Someone stole the body!

[Pat Mustard]

This is not a thread for Jesus mythists, so let's suppose that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  Professor Bart Ehrman, in his 2008 debate with William Craig, gave a completely naturalistic explanation of Jesus' supposed "resurrection" from the dead, which I am going to embellish on my own:

1)  Around age 30 Jesus went down to Jerusalem for the first time from Galilee after being born in Nazareth, got busted by the Romans for causing trouble in the Temple, went before a Roman proctor (probably, never even met Pilate -- few, if any, criminals ever did), was labeled a loon and insurrector, and with some likely influence from the Jewish authorities, was executed by crucifixion.

2)  Jesus had some sympathizers, and with some influence, his body was handed over to them and buried in a tomb.  The Jewish authorities likely agreed to this as some sort of "peace offering" to Jesus' followers.

3)  However, some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.  But while they were traveling with Jesus' corpse, they were discovered by a Roman watch, confronted, and after a brief scuffle, they were all killed by the Romans.  Their bodies, along with Jesus', were buried in an unmarked grave.

4)  Later on some women followers of Jesus went to the tomb of his supposed burial and discovered that his body was missing.

5)  In the months and years following Jesus' death, his followers began having visions of the "risen" savior.

6)  Later on the letters of Paul were written (the earliest by Paul), and then the Gospels, Mark being the first.  After Mark, came Matthew and Luke, and finally, John, with its highly embellished accounts of Jesus' life, and finally, the Gospel of Peter, with even more embellishments than John.  It is likely that Mark contains some authentic history of Jesus, the fact that some women went to Jesus' tomb, discovering that it was empty and fleeing because "they were afraid" with Mark clearly ending at 16:8.  Later on the ending of Mark was embellished further.

From the description in the bible, Yeshua would not have been crucified. The "crimes" he committed were ones under Jewish sanhedric (religious) law, not under Roman state law (disturbing the peace in the temple, going around preaching without the equivalent of a licence were sanhedric crimes not Roman ones), and also, Iudea was not part of Rome proper, but a client state, at that stage. Sanhedric law didn't perscribe crucifixion as a death penalty but either hanging or stoning, and as Roman law wasn't involved the Roman state wouldn't have punished Yeshua.

Assuming that Yeshua was a real person, it is far more likely he wasn't killed (at least in the way described in the bible, and to be killed by jewish religious authorities is problematic for a putative messiah) and just disappeared into the mists. The crucifixion is then inserted into the stories of the cult growing around Saul of Tarsus to embiggen its supposed founder.

[Pat Mustard]

Ugh, die for a lie again. How many times can that corpse be dug up?

People can lie and yet state factually true things. They can also intend to tell the truth and state factually incorrect things. Lying is not relevant. Beliefs are not facts.

Jim Jones is refutation of the "die for a lie" bullshit, so is Waco, so are the thousands of committed brown and black shirts who died for Hitler in WW2 and many other groups of people who died on the orders of a charismatic leader who sold them a line of bullshit.

[Gemini]

I don't consider the story of the empty tomb to be an ironclad fact of history, in the same category as Caesar crossing the Rubicon.  

Thank you! It certainly isn't. Apologists love to reply that there are "so many early documents" that attest to the empty tomb, but the fact that people copied some religious propaganda frequently doesn't establish the historical veracity of any of it.

[Angrboda]

Even so, it is often said in objection that we can trust the Gospels more than we normally would because they were based on the reports of eye-witnesses of the event who were willing to die for their belief in the physical resurrection, for surely no one would die for a lie. To quote a Christian website: "the first disciples were willing to suffer and die for their faith...for their claims to have seen Jesus...risen bodily from the dead." Of course, the Gospel of Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn't believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all. But there are two other key reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons but doesn't hold water under rational scrutiny.

First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven.[17] And then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.

The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for.[18] In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.[19]

Yet that is the last record of any martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D.,[20] but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group--and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed--after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It is not what they died for.

As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were. There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain.[21] There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh...

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...cture.html

So what we have are secondary accounts of people who may or may not have been allowed to recant what they believed on the basis of hearsay. That's not a strong testimonial at all.

[Jehanne]

This is not a thread for Jesus mythists, so let's suppose that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  Professor Bart Ehrman, in his 2008 debate with William Craig, gave a completely naturalistic explanation of Jesus' supposed "resurrection" from the dead, which I am going to embellish on my own:

1)  Around age 30 Jesus went down to Jerusalem for the first time from Galilee after being born in Nazareth, got busted by the Romans for causing trouble in the Temple, went before a Roman proctor (probably, never even met Pilate -- few, if any, criminals ever did), was labeled a loon and insurrector, and with some likely influence from the Jewish authorities, was executed by crucifixion.

2)  Jesus had some sympathizers, and with some influence, his body was handed over to them and buried in a tomb.  The Jewish authorities likely agreed to this as some sort of "peace offering" to Jesus' followers.

3)  However, some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.  But while they were traveling with Jesus' corpse, they were discovered by a Roman watch, confronted, and after a brief scuffle, they were all killed by the Romans.  Their bodies, along with Jesus', were buried in an unmarked grave.

4)  Later on some women followers of Jesus went to the tomb of his supposed burial and discovered that his body was missing.

5)  In the months and years following Jesus' death, his followers began having visions of the "risen" savior.

6)  Later on the letters of Paul were written (the earliest by Paul), and then the Gospels, Mark being the first.  After Mark, came Matthew and Luke, and finally, John, with its highly embellished accounts of Jesus' life, and finally, the Gospel of Peter, with even more embellishments than John.  It is likely that Mark contains some authentic history of Jesus, the fact that some women went to Jesus' tomb, discovering that it was empty and fleeing because "they were afraid" with Mark clearly ending at 16:8.  Later on the ending of Mark was embellished further.

From the description in the bible, Yeshua would not have been crucified. The "crimes" he committed were ones under Jewish sanhedric (religious) law, not under Roman state law (disturbing the peace in the temple, going around preaching without the equivalent of a licence were sanhedric crimes not Roman ones), and also, Iudea was not part of Rome proper, but a client state, at that stage. Sanhedric law didn't perscribe crucifixion as a death penalty but either hanging or stoning, and as Roman law wasn't involved the Roman state wouldn't have punished Yeshua.

Assuming that Yeshua was a real person, it is far more likely he wasn't killed (at least in the way described in the bible, and to be killed by jewish religious authorities is problematic for a putative messiah) and just disappeared into the mists. The crucifixion is then inserted into the stories of the cult growing around Saul of Tarsus to embiggen its supposed founder.

Yes, the Romans pioneered federalism, and so, Judea was somewhat independent but the "sovereign power" was Rome.  And, they could crucify anyone whom the Empire deemed to be a threat to the Roman peace; as Jesus was not a Roman citizen, he did not enjoy the same rights under Roman law.  Likely, the story about him causing trouble in the Jewish temple was enough to get him arrested, and instead of a good flogging, some Jewish leaders likely convinced their Roman superiors to make an example out of him, which the Romans were all too happy to do.

[Jehanne]

I don't consider the story of the empty tomb to be an ironclad fact of history, in the same category as Caesar crossing the Rubicon.  

Thank you! It certainly isn't. Apologists love to reply that there are "so many early documents" that attest to the empty tomb, but the fact that people copied some religious propaganda frequently doesn't establish the historical veracity of any of it.

No, there are no early documents, basically, Paul and Q (neither of whom mention any miracles of Jesus nor the idea that he was the "incarnate God") and Mark, so there are three quasi-reliable sources at most, which are, themselves, theological works and not disinterested, dispassionate sources of history; they all have theological axes to grind.  Contrast this with the Jewish historian Josephus who mentions triviality after triviality in the 1st century but ignores Jesus completely, the fraudulent insertion not withstanding.

[Jehanne]

...some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.

There are other reasons to speculate why the disciples would steal the body, like intentional deception, which seems far more likely although implausible within the larger context of the Gospel accounts from Passion to Pentecost. Could it happen? I suppose it is remotely possible. Seems pretty unlikely that grieving family and the disheartened disciples would risk confrontation with armed Roman soldiers just because they didn't like where or how Jesus was interred. Granted, an atheist would consider it even more unlikely that a miracle happened, so I don't think it's really worthwhile present the Cross as historical fact to such people.

No street lights, radios, infrared detectors, etc.; they likely thought that they would "slip in" and out, and would not even been seen by the Romans, especially, given the holiday festivities.

[Godscreated]

Everyone needs to forget the recanting and understand these people died for their belief in who Jesus was, the Messiah. That means they believed in the virgin birth, his life lived sinless on earth, his death and resurrection and that He is the Son of God. So with this said, yes they believed in his resurrection.

 There is only one place Jesus life is recorded, the Bible and that is where we have to start and end, the rest spoken here and by others over the ages and around the world are only speculation, and everyone admits they are speculation. No evidence has ever been offered to these speculation and it's certainly true no facts have been produced for them. So why do people accept single accounts about history and claim them as truth when no facts or evidence are produced. Shouldn't the records of the NT be accepted as the other history, but then the atheist would have to believe right, right. So people dismiss the NT so they can reject God, now this is a logical conclusion a true statement.

 All the different speculations given in this thread are childish at best, why, because they do not consider the NT account to be true, none of it, yet there is no proof given that the biblical account is not the truth, only speculations. Most of the speculation twist what the Bible says so those people can speculate, is this the honesty we should expect from anyone, no, this is a moving moral standard to satisfy those who have no desire to believe. 

GC

[Neo-Scholastic]

Everyone needs to forget the recanting and understand these people died for their belief in who Jesus was, the Messiah. That means they believed in the virgin birth, his life lived sinless on earth, his death and resurrection and that He is the Son of God. So with this said, yes they believed in his resurrection.

 There is only one place Jesus life is recorded, the Bible and that is where we have to start and end, the rest spoken here and by others over the ages and around the world are only speculation, and everyone admits they are speculation. No evidence has ever been offered to these speculation and it's certainly true no facts have been produced for them. So why do people accept single accounts about history and claim them as truth when no facts or evidence are produced. Shouldn't the records of the NT be accepted as the other history, but then the atheist would have to believe right, right. So people dismiss the NT so they can reject God, now this is a logical conclusion a true statement.

 All the different speculations given in this thread are childish at best, why, because they do not consider the NT account to be true, none of it, yet there is no proof given that the biblical account is not the truth, only speculations. Most of the speculation twist what the Bible says so those people can speculate, is this the honesty we should expect from anyone, no, this is a moving moral standard to satisfy those who have no desire to believe. 

GC

Your point is generally valid with one nitpick. The bible is not one source. There are 4 Gospel accounts and these are four sources. Even if the synoptics are grouped together John is still an independent tradition. That makes it a minimum of 2 sources. But like I said. Atheist have no other reason to reject the gospels than the fact that they record miracles. If they had no miracles they would be accepted without question.

[Silver]

Everyone needs to forget the recanting and understand these people died for their belief in who Jesus was

Let me stop you right there.

Plenty of people die for what they believe in, but there is still no evidence that what they believed in was real.