Someone stole the body!

[YahwehIsTheWay]

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...

[out of character]

Forgive me if I'm repeating what others have said. I'm just now reading the OP. 

I think Ehrman makes the mistake of assuming a burden of proof that the skeptic doesn't remotely have to accept. This plays into the hands of the apologist who is often skilled at making unwarranted assumptions, strawmanning all the undesirable "alternatives" and working backward to the desired conclusion. See "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" and "Would they die for a lie?" apologetic arguments for examples of this kind of flawed reasoning. 

To sum up the problems with these arguments: 
Step 1: Start with the desired conclusion 
Step 2: Use a false dilemma to create the "only alternatives"
Step 3: Straw man the "only possible alternatives" using Reduction to the Absurd, Appeal to Ridicule, invalid assumptions or other means. 
Step 4: Only the desired conclusion is left, allowing you to work backward to arrive at it. 

Example #1:
Step 1: Jesus must be the Lord
Step 2: The only alternatives is that he was lying or insane.
Step 3: Insane people never gain a cult following or ever give loving commandments. Ditto for liars.
Step 4: Therefore Jesus is Lord. 

Counter-argument: Ever seen the movie "The Road to El Dorado"? It features a hero Miguel who is a thief and a scoundrel. He comes to the ancient city of El Dorado where people think he's a god. At first, he plays along but his conscience sets in and he develops a connection with the people. He tries to create a kinder, gentler religion that the austere, bloody one that existed before. Is he a "demon", as Josh McDowell put it? Unable to offer any loving commandments? What about the insane argument? Are all insane people unable to lead cults? Not every insanity is the "in a corner, gibbering to himself" kind. 

Just watch. This seems like a perfectly plausible "Jesus" type character to me:





Example #2: 
Step 1: Jesus rose from the dead.
Step 2: Assume the Gospels are historical documents and not fanciful legends.
Step 3: The only alternatives are that Jesus survive the crucifixion, faked his own death or his body was stolen. 
Step 4: Assert that the alternatives aren't possible.
Step 5: Therefore, he rose from the dead. 

Counter-argument: IF Jesus existed and IF he was crucified and IF he was buried (going against Roman custom; they never allowed executed prisoners to be buried) and IF the body was later found to be missing then, um, well, that sure is nothing all right. We know WHERE we were supposed to find a body how? 

Example #3: 
Step 1: Desired conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead
Step 2: His followers were willing to die for their risen savior (Oh, were they now?)
Step 3: His followers were persecuted for their beliefs (Oh, were they now?)
Step 4: His followers refused to recant their beliefs (Oh they did?)
Step 5: No rational person would die for such a crazy belief unless they knew it was true (David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hale Bopp cult, these all don't count because... why again?)
Step 6: Therefore, Jesus did rise from the dead.

Counter-argument: This is using folklore to prove mythology. The evidence for first century persecution is scant. There's Seutonius' account of Nero blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome, but this is a story of scape-goating. There is no reason to think, if the emperor did frame them for being dangerous arsonists, that they would have been let off with a recanting of their faith any more than the Jews could escape the concentration camps by renouncing Yahweh. Later, in Pliny's letter to Trajan, he documents his own persecution of the Christians, wondering who the f they even are (didn't they burn the capital a generation earlier?) and how the Christians WERE willing to curse Christ under the threat of death. But even IF this folklore were true, early Christians going to the deaths with head held high, it would prove nothing. There are plenty of cults even today that feature both leaders and followers wiling to die for the most silly beliefs. Fanaticism proves nothing. 

All of these arguments are "swords in a field"




It is NOT my job as a skeptic to fill in all the blanks for you, to explain away all the mysteries of the universe, to fully unravel for you all the abstract questions about morality, meaning and purpose and put it all together in bite-sized, easily digested air-tight explanations (see the "moral argument" and the "transcendental" arguments for their god's existence). 

If I fail to do so, it does NOT mean you get to fill in all the blanks with your preferred mythology. 

If is YOUR job as a believer to fully assume the burden of proof and provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that a man rose from the dead and flew up into the sky to be with his father god in Heaven. I have no reason to even entertain the idea that there might be some truth to the legends and explain away how the supernatural DIDN'T occur. 

I've had many friends relate their experiences with the "supernatural" to me. Some had near-death-experiences. Some have seen ghosts. When I was a child, I had my own "experiences" that I can't explain. I always listen and nod with a "that's interesting". Sometimes they get annoyed with my lack of conviction. Do I think they're lying? No. I trust them with my life. Do I think they're crazy? No. Many of them seem more sane than me. What then? I don't know. They had an experience they can't explain. I had an experience I can't explain. There's no need to explain it. 

I simply don't know and that's a valid enough answer.