Im sure God could vanish the bones or decompose them but Im really not sure what to do if you have actual bones given the empty tomb. Ill have to think about this more. Then again Im not sure how you ever prove they are Jesus’ actual bones.

I think corporeal resurrection matters, and matters greatly, just not the assertion that the bones “were supposedly utilized in the resurrection miracle.” The point is that he is living breathing flesh not that his body is composed of the exact same matter he occupied when living.

However, for Christians, the resurrection is probably the central part of the message–it’s what makes Jesus unique. Some would call Jesus merely a prophet, but the resurrection makes him more than a prophet. The resurrection proves he is divine. From this point of view, finding the bones is problematic, because they were supposedly utilized in the resurrection miracle. For Christians (Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants/Mormons), finding the bones should be problematic, because it calls the gospel accounts of the resurrection into question.

However, the Gnostic position seems to be more appealing. Perhaps they had it right (or at least this part of the story right) after all?

I get why all this might matter to people who believe that Jesus has to have a specific bone in his new body or that he has to have magic dna but perhaps we should consider that divinity comes from who we are and how we act (we are all invited to follow in his steps and do even greater works according to him) and not from special dna. Virtue and goodness seem much more important than super powers or super whatever from dna.

So the concept that resurrection involves the physical reuniting of our spirit with our actual prior physical remains previously “laid to rest” is difficult to reconcile with the reality that each individual alive today incorporates material from the terminal remains of countless, perhaps millions of people who lived and died in ages past. Many of the atoms in our bodies may have each passed through many lives before finding their way into our physical structure. If every dead body headed for ressurection had to assert a claim check on each of its atoms, there would be many claims for almost every atom.

I don’t know how resurrection physically proceeds, but it seems to involve a process which does not necessarily involve the reincorporation of the physical body we left at death. If that is true, finding the bones of an allegedly resurrected being doesn’t really inform us as to whether resurrection actually took place or not. It is a non-issue.

Of course, there are counters to that, too. But that’s right about where my mind settles. The “test” of scripture, to me, is whether I read it and whether the information contained therein resonates with me spiritually. Which the Book of Abraham does.

It would be strange to find the bones of Christ, however. We’d have to somehow reconcile everything we know about the Apostles and early Christianity with this new information. The Apostles all testified that the Tomb was empty, and that Christ literally took up His body again. It seemed that the fact that Christ’s new body still had the scars in his hands and feet and side was intentional – to prove to the witnesses that it was indeed the same body. So were the Apostles hallucinating, or were they actively trying to deceive everyone? Christ’s tomb didn’t seem to be a secret. There were guards at the tomb. Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man. If it was an active deception, and the Apostles were lying about Christ and perhaps rolled away the stone while the guards slept and stole the body, why would they “label” the tomb where we hypothetically find Christ’s bones? And why would they spend the rest of their lives covering up this deception, perhaps even giving their lives? Finding the bones of Christ would be a big problem that doesn’t make much sense given all the other information we have.

So I, like the others, might be having a hard time understanding your post. As in, what are you REALLY asking?

BTW, Mormon Coffee had a very interesting debate on almost exactly the same question here.

In a nutshell, this was their claim: That finding the body of Christ would be a big problem for Christians — since “Faith must me anchored in reality or else it is not true” — unlike Mormons who just ignore the mountains of evidence against their beliefs.

(And note that that post brought me out of my lurkdom on that site to dispute their comparison of the evidence…)

Bruce Johns, if Jesus bones were found, I think it would give some credence to the report in the NT that Jesus body was stolen, which is why the tomb was empty. Certainly, it seems to call the 4 Gospels’ conclusion that the tomb was empty because the bones were used in the resurrection.

Recently, I saw one TV documentary where 2 ancient cities that were destroyed catastrophically fit Sodom & Gomorrah in date & location. Distorted walls & fallen towers showed a big earthquake did great damage there. But, until someone finds definite proof, no one will know for sure. A friend said they need to find the “Welcome to Sodom” sign to know.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have lumped you in with Dexter’s comment, though he did agree with you enthusiastically. I specifically used the word “dismiss”, because that was the word Dexter used. I see you didn’t like my “dismissal” of your argument, and I hope you see that I don’t like Dexter’s “dismissal” of my argument as non-scientific. While I agree that there is certainly much faith involved in my position, Dexter’s tone was tactless (more so than yours.) My comment was more of an illustration that we should be more tolerant of other’s disagreement. As I’ve said before, I usually disagree with Cowboy, but his tone is respectful, and he doesn’t come off as offensive. I hope you’ve noticed that I can get a little irritated with overly zealous TBM’s as well.

I agree that John Hamer’s point is well taken. My purpose was to illustrate some beliefs about the resurrection that are usually taught in church. While I am sure people on the bloggernacle think option #2 is the best, I’m not so sure that typical “chapel” Christians would be comfortable with that position. I think many people have said that if the bones are out of the grave, then that person has been resurrected. Certainly, the NT talks about the graves which opened up and the saints appeared to many upon Christ’s return. This story seems to imply that the bones were used as material for the resurrection. Also, the story of a Lamanite child’s bones disturbed due to farming, and the flesh suddenly appearing on the bones does not seem to support option #2 either. I don’t believe option 2 is commonly believed by most Christians in general, especially since many Christians have ethical problems with stem cells and cloning.

If God was the literal contributor of 50% of Jesus’ DNA, then either He must maintain the earthly type of nucleic acid genetic material(or have it banked), or has the power to assemble nucleic acids to form genetic material as needed.

The website that has the apologetic writing about the Adam God theory contains the BY conjecture that God and his Wife came down to the newly created-yet perfected earth and partook of the fruits composed of the dust of this earth in order to obtain the elements needed to create a tabernacle for Adam’s spirit. That would suggest an opinion–only opinion of course–that Celestial bodies DO have different properties than we now possess.

yes, kari and dexter, and skeptics will continue to dismiss spiritual arguments when they fail to give religious arguments any validity

If that’s the way you feel, why even write such a post as this?. If you don’t want cultural mormon skeptics to be involved in the discussion, don’t invite the discussion with topics like this, stick with testimony bearing. But it seems obvious to me that you’re longing for the attention/discussion when you post both here and on your personal blog.

If you want to have an actual discussion, I will rephrase my point. If skeptics think that the discovery of Jesus’ bones would mean the destruction and downfall of Christianity, there is a real life example that would suggest otherwise. When the Joseph Smith papyri were found and translated the translation turned out to be nothing like the foundational book of scripture that claims to be a translation from those very same papyri. Did the LDS church fold up and whither away? No. It has continued to grow and expand, becoming a truly international church.

So why would we think that Christianity would be any different? Different movements within Christianity would come up with all sorts of arguments and explanations that would allow believers to continue to believe. Would some persons leave Christianity over such a find? Yes, just like some have left the LDS church over the Book of Abraham. Would Christianity fail? Even as a skeptic and non-believer I would answer this question “no.”

So if Jesus mortal bones were found, would that mean he wasn’t resurrected? IMO, the two are unrelated. As N (#8) pointed out, there’s too much shared carbon among life forms to beleive individuals will be resurrected from the exact molecules that composed their mortal bodies. (If JS is right about animal resurrection, all the meat-eating animals will be short on material, if herbivores are resurrected first. And what about the sailors eaten by sharks…)

I think the answer is that resurrected, celestial bodies are made from celestial material with different properties than we now possess (e.g. Moroni coming THROUGH the ceiling of JS’s bedroom) So if we assume that bones could be proven to be Jesus’ it still wouldn’t impact my faith even a little.

I think opinions 1 and 3 in the OP are easily dismissed using the standard works.

As to Jesus’ bones, I can already write the apologetics: resurrected beings are clones of some sort vs. actually restoring the existing corpse to life.

John Hamer’s point is well taken. I’ll only add that it would be far more damaging to Christianity to determine through an examination of the earliest scriptural codices that none of the early Christians believed Christ was divine, or IOW, to determine that the concept of divinity was fabricated at a date that is proven to be much later. Then Christianity might go the way of Buddhism or Islam, not go away, but change the theology significantly to fit that kind of model – Jesus as a model for spiritual teaching vs. an atoning messiah.

People who want to believe will find ways to dismiss the science. People who don’t want to believe will put stock in the science.

Some might think that “the very foundations” of the CoJCoLDS would be shaken. Yet we know the answer to this question: the LDS church has continued to grow since the papyri were found and translated in 1967. The church and apologists came up with lots of ways to mitigate or outright dismiss the modern translation of these texts, and the church went on with nary a hiccup.

Why would we think Christianity as a whole would be any different if the bones of Jesus were found?