Someone stole the body!

[robvalue]

If they trust god's plan for us so much, why are they here screwing with it?

[Minimalist]

Xtians hate questions.

[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Step 2: Assume the Gospels are historical documents and not fanciful legends.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. 

[Minimalist]

[Angrboda]

Speaking of "would not die for a lie," I'm reminded of the Jews in Spain at the time of the Inquisition. They were persecuted and driven out of Spain, even many who recanted, because it was never about what they believed. Those that were granted reprieve by recanting went on to be persecuted again in a second round of recriminations. The Conversos were persecuted as much as the Jews driven out before. And when the same fate befell the Conversos, it mattered not that they had recanted.

[Jehanne]

Jehanne

Question for yah, GC, "What happens to an infant child who dies without sacramental Baptism, that is, water baptism using the Trinitarian formula -- 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son....'?"

 That infant goes to God to live eternally with Him. Baptism doesn't get you into heaven, the thief on the cross is proof of that, Jesus told him,"today you will be in paradise with me."

Yet another contradiction between Mark, where both thieves mock Jesus, and Luke, where only one does.

Who knows, who cares?!  Saint Augustine taught that the thief on the cross in Luke's Gospel was, in fact, baptized sacramentally, albeit, from a distance.

Historically speaking, however, GC, your beliefs about infant baptism are rather novel, because every Church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic practiced such from the 2nd century on and no theologian until the time of Calvin ever disputed the practice of infant Baptism.

I do, and I don't that they are authentic; they were written by various anonymous authors at the end of the 1st century on into the beginning of the 2nd century, who contradicted each other in the faith that they were trying to pass on.  They went through several layers of redaction and modification before settling down sometime in the 3rd and 4th century into what, eventually, became the accepted New Testament.  And, even then, the so-called doctrines and dogmas continued to evolve into the tens of thousands of different sects that we see today.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. The writers were not even trying to write the NT, they were trying to advise the people in the new churches, the NT was later put together, all the writers of the letters that are now the NT were dead before the 2nd century so no letters in the NT can have come from the writers. Those letter are not contradictory, they all teach the same thing, faith in Christ the Son of God, born of a virgin, died for our sins and raised from the dead is the only way to heavenly life. There was no redaction and possibly only one addition and that is not in contradiction to any thing in the NT. The Catholic Church has distorted the NT along with the Jehovah Witness Church, to make it fit to their beliefs. Yes there are differences in interpretation of some of the NT and most of that has nothing to do with how to become and live as a Christian.

One wonders how you know this, GC, because your views are contrary to every single historian who has ever lived over the last 2 centuries.  Have you ever heard of the Councils of Nicaea?  How do you think that the early Church decided, among the 130 or so "inpsired" writings of the early Christian church, as to which ones to include in the Canon and which to exclude?  Now, you think, presumably, that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and yet the Gospels themselves make it clear that the disciples of Jesus were peasants from Palestine, which means that they were illiterate and spoke Aramaic, not Greek.  And, so GC, who wrote the Gospels?

[Jehanne]

Speaking of "would not die for a lie,"  I'm reminded of the Jews in Spain at the time of the Inquisition.  They were persecuted and driven out of Spain, even many who recanted, because it was never about what they believed.  Those that were granted reprieve by recanting went on to be persecuted again in a second round of recriminations.  The Conversos were persecuted as much as the Jews driven out before.  And when the same fate befell the Conversos, it mattered not that they had recanted.

Let's be absolutely clear; none of the disciples of Jesus were martyred.  If you have historical evidence of that (and, of course, this is directed more at GC than "you"), then please state it.  No 1st-century sources exist on the fate of any of the disciples.  It is only in the 2nd-century non-canonical sources (which GC rejects) that the first mentions of the fate of the disciples comes to light, and these accounts are all legendary and highly embellished.

As for the Spanish Inquisition, it never tried anyone who was Jewish, but rather, individuals who had "falsely" converted to Catholicism but had lapsed back into the practice of Judaism.  It was a horrible institution, but during its worst periods, only around 100 individuals were executed per year, and if this number seems "excessive", also understand that many of these individuals were also guilty of secular crimes that had merited the death penalty.  In fact, it was common for criminals to feign heresy to get their cases transferred from secular, royal courts to those of Church courts.  I am not defending the Inquisitions, of course, but they are a source of legends, also.

[Jehanne]

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. 

Great analysis!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Schizophrenics sometimes make similar claims.  Next time "god" is speaking to you, ask him/her/it for something useful, say, what parents of children who are dying of cancer can do to spare those young lives from death.

 Yes they do, however we know they are schizophrenics and I do know something about it, I work with a young lady who is schizophrenic and hears voices, and most of the time I can tell she is hearing them even when she's trying to hide it. We talk about it then pray and the voices always go away.

GC

Are you sure she's a schizophrenic?   If she can't tickle herself she isn't one.

[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...

[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. 

---

Ehrmehgerrrrd YITW has lost her mind! She's speakin gibberish. Get her to a homeopathic hospital, stat!!!!1*1!1!!1!!!1!111!eleventybillion

---

In case all the !s didn't give it away, plus my kudos, well done on the post

---