmarked grave.
C. Jesus never existed in the first place.
D. He was cremated.
E. He rose bodily from the dead up to Heaven.

or his body was fed to the dogs...which is what they did to dispose of the crucified, so i've heard here on the RF
something that was brought to my attention

"The information presented on the Roman practice of crucifixion shows that the very act of taking a body down from the cross for burial was, if practiced at all, the exception to the rule. The popular phrase "Food for Crows," the line about the crucified being an "ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs," the response of Tiberius to the request for burial, the comment from Horace, and finally the story from Petronius about the guard who allowed the body to be stolen off the cross all indicate that part of the very shame of crucifixion was the denial of burial rites as a last act of humiliation. Moderns do not quickly recognize the cruelty of this, but in ancient times to die without proper burial was considered a most horrible fate, particularly to the Jews. Yet, as Sloyan shows, crucifixion itself was an exercise in cruelty. Reserved for "slaves and those who threatened the existing social order," it cannot be assumed that any mercy would be shown to one who had been considered deserving crucifixion.

The exceptions truly are exceptional. As Brown indicates, the comments of Ulpian and Paulus in favor of permitting burial - except, as always, for treason - apply to the more clement situation in Rome. Philo of Alexandria indicates that a case of releasing the body was a somewhat unordinary gesture of goodwill that was extended on a Roman holiday yet sometimes not even then.

If one thing is clear, however, it is that no leniency is shown for those who fall under the banner of insurrection, sedition, or treason against Rome. Although Brown makes a distinction between maiestas in Roman jurisprudence that would apply strictly to those arranging military manouvers as opposed to a more informal execution of a perceived instigator or trouble-maker by the governor of a province, the principle in either case is the same. To respect a common crucified criminal with honorable burial is unusual, but to respect one who is perceived as a threat to Roman rule is, well, right out.

Some might wish to avoid this conclusion by declaring the Sanhedrin to have charged Jesus with blasphemy. Yet this is no better. Clearly, those sentenced to execution by the Sanhedrin were not to be given honorable burial."

for those who have ears...
:sarcastic
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated: Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial

 

[james2ko]

if you read the context of the entire psalm[/U][/B] it is not about jesus it is called the song of david not a psalm of the messiah...

In context in light of not only the chapter but other scriptures.

he refers to himself as the holy one because he was king david, wasn't he?

Peter and Paul did not have a problem identifying the Holy One. Why are you?

you can cherry pick a few verses here and there but why do that? read it in it's context...

I agree

 

[waitasec]

In context in light of not only the chapter but other scriptures.

why?
it was a song of david
maybe you should read what levite wrote;

And, as always, fundamentalism is never a friend to religion. It clouds the issues, it seeks to replace the complexity of thought, the freedom of speculation, so necessary to keeping alive a tradition of revelation, with easy answers, or at least pat answers, oversimplification, and avoidance of real issues. Unfortunately, for too many people, especially in America, their experience misleads them to equate fundamentalism with religion, and thus become dismissive of religion as a whole; which is a great loss for non-fundamentalist religion, which is always in need of more people willing to wrestle with hard questions.

 

[idea]

if flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god?
I Corinthians 15:50

some say flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom... flesh and bone does...

also, from Plan of salvation/Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven - FAIRMormon

The early Christians interpreted this scripture to mean something very different than our critics do. The following are some of their thoughts.
In 207 A.D., Tertullian taught: “‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’. He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, deprive men of the kingdom of God.”[1]
Novation noted in A.D. 235that “When it is written that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’, it is not the substance of the flesh that is condemned...but only the guilt of the flesh.”[2]
Photius quoted Methodius in A.D. 290 as saying “‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’..By ‘flesh’, he did not mean the flesh itself, but the irrational impulse towards the immoral pleasures of the should.”[3]
The great father Origen also taught a deeper, alternate meaning for the word 'flesh' in A.D. 225:
At the time of the flood, when all persons had corrupted their way before God, it is recorded that God spoke in this manner, concerning undeserving men and sinners: ‘My Spirit will not abide with those men forever, because they are flesh.’ By this it is clearly shown that the Spirit of God is taken away from all who are unworthy.[4] Tertullian also taught that Christ has a body of flesh and bone, yet dwells in the heavens. “Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father. He is man, yet also God. He is the last Adam; yet, He is also the primary Word. He is flesh and blood, yet purer than ours, and he will ‘descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven.’ That is, He will be the same both in substance and in form.”[5]
Tertullian could have partially been basing this belief off of Luke 24:39 when Christ admonishes the Apostles to touch Him. He said "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
Conclusion

To intepret 1 Corinthians to mean that no flesh and blood can enter into heaven discards the beliefs of several founding fathers of modern day Christianity. They correctly taught the true meaning of the word 'flesh' as not being literal, otherwise, Christ Himself would not be allowed into heaven.
While Latter-day Saints do not base their theology on tradition or the early Fathers, that early Christians agree with modern-day revelation is another witness of its accuracy.

 

[idea]

i guess everyone has their own subjective point of view..

those who have not seen God have a subjective pov.... those who have actually seen Him know better

the apostles saw Jesus, they knew....

 

[james2ko]

why?

it was a song of david

Originally Posted by Levite
And, as always, fundamentalism is never a friend to religion. It clouds the issues, it seeks to replace the complexity of thought, the freedom of speculation, so necessary to keeping alive a tradition of revelation, with easy answers, or at least pat answers, oversimplification, and avoidance of real issues. Unfortunately, for too many people, especially in America, their experience misleads them to equate fundamentalism with religion, and thus become dismissive of religion as a whole; which is a great loss for non-fundamentalist religion, which is always in need of more people willing to wrestle with hard questions.

Opinions are nice. But I prefer to base my beliefs on scripture---all of it--- (Luke 4:4)

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

or his body was fed to the dogs...which is what they did to dispose of the crucified, so i've heard here on the RF
something that was brought to my attention

"The information presented on the Roman practice of crucifixion shows that the very act of taking a body down from the cross for burial was, if practiced at all, the exception to the rule. The popular phrase "Food for Crows," the line about the crucified being an "ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs," the response of Tiberius to the request for burial, the comment from Horace, and finally the story from Petronius about the guard who allowed the body to be stolen off the cross all indicate that part of the very shame of crucifixion was the denial of burial rites as a last act of humiliation. Moderns do not quickly recognize the cruelty of this, but in ancient times to die without proper burial was considered a most horrible fate, particularly to the Jews. Yet, as Sloyan shows, crucifixion itself was an exercise in cruelty. Reserved for "slaves and those who threatened the existing social order," it cannot be assumed that any mercy would be shown to one who had been considered deserving crucifixion.

The exceptions truly are exceptional. As Brown indicates, the comments of Ulpian and Paulus in favor of permitting burial - except, as always, for treason - apply to the more clement situation in Rome. Philo of Alexandria indicates that a case of releasing the body was a somewhat unordinary gesture of goodwill that was extended on a Roman holiday yet sometimes not even then.

If one thing is clear, however, it is that no leniency is shown for those who fall under the banner of insurrection, sedition, or treason against Rome. Although Brown makes a distinction between maiestas in Roman jurisprudence that would apply strictly to those arranging military manouvers as opposed to a more informal execution of a perceived instigator or trouble-maker by the governor of a province, the principle in either case is the same. To respect a common crucified criminal with honorable burial is unusual, but to respect one who is perceived as a threat to Roman rule is, well, right out.

Some might wish to avoid this conclusion by declaring the Sanhedrin to have charged Jesus with blasphemy. Yet this is no better. Clearly, those sentenced to execution by the Sanhedrin were not to be given honorable burial."

for those who have ears...
:sarcastic
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated: Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial

Eaten by dogs, I like that a kind of like accelerated form of decomposition such as one method I heard of in India where they cut the body into small pieces and throw it to the vultures in a custom of aerial burial.

 

[waitasec]

those who have not seen God have a subjective pov.... those who have actually seen Him know better

the apostles saw Jesus, they knew....

and ultimately, that is your subjective opinion