Some self-professing Christians try to make the resurrection less offensive or far-fetched by claiming Jesus was resurrected in spirit, but not in body.
This “solution” tries to ride the fence and satisfy both sides, but it ends up satisfying nothing. This does not answer the question of the empty tomb, since the body would still be there if it was only a spirit resurrection. It would still be a miracle and a supernatural event, but would not be what the New Testament writers say they saw. Jesus told Thomas to place his hands in the scars. Jesus ate bread and fish with his disciples.
He purposefully set out to prove that He was not simply a spirit, but He was alive with a glorified body. If you believe in a miracle, why not believe what the authors wrote? And what do you do with the empty tomb? This solution is too politically correct and not supported by any evidence.
Hi
The whole dispute seems like a sideshow to me, straining at gnats as it were while missing the camel. Supposing (as I do) that Jesus’ self sacrifice provides us with justification and life, whether or not his Resurrection was physical or spiritual is an irrelevant bit of trivia. If being open to the idea of Spiritual resurrection makes it possible for a particular person to embrace the Lord, what would be your beef with that?
your friend
Keith
I'm not sure if there is a doctrinal reason why, except to say that the scriptures are clear that he had a physical body after he rose from the dead.
So, if you want to disagree with the written record, you can, but why would you? Why would someone want to argue for a non-physical body?
One other reason why – if people are motivated to do good by a lie (no physical resurrection), that in principle is not good. Truth matters.
Because as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 if Jesus was not resurrected (and he is talking about a bodily resurrection) then our faith is in vain.
Besides, there is no evidence for a spiritual resurrection. It doesn't answer any of the questions – empty tomb, etc.
If it is part of someone's moving toward God and belief in Christ that is one thing, but it should not be part of the theology of a mature believer.
…the question of the empty tomb
I saw this great takedown of Christian apologist Lee Strobel’s “Empty Tomb” argument for the divinity of Jesus on The Atheist Experience.
It reminded me of a funny scene from the film
“The Messenger:
The Story of Joan of Arc” (1999).
Cin, that was horrible weak. “The Atheist Experience” cannot be the best out there. He was completely ignorant of the mass amounts of extrabiblical records of Jesus. It’s beyond reckless and maybe even stupid to broadcast yourself out there as shooting down someone else’s argument when yours can be destroyed after your first sentence.
Atheists need to get their ducks in a row. Most of you are fairly well educated. Please stop with the idiocy of “Jesus never really existed.” Strobel (even I) could take down that silliness in no time by listing the numerous mentions of Jesus in Roman and Jewish historical sources.
You totally missed the point. An empty tomb signifies nothing.
I understand his argument, but he screwed whatever point he was making by suggesting that Jesus never existed. I also understand that by itself an empty tomb suggests nothing, but that ignores all of the issues around the empty tomb.
You miss my point. The whole argument was a strawman and weak one at that. If you just point to an empty tomb and say “Yep, Jesus is alive” of course that is worthless. Strobel, and every other apologist that references the empty tomb, does so within a context of other evidences and the historical facts surrounding Jesus and the birth and growth of Christianity.
But the fact remains that I cannot take any argument seriously when they are so ignorant of the facts that they are not aware of the vast amount of extrabiblical and non-Christian references to Jesus and his life. When someone makes stupid statements like that they loose any respect I may have had for any of their following arguments because they have obviously not done enough research or given the subject even thought to consider them knowledgeable enough for my time. They seem to just be spouting talking points that sound good on atheist chatrooms. It is clear that the Atheist Experience guy has never debated any serious (or even half-serious) Christian scholar since his decision to reject Christianity.
He should have went on to seminary and gotten people to give him serious answers for his serious questions, instead of simply giving up. He said he kept his faith compartmentalized to be safe from skepticism. That was the problem. A compartmentalized faith is destined to fail. I probably have and have had many of the same doubts that he had (has), but I investigated within Christianity and found satisfactory answers. My God was big enough to handle all my doubts and questions. He and I seem a lot alike, as far as our history, but I pushed past ignorant Christians who were not willing to treat questions (or God’s answers) with respect. It seems he was unable to do that. I feel sorry for him. I’m sure he would say the same for me. But regardless, his answers are weak.
I didn't think point was weak at all. I don't understand why this has gotten you so worked up either. I think that a man who people call Jesus might have existed. Maybe, he was a great teacher of morality. But, there is nothing historical, aside from the bible, that corroborates with the "son of god" claims of the bible. Strobel's claim that the empty tomb is somehow evidence is, as you point out, weak. The atheist experience guy illustrates the paucity of evidence Strobel has, as does the Joan of Arc clip.
I've actually read one of Strobel's books. The one where he interviews Christian historical scholars about the historical veracity of Jesus. So, I know Stobel's arguments. I just don't find them convincing. Christians though find them air tight, of course.
Also, if you want to see a good debate try this one…
Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate – Westminster Theological Seminary
I don't understand why this has gotten you so worked up either. I think that a man who people call Jesus might have existed. Maybe, he was a great teacher of morality. But, there is nothing historical, aside from the bible, that corroborates with the "son of god" claims of the bible.
Ignorance gets me worked up. It's not directed at you, but rather at anyone who is so ignorant of the issues that they can insist that Jesus never existed. There is no "maybe" unless you want to deny all of history – holding the existence of Jesus to a level that no other historical figure is held.
Again, if you believe that Strobel's only point is that an empty tomb is there so that proves Jesus is alive then you miss the point. As I said, it's part of a whole combination of arguments. The establishment of Jesus as a historical figure, the examination of testimony outside the Bible, the aftermath of the claimed resurrection, those and more flow into and from the argument using the empty tomb.
As to "nothing … aside from the bible," that depends. We see other sources (Roman and Jewish) reporting that Christians from early on worshiped him as a god and claimed he did miracles. But overall that's a faulty argument and standard to place on Christian witnesses. If they say that Jesus is God then they are untrustworthy, but if they disagree then we can use them as history. That standard begs the question, you don't allow any reports from Christians because they are biased, but those who disagreed with Christians and wanted to squash the religion – their testimony is iron-clad. You read your skepticism back into history and disallow sources with whom you disagree – not a good way to go about it.
I don't find Strobel's arguments "air tight" but compelling and logical. There is a difference, as I know you know. No one (well no one serious) is trying to demonstrate that Christianity is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. We only want to show that our belief is rational and logical.