The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[WinePusher]

. . . . the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb. This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Are there other sources for this guard detail, apart from Matthew?

If I remember correctly the Gospel of Peter references guards at the tomb. But remember there are only two possible scenarios. Either guards were present at the tomb or guards were not present at the tomb. The claim that guards were present at the tomb is clearly documented in the Gospel of Matthew, ambiguously documented in the Gospel of Peter and is also supported by circumstantial evidence. The claim that there were no guards present at the tomb is supported by nothing, so I find it ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves as empiricists) are leaning towards a claim that has absolutely no evidence for it.

[scourge99]

. . . . the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb. This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Are there other sources for this guard detail, apart from Matthew?

If I remember correctly the Gospel of Peter references guards at the tomb. But remember there are only two possible scenarios. Either guards were present at the tomb or guards were not present at the tomb. The claim that guards were present at the tomb is clearly documented in the Gospel of Matthew, ambiguously documented in the Gospel of Peter and is also supported by circumstantial evidence. The claim that there were no guards present at the tomb is supported by nothing, so I find it ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves as empiricists) are leaning towards a claim that has absolutely no evidence for it.

Testimony isn't empirical evidence. So a strict empiricist would reject the stories in the Bible.

I'm not a strict empiricist and most atheists i encounter aren't either. But there is a big difference between testimony and hard evidence.

[WinePusher]

The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb. This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Christans (like educhris) have told me that the resurrection was a surprise. That no one saw it coming. Yet you seem to be saying that a resurrection (or fake resurrection) was anticipated. So who is right and who is wrong? Was the resurrection anticipated or not. If it wasn't then your argument falls apart. If it does then I'm interested to understand how you came to that conclusion when other Christians come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I don't know what EduChris means. Jesus certainly did publicly predict his death and resurrection and it's undoubtedly true that the Roman's knew of this, as did Jesus' disciples. Perhaps EduChris is referring to the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion as it did throw the disciples into a state of confusion and panic, and in this case Jesus' resurrection would have come as a shock to them.

In addition, the willingness of the disciples to due for their faith shows that they did not steal the body. Humans are rational beings and would not die for something they knew to be a lie.

Jim jones, Joseph smith, heavens gate, and many more people were willing to die for their beliefs (heavens gate members castrated themselves!). Some of them were probably lying. That doesn't make their claims anymore likely true.

Please stop using this bad argument.

I was actually going to say the exact same thing to you. Please stop using this bad argument. Referencing Jim Jones and other fanatic cult members seems to be a favorite line among the atheists on this board and it's a terrible argument. We both agree that people are willing to die for their beliefs, this has been demonstrated throughout the course of human history. What we apparently don't agree on is that people are not willing to die for something they know to be a lie. That defies all laws of rationality. Humans are rational, self interested beings. Using the logic behind behavioral social sciences (ie: bounded rationality, rational choice theory, and many other model depictions of rationality) there is no way the disciples would have willingly died for their beliefs if they stole the body and lied about Jesus' resurrection. This indicates that the disciples did not steal the body and that they sincerely believed they witnessed and experienced Jesus after he rose from the dead. I have an entire body of knowledge to back up my position. What exactly do you have? Jim Jones, the heaven's gate cult? You really think that these examples refute the vast body of knowledge that's gone into researching rationality? I think that your examples constitute a few insignificant outliers that can be brushed aside.

[Danmark]

I don't know what EduChris means. Jesus certainly did publicly predict his death and resurrection and it's undoubtedly true that the Roman's knew of this, as did Jesus' disciples.

"Certainly" and "undoubtedly" are mighty bold words to use regarding a prediction recorded decades after the event. I think we can all agree that for a prediction to have merit it at least needs to be made before the event.

[Jax Agnesson]

. . . . the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb. This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Are there other sources for this guard detail, apart from Matthew?

If I remember correctly the Gospel of Peter references guards at the tomb. But remember there are only two possible scenarios. Either guards were present at the tomb or guards were not present at the tomb. The claim that guards were present at the tomb is clearly documented in the Gospel of Matthew, ambiguously documented in the Gospel of Peter and is also supported by circumstantial evidence.

(What circumstantial evidence?)

The claim that there were no guards present at the tomb is supported by nothing, so I find it ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves as empiricists) are leaning towards a claim that has absolutely no evidence for it.

As a non-generic atheist, i have to say I find the 'guards' story problematic.
Matthew's account gives the impression that they were Roman guards, seconded from Pilate, (although might they have been Temple guards, and the Chief priests went to Pilate only for permission to deploy them?).

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again. 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.

65 Take a guard, Pilate answered. Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how. 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Then, after witnessing the resurrection, the guards went straight to the Chief priests, who, astonishingly, believed their claim.

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep. 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

If the chief priests did not believe the guards' testimony, why would they offer the bribe? If they believed that things had happened exactly as they had predicted, (ie the disciples had managed to steal the body, as feared) why not have the guards disciplined for dereliction? The only way I can read this account is that the chief priests actually believed the resurrection had happened, and they bribed the guards to tell 'lies' about it.
But that makes no sense either.
Put yourself in the place of the Chief Priests. You have spent all your life serving the God of Israel. This man who claimed to be a prophet has been put to death, (possibly even with your connivance) and now it turns out that he has risen from the tomb! Remember this is a decision taken by a whole council. This is on the day when people all over the town are reporting that the 'saints' are rising up out of their graves, and walking the streets of Jerusalem. So what do you do? Do you fall down and pray to your (notoriously vengeful) God? No. You just bribe the guards to keep shtumm, as if that's going to keep the lid on stuff.
What are these chief priests? Atheists or something?

Now look at it from the guards' POV.
You are witnesses, (the only actual witnesses) to the greatest miraculous event that has ever happened since the Creation itself. You are physically there, and you see things that stun you totally, for some length of time. Even if you are Roman pagans, you believe in gods. Further, you have been briefed, at least sufficient to know what to be on the lookout for. You know why you have been posted to watch this tomb. You know that some sort of a resurrection is supposed to have been foretold. And standing there in the very spot where God is working His mightiest work, as an Angel descends from the sky, and the stone rolls back from the romb, you would feel the Almighty power of that event.
So you run to the high priest, and your intense, probably frantic, account of what happened is of such conviction that the priests believe you. They don't assume you took a bribe or get drunk or slipped off home for the night. They bribe you to SAY that you failed in your duty.
So you put aside your wonder and awe; you put aside your professional pride; you walk through the streets, into the taverns, where everyone else is telling these awestruck tales of saints rising from their graves, and you say 'No such luck for us. This one didn't rise from his grave. Not the one we were supposed to be watching. We fell asleep and his mates came and nicked his corpse from under our noses. We're the only ones in Jerusalem who haven't witnessed a resurrection today. And we're really crap soldiers as well.'
How much did the priests have to bribe these men, to get them to respond like that, after they had actually been present at the resurrection of the Son of God?
Sorry, the story is incoherent.

I can accept that a preacher (called Issa or Yehoshua or something that the Romans could translate as 'Iesu') got crucified, by the Romans, possibly with the connivance of the chief priests. I can accept that his body disappeared in unexplained circumstances. But if I were trying to present a credible argument for the historicity of the resurrection, I'd keep well away from Matthew's account. It really doesn't help your case.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Let's just cut through the pointless extraneous stuff and go right to the heart of the matter.

You should have never brought up all the 'pointless extraneous stuff' to begin with.

If it served to bring you back into the discussion then it served it's purpose. If you were always intending to return anyway, then we are beyond that now.

You never denied the empty tomb? Then what was the point of arguing with my topic if you agree that the tomb was empty and that Jesus existed? Are you just trying to be argumentative?

I do have an argument to make. At some point you might even begin to pay attention to it.

I have said repeatedly that natural explanations are more plausible than supernatural explanations. What I mean by this is at face value, the stolen body hypothesis better explains the empty tomb than the resurrection hypothesis. You see, I'm able to concede facts that actually harm my position without any hesitation. That's called being intellectually honest.

Yes it is. And something of a first. Let's see if we can build on it.

Yes! All of our experience indicates that natural explanations are overwhelmingly more plausible, and therefore overwhelmingly more likely to be true, then supernatural explanations.

Yes.

Again, we now have something to build upon.

Here's what I mean: There is no historical evidence to support the stolen body hypothesis.

Really? None at all? First and foremost, the disciples DID NOT HAVE TO STEAL THE BODY OF JESUS. It was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit, given to Joseph of Arimethea, A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, by Pilate on the Friday before Passover. The disciples initially chose to take the body to Joseph's newly constructed but never before used family crypt because it was late in the day and the tomb "WAS NIGH AT HAND" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus was crucified. These sorts of expensive tombs were not constructed for the purpose of containing a single corpse, they were commonly used by the rich, and they were intended to house multiple generations of dearly departed FAMILY MEMBERS. Lot's of examples exist in that place from that era. Typically a raised ledge was cut into the rock for laying out the corpse, and niches were cut into the walls. After the passage of a few months the bones of the departed would be placed into stone ossuaries, customarily with the name of the deceased carved into the stone, and the ossuary would then be placed into one of the niches. The burial of family members with other family members is common to this day, and it was very much the custom of the Jews at the time. Joseph's newly constructed family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. It was simply conveniently located close to the place of crucifixion and served as a private place to prepare his body. And prepare it they did.

Gospel John 19:39-40:

[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Given the state of preservation techniques available to these individuals 2,000 years ago, heavily wrapping and coating the body in 100 pounds of aromatic herbs to suppress the odor of decay could hardly have been more useful then if they had done it intentionally for the purpose of transporting the body on a journey of several days. Which they in fact had every legal right to do.

It is merely a convenient alternative explanation to the resurrection. I agree completely that the stolen body hypothesis makes more sense than the resurrection, and if some guys grave was found empty I'd conclude that the body was dug up and stolen by grave diggers. I would not conclude that the body magically arose out of the ground. But like I said, the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb.

An alternative explanation to the story in which the corpse comes back to life and flies away, is that a group of the close friends of the dead man quietly took his body home for burial. How totally unbelievable is that? The Roman Governor GAVE THE BODY OF JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES TO DISPOSE OF AS THEY SAW FIT. Joseph of Arimethea was a rich man, and so a considerable gift to the governor for such a favor is implied here. Pilate was not known for being soft hearted. But the body was now the property of Joseph. So was the tomb. The priests had no authority to simply take possession of Joseph's personal property on their own authority, so the next day the priests became concerned, went to Pilate and requested that a guard be established at the tomb. Pilate then authorized the priests to use THEIR OWN MEN to guard the tomb, noting that they had a guard at hand. Which they would have. He's talking about their personal body guard. Matthew 27:66 specifically indicates THAT THE PRIESTS SET THE WATCH. No Roman guards are anywhere mentioned.

This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Not at all! The priests went out to the tomb, the entrance to which was blocked by a large boulder, and they posted a guard. Specifically however THEY DID NOT OPEN AND INSPECT THE TOMB? Why? BECAUSE IT WAS THE SABBATH AND PASSOVER. So they took the only obvious course of action open to them. They placed seals on the tomb to insure that the integrity of the tomb, AT THAT TIME, would remain until such time as the tomb could be inspected. And when would that be? The earliest and most discreet time to have been in the dark early hours of Sunday morning, AFTER THE HOLY DAY HAD PASSED, while people would be yet asleep. The seals tell us SPECIFICALLY that the priests and guard were unsure of the contents of the tomb. The seals would serve to protect the honor of the guard against any possible charge of dereliction of duty should the tomb ultimately prove to be empty. WHICH IT DID! The obvious solution to the "mysterious" empty tomb is that the corpse of Jesus was already gone when the guard was posted. This is no mere assumption. Since the possibility that the corpse came back to life and left the area on it's own has ZERO probability, the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that the body had already been removed when the priests arrived. Who were the last ones to be clearly in possession of the body of Jesus? That would be HIS DISCIPLES. Matthew 27:60 indicates that after the disciples finished with their preparation of the body, they sealed off the entrance with a large stone and left. Since the tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning we have every reason to suppose that the body was already gone at this point. Matthew 28:16 informs us that the apostles undertook a journey to Galilee at this point. The dead man's home region. If his friends DIDN'T take him home for burial, something that the body was already well prepped for and something they had EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO DO, one would have to wonder why?

In addition, the willingness of the disciples to due for their faith shows that they did not steal the body. Humans are rational beings and would not die for something they knew to be a lie.

This contention would carry more weight if it were actually grounded in the facts. Acts 4 32-37 indicates that the disciples had it pretty darned good, traveling about telling stories of Jesus and living off the largess of their audience. Compared to the backbreaking and dangerous work of fishing, or that most dangerous of professions, tax collecting, this must have seemed like an extended vacation. Act 5:26-42 depicts them being arrested. But an influential Pharisee named Gamaliel defended them. What are they doing after all, but proclaiming a bodily resurrection from the dead. Something which the Pharisee firmly believe in, but which was denied by the Sadducee. And so to prevent conflict the disciples are set free with only a beating. Which they seem happy to take.

And so it continued for the disciples for a number of years, telling their stories of the risen Jesus in relative freedom. And then at the beginning of Chapter 12 James the brother of John is arrested and beheaded by Herod Agrippa. Peter is also arrested in chapter 12, but subsequently escapes. After his escape Peter decides to depart "into another place." In other words, discretion being the better part of valor, he took a powder. Most of the rest of the apostles, excepting Peter himself who does later return to Jerusalem, disappear from the narrative of Acts at this point as well, having chosen to also depart into other places. Chapter 12 of Acts ends with the death of Herod Agrippa. Herod Agrippa died in 44AD. Jesus was executed circa 27-30AD. So for some 14 years or so the apostles and other disciples went about telling stories of the risen Jesus rather remarkably free from serious interference. After chapter 12, most of the apostles disappear from the narrative, at which point Acts becomes mainly the Paul story. There is no scriptural affirmation of your claim that they died for something they knew to be untrue. The common stories of the various martyrs deaths suffered by the apostles is a product of the baseless assumption and unfounded traditions of later generations of Christians. Such traditions have no validity founded in historical fact. Like so much of Christian mythology, Roman guards at the tomb for example, you folks simply made it up, circulate it among yourselves, and then declare it to be true as a matter of common assumption dictated by what would necessarily have been true based on what surely must have been true.

[scourge99]

The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb. This is a piece of information that harms the stolen body hypothesis.

Christans (like educhris) have told me that the resurrection was a surprise. That no one saw it coming. Yet you seem to be saying that a resurrection (or fake resurrection) was anticipated. So who is right and who is wrong? Was the resurrection anticipated or not. If it wasn't then your argument falls apart. If it does then I'm interested to understand how you came to that conclusion when other Christians come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I don't know what EduChris means. Jesus certainly did publicly predict his death and resurrection and it's undoubtedly true that the Roman's knew of this, as did Jesus' disciples. Perhaps EduChris is referring to the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion as it did throw the disciples into a state of confusion and panic, and in this case Jesus' resurrection would have come as a shock to them.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 485#499485
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 296#405296

Where among my general criteria--prophet, priest, king, and sacrificial lamb--do I mention anything about "resurrection"? The resurrection was a surprise, by the power of a God who (per the Hebrew text) often surprises.

ThatGirlAgain wrote: We also notice that a number of times after the resurrection people do not recognize Jesus when they see him...
educhris:Why should we be surprised about this? No one was expecting to see Jesus alive again,

It appears you and educhris are in disagreement. You seem to think the resurrection was anticipated by the disciples. And that the Romans/pharisees were expecting a hoax resurrection to occur.

Since this thread is only about your beliefs, then it doesn't matter what other Christians think. But i thought I'd bring it up to clarify.

In addition, the willingness of the disciples to due for their faith shows that they did not steal the body. Humans are rational beings and would not die for something they knew to be a lie.

Jim jones, Joseph smith, heavens gate, and many more people were willing to die for their beliefs (heavens gate members castrated themselves!). Some of them were probably lying. That doesn't make their claims anymore likely true.

Please stop using this bad argument.

I was actually going to say the exact same thing to you. Please stop using this bad argument. Referencing Jim Jones and other fanatic cult members seems to be a favorite line among the atheists on this board and it's a terrible argument. We both agree that people are willing to die for their beliefs, this has been demonstrated throughout the course of human history. What we apparently don't agree on is that people are not willing to die for something they know to be a lie. That defies all laws of rationality. Humans are rational, self interested beings.

Presumably you agree that Jim Jones and his follows and the heavens gate people died for their beliefs. Yet your argument is that people don't die for things they believe to be a lie. Clearly these people didn't believe it was a lie. Does that somehow make their claims more believable? Did Jim Jones and his followers and the Heavens Gate followers "die for a lie"?


If Jim Jones and Heaven's gate is too extreme then what about Joseph Smith and the early Mormons? Many were killed including Smith for their beliefs. Is this "evidence" that Joseph Smith's claims are true? After all, many of the early followers wrote documents asserting the truth of Smith's claims. According to your criteria, its true or more likely true because of this. They wouldn't believe and die for their beliefs if they knew it was a lie. Therefore the best explanation is that Joseph Smith actually was a prophet of God???

Using the logic behind behavioral social sciences (ie: bounded rationality, rational choice theory, and many other model depictions of rationality) there is no way the disciples would have willingly died for their beliefs if they stole the body and lied about Jesus' resurrection. This indicates that the disciples did not steal the body and that they sincerely believed they witnessed and experienced Jesus after he rose from the dead. I have an entire body of knowledge to back up my position. What exactly do you have? Jim Jones, the heaven's gate cult? You really think that these examples refute the vast body of knowledge that's gone into researching rationality? I think that your examples constitute a few insignificant outliers that can be brushed aside.

If you can't see how simple and wrong this argument is then there is no point in continuing this aspect of the discussion. It blows my mind you persist with the argument that a religion or claim is true or more likely true because someone is willing to die for it.

[Danmark]

Presumably you agree that Jim Jones and his follows and the heavens gate people died for their beliefs. Yet your argument is that people don't die for things they believe to be a lie. Clearly these people didn't believe it was a lie. Does that somehow make their claims more believable? Did Jim Jones and his followers and the Heavens Gate followers "die for a lie"?


If Jim Jones and Heaven's gate is too extreme then what about Joseph Smith and the early Mormons? Many were killed including Smith for their beliefs. Is this "evidence" that Joseph Smith's claims are true? After all, many of the early followers wrote documents asserting the truth of Smith's claims. According to your criteria, its true or more likely true because of this. They wouldn't believe and die for their beliefs if they knew it was a lie. Therefore the best explanation is that Joseph Smith actually was a prophet of God???
.... [feckless argument redacted] ....
If you can't see how simple and wrong this argument is then there is no point in continuing this aspect of the discussion. It blows my mind you persist with the argument that a religion or claim is true or more likely true because someone is willing to die for it.

Correct you are. If being willing to die were any indication of validity then every suicide would stand for the validity of the argument that life is not worth living.

[WinePusher]

Here's what I mean: There is no historical evidence to support the stolen body hypothesis.

Really? None at all? First and foremost, the disciples DID NOT HAVE TO STEAL THE BODY OF JESUS. It was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit, given to Joseph of Arimethea, A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, by Pilate on the Friday before Passover.

*Facepalm....Do you even realize that what you're saying actually supports my position? Yes, the disciples did not have to steal the body because they were legally entitled to it. Why then would they put it in a tomb only to come back a few days later in order to steal it, which is what your contention is.

Given the state of preservation techniques available to these individuals 2,000 years ago, heavily wrapping and coating the body in 100 pounds of aromatic herbs to suppress the odor of decay could hardly have been more useful then if they had done it intentionally for the purpose of transporting the body on a journey of several days. Which they in fact had every legal right to do.

And what is your point? Sure, I'm not going to deny that what you've written here is informative but does it support your claim that the disciples stole the body from the tomb and that there is historical evidence to support this? No.

It is merely a convenient alternative explanation to the resurrection. I agree completely that the stolen body hypothesis makes more sense than the resurrection, and if some guys grave was found empty I'd conclude that the body was dug up and stolen by grave diggers. I would not conclude that the body magically arose out of the ground. But like I said, the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb.

An alternative explanation to the story in which the corpse comes back to life and flies away, is that a group of the close friends of the dead man quietly took his body home for burial. How totally unbelievable is that?

At face value it isn't unbelievable. But when you take background information into consideration it creates more and more holes in the stolen body hypothesis that you've been unable to account for. Read what I wrote again. I mentioned two historical problems that the stolen body hypothesis creates: 1) how would it have been possible for the disciples to raid the tomb and steal the body if the tomb was being guarded by Roman soldiers who were anticipating this? And 2) why would the disciples willingly die painful, gruesome deaths for something they knew to be a lie? Neither you nor the stolen body hypothesis adequately explains these two things. So like I said, scientifically speaking the stolen body hypothesis best explains the empty tomb because it's highly unlikely for people to come back to life. But historically speaking the resurrection is a better explanation because while it is scientifically improbably, it accounts for the historical facts better than any natural explanation can.

The Roman Governor GAVE THE BODY OF JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES TO DISPOSE OF AS THEY SAW FIT. Joseph of Arimethea was a rich man, and so a considerable gift to the governor for such a favor is implied here. Pilate was not known for being soft hearted.

Proof? I'd say the opposite. Pilate was soft hearted and reluctant to have Jesus crucified. All you have to do is read any of the passion narratives in the Gospels to see that Pilate was indeed 'soft hearted.'

Pilate then authorized the priests to use THEIR OWN MEN to guard the tomb, noting that they had a guard at hand. Which they would have. He's talking about their personal body guard. Matthew 27:66 specifically indicates THAT THE PRIESTS SET THE WATCH. No Roman guards are anywhere mentioned.

Actually, the nationality of the guard is not mentioned. But that is besides the point. The point is that there was a guard at the tomb, whether this is one guard or multiple guards is not made clear. Also, the priests you mentioned had every incentive to ensure that the disciples did not steal the body which is why Matthew says the secured the tomb.

[WinePusher]

I was actually going to say the exact same thing to you. Please stop using this bad argument. Referencing Jim Jones and other fanatic cult members seems to be a favorite line among the atheists on this board and it's a terrible argument. We both agree that people are willing to die for their beliefs, this has been demonstrated throughout the course of human history. What we apparently don't agree on is that people are not willing to die for something they know to be a lie. That defies all laws of rationality. Humans are rational, self interested beings.

Presumably you agree that Jim Jones and his follows and the heavens gate people died for their beliefs. Yet your argument is that people don't die for things they believe to be a lie. Clearly these people didn't believe it was a lie. Does that somehow make their claims more believable? Did Jim Jones and his followers and the Heavens Gate followers "die for a lie"?

The fact that they died for their beliefs shows that they genuinely and sincerely believed. That is all I'm saying. It doesn't show the belief to be absolutely true, but it does lend more credibility to it and it discredits the idea that the belief was based on a hoax or a lie. Speaking directly to the resurrection, the fact that the disciples died shows that they did not steal the body from the tomb.

Using the logic behind behavioral social sciences (ie: bounded rationality, rational choice theory, and many other model depictions of rationality) there is no way the disciples would have willingly died for their beliefs if they stole the body and lied about Jesus' resurrection. This indicates that the disciples did not steal the body and that they sincerely believed they witnessed and experienced Jesus after he rose from the dead. I have an entire body of knowledge to back up my position. What exactly do you have? Jim Jones, the heaven's gate cult? You really think that these examples refute the vast body of knowledge that's gone into researching rationality? I think that your examples constitute a few insignificant outliers that can be brushed aside.

If you can't see how simple and wrong this argument is then there is no point in continuing this aspect of the discussion. It blows my mind you persist with the argument that a religion or claim is true or more likely true because someone is willing to die for it.

To a certain extent it does. The fact that people are willing to go to their deaths for a belief lends additional credibility to the belief itself, granted it may not be that much. Like I said, there's this thing called rationality and self interest which is one of the main motivators for human behavior. Using this as a starting point, a person would never willing die for something they knew to be a lie and the fact that people do die for their beliefs shows that it is subjectively true for them, and it provides the belief with additional objective credibility.

If I remember correctly the Gospel of Peter references guards at the tomb. But remember there are only two possible scenarios. Either guards were present at the tomb or guards were not present at the tomb. The claim that guards were present at the tomb is clearly documented in the Gospel of Matthew, ambiguously documented in the Gospel of Peter and is also supported by circumstantial evidence. The claim that there were no guards present at the tomb is supported by nothing, so I find it ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves as empiricists) are leaning towards a claim that has absolutely no evidence for it.

Testimony isn't empirical evidence. So a strict empiricist would reject the stories in the Bible.

I'm not a strict empiricist and most atheists i encounter aren't either. But there is a big difference between testimony and hard evidence.

Depends what the testimony is based on. Testimony may not specifically be empirical evidence per say, but it is evidence nonetheless. So it's ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves to be evidenced based) would reject these biblical claims that do have testimonial evidence for them. And if you reject testimonies then I don't see how you can accept anything about ancient history, since all of history tends to be based upon testimony.