Ehrenkreuz

And how was the stone rolled away? It was guarded by Roman soldiers with the Emporer's seal. Any Roman centurian who slept on his watch and let such a seal get broken would pay for it with his life. Anyone group of people who would have rolled the stone away would have had to kill the Roman guards first. Is there any indication that the Roman guards were killed? Is there any indication that they were not? Yeah, according to the BIBLE, they were still alive and were told to say that the followers of Jesus came and stole the body. Can you reference any text other then the BIBLE to back that up?

its a Medal of Honor in Germany, if I remember correctly. You do remember correctly. Handed out during the Nazi era of Third Reich to citizens who displayed great courage/contributed strongly to the war effort.

And how was the stone rolled away? It was guarded by Roman soldiers with the Emporer's seal. Any Roman centurian who slept on his watch and let such a seal get broken would pay for it with his life. Anyone group of people who would have rolled the stone away would have had to kill the Roman guards first. Is there any indication that the Roman guards were killed? Is there any indication that they were not?

I wasn't even trying to deny the resurrection, I just wanted to see if anyone at all was open to the suggestion that Jesus didn't rise in the flesh, but purely in spirit. That he appeared to Mary and Mary, and the eleven apostles in visions and not in a body. I failed miserabely as you can easily bear witness. It just occured to me how much easier I could have swallowed the scriptures if they hadn't tried to tell me Jesus Christ had brought his three-day old corpse back to life and walked around it, but still managed to vanish in and out of middair and was unrecognizeable to the people who were closest to him in his life... But I understand that the resurrection was fundamental to the Christian faith. No resurrection, no religion. So that's how my theory came about. That's all it was, a theory. But you guys are like the Muslims, not much room for interpretation. Very defensive in the face of scrutiny. Although I'll concede that you won't see a Christian hijacker, or one in a dynamite vest. From the outside I can see that there are fewer differences between Islam and Christianity then you would like to believe, I'm sure.

At no point does Paul mention a dead body walking, a re-animated corpse etc.., or anything of the sort. 1 Corinthians 15:44-46, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." And I'm pretty sure I'm not taking this out of context either.. Not 100% sure.

So, yes, the body was missing. I never said it wasn't. Just because a body was no longer in a tomb does not mean that it was re-animated and walked out. I think a better point to put emphasis on would be the fact that the large stone had been rolled away; it would have taken several fully grown men to move the thing. It takes just one person to move a body. And, I quote from BibleGateway.com: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948). "vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7)." It has been generally accpeted that Mark originally ended at 16:8. 16:9-20 were probably added during the Medieval era. I kid you not.

To whom are you referring? To my knowledge there are only two mentioned in the Bible itself...Stephen, who was stoned in Acts, and the Apostle James who was also executed in Acts. As far as I can see, there is no mention of specifically what these people died for. And don't act so high and mighty as if Christians are the only religious people on earth who have ever died for what they believe in! Consider the Buddhist martyrs who paved the way for the Diem Regime in 1963!

The generally accepted chronological order in which the Gospels were written is this: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. Luke and Matthew both copy whole phrases from Mark and arrange them in an identical order as found in Mark, so it is clear that Mark came first among those three. Scholars dispute whether Luke preceded Matthew or the other way around, but it seems to me that, since they show no apparent awareness of each other, they were written around the same time, though scholars generally hold that Luke perhaps wrote later than Matthew. John presents the most theologically elaborate of the accounts, suggesting a late development, and even earliest Christian tradition held that this Gospel was the last to be written, and scholars generally agree on this. In Mark, there is no mention of an angel at all. Mary and Mary arrive at the tomb to find the stone already rolled away, and walk inside to find a man in white garment. It is said that Jesus is risen and will go to Galilee. Mary and Mary are too scared, and say nothing to anyone. In Matthew there is suddenly the addition of a great earthquake, as an angel descended from heaven and rolled the stone back before their very eyes. There were told, again, that Jesus would be in Galilee, but this time they seem to overcome their fears and run instantly to tell the disciples. Jesus appears to them and they kiss his feet and worship him. They tell the disciples, who rush to Galilee to the mountain and find Jesus. A few doubt him, but the rest worship him. He speaks to them. In Luke there is no mention of an angel descending from heaven, when Mary and Mary arrive the stone has already been rolled away. There is no one else around. While they deliberate on the fact that Jesus' body is missing they turn around to see two men in white who tell them that Jesus has risen and that they must tell the disciples that he will be in Galilee. Mary, Mary and Joanna, and the other women who were with them tell these happenings to the eleven apostles, who doubt them and head to the tomb first to see for themselves. They then sit around wondering what could have happened when Jesus comes to the eleven but they don't recognise him until he breaks bread with them, and blesses it. As soon as they recognise him he vanishes from their sight. In John the stone is one again already rolled away when Mary Magdalene alone arrives. When she sees Jesus' body she runs to get Peter, and 'that other disciple'. They all run to the tomb, but 'that other disciple' outstrips both Peter and Mary, to reach the tomb first. They all see there is no body, and the disciples leave Mary Magdalene alone. She weeps, and when she looks up from her weeping she sees two angels standing where Jesus had lain. When she sees them, she sees Jesus but does not recognise him at first. He says her name and then she does recognise him, and he says "17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Mary Mag. tells the disciples of her chat with Jesus. One day while the disciples are hiding from the Jews, Jesus appears in their midst. He later lets Thomas, who was not with the others, stick his finger in his wounds as proof. There was no mention of going to Galilee. As you can see there are a few discrepancies between the various accounts of the resurrection of Christ. The sources that were used to form the Bible are the only sources written near enough to the date of the actual event to be truly considered 'evidence' of anything. And even then, the earliest written gospel is dated around 70 AD (the destruction of Jerusalem.) I would put more faith in the letters written by Paul, the latest surviving of which can be dated to around 58 AD. And Paul makes no concrete mention of a physical rise of Christ. On the contrary, he refers to Jesus as a 'revelation'. The original accounts of a resurrection of a flesh-and-blood corpse (the last three gospels) show obvious signs of legendary embellishment over time, and were written in an age of little education and even less science, a time overflowing with superstition and credulity. Religious trust was won in those days by the charisma of speakers and the audience's subjective estimation of their sincerity, not by the merit of any form of substantial evidence.

I believe his body was raised, It was missing from the tomb, Matthew 28:5-7 5 But the angel answered and said to the women,

A couple of things, Ehrenkreuz. First, one can not see a spirit. Secondly, God's Word is final, without mistake. There are other things in the Bible that appear only once. Because you can not cross reference something, does not meant it is not true. First, None of this "God's Word is final" buisness, please. I'm sure that's fine when you're at church, but you sound rather pretentious from a non-believer's POV. Second, assuming that Jesus was only resurrected in spirit, it's still entirely possible that he appeared to the Disciples in a vision. Or a 'revelation' as Paul says in Galatians 1. And in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 44 Paul says, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." It may also be worth reading the verses that follow, as they cling to the same pattern. There seems to be a chance that Paul believed that Christ rose not in a flesh body, but in a spiritual body.

Jesus told Thomas to touch the holes in His hand. Yes, I'm aware, but this particular fact is not mentioned in the first 3 gospels and could therefore be disregarded a an fictitious embellishment. If I'm correct Doubting Thomas was mentioned only in John, which was written at least a decade after Luke and Matthew who make no mention of the event.

With regards to the resurrection, do you believe that Christ was resurrected in the flesh or merely in spirit? And why, please? I've seen other Christians go either way, I'm wondering what you guys think.