The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

All that happened was yet another religion started and not even a new religion because it it was just a Paganized version of Judaism just as Islam was a revised Judaism and just as Buddhism was a revised Hinduism.

There always seem to be those who want to compare Christianity to these other religions as if this would have a thing in the world to do with it in the least. I mean, what is the argument here? Is it, there must and has to be religions that are false, and therefore all religions must be false? The real question would be, what are these religions based upon? Are they based upon historical facts, and evidence? Or, are they based upon what one claims God wants us to know?

In no way do the remarkable appearances of these creeds mean that they are true or that the tales told about their founders, saints or prophets are true,

I am certainly not suggesting this would be the case.

if they were even real people.

You are well on your way to intellectual suicide, and if we cannot agree on these sorts of things then there really is no need in attempting to have any sort of discussion.

That said, the only argument that matters is whether the resurrection narrative is true or not because if not, the whole basis of Christianity collapses whether Jesus was lugged out of the tomb and taken back to Galilee on a stretcher or whether he was dumped in a ditch and left there.

We certainly agree here which sort of demonstrates what I have said above. Christianity stands or falls upon an historical event. I am not thinking this would be the case as far as the other religions you refer to. Because you see, in the end Christianity is not based upon the teachings of Jesus, and how we should follow his teachings in order to please God. Rather, it is built upon an historical event, and we are to let go of our chase after morality and grab ahold of what has been accomplished on our behalf.

It doesn't matter what else happened to Jesus but just whether there is fair reason to doubt the Resurrection narrative, and I say there is.

Well, I have never suggested you would not have a reason for doubt. However, even if you have some sort of reason for doubt, this would not negate the fact there would be reasons to believe the claims. I mean this happens all the time. Folks look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions. I have no problem with this, but there seem to be others who have a problem with those who come to a different conclusion than they do.

And only faith based denial can ignore it.

And here comes the "faith" card again, which is thrown out when folks have nothing left. When there are facts, evidence, and reasons to base a belief upon, no faith would be required.

[POI]

Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...

What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,

Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never new about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.

these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.

I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

All that happened was yet another religion started and not even a new religion because it it was just a Paganized version of Judaism just as Islam was a revised Judaism and just as Buddhism was a revised Hinduism.

There always seem to be those who want to compare Christianity to these other religions as if this would have a thing in the world to do with it in the least. I mean, what is the argument here? Is it, there must and has to be religions that are false, and therefore all religions must be false? The real question would be, what are these religions based upon? Are they based upon historical facts, and evidence? Or, are they based upon what one claims God wants us to know?

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which? If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false. But the argument is rather that Christianity has a better historical basis than the other religions. Well, that's the atheist argument, that this may be true, but the religious claims built over the history are demonstrably not true. Which puts Christianity as no better in credibility than any other religion.

In no way do the remarkable appearances of these creeds mean that they are true or that the tales told about their founders, saints or prophets are true,

I am certainly not suggesting this would be the case.

Then we agree. Christianity is no more likely to be true than any other religion.

if they were even real people.

You are well on your way to intellectual suicide, and if we cannot agree on these sorts of things then there really is no need in attempting to have any sort of discussion.

No, you are well on the way to intellectual suicide if you cannot understand that all claims are legitimately open to question. Of course there should be good reason to do so, but nothing can be ruled out just on say -so.

That said, the only argument that matters is whether the resurrection narrative is true or not because if not, the whole basis of Christianity collapses whether Jesus was lugged out of the tomb and taken back to Galilee on a stretcher or whether he was dumped in a ditch and left there.

We certainly agree here which sort of demonstrates what I have said above. Christianity stands or falls upon an historical event. I am not thinking this would be the case as far as the other religions you refer to. Because you see, in the end Christianity is not based upon the teachings of Jesus, and how we should follow his teachings in order to please God. Rather, it is built upon an historical event, and we are to let go of our chase after morality and grab ahold of what has been accomplished on our behalf.

We do agree here (as is often the case), that historical reliability is the key to belief in Christianity in particular. Possibly because Christians are confident that the Bible will stand up to historical enquiry. It does not. Perhaps better than most other religions, which (apart from Islam and Buddhism) seem to rely on myth. But certainly I consider the burden of proof is on the Bible - critic to show that it it is not historically sound, rather than the Believer to show that it is.

It doesn't matter what else happened to Jesus but just whether there is fair reason to doubt the Resurrection narrative, and I say there is.

Well, I have never suggested you would not have a reason for doubt. However, even if you have some sort of reason for doubt, this would not negate the fact there would be reasons to believe the claims. I mean this happens all the time. Folks look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions. I have no problem with this, but there seem to be others who have a problem with those who come to a different conclusion than they do.

Of course, dismissing problems in the story is the stock in trade of the Bible - apologist. But what I say (and can demonstrate) is that the resurrection story in particular is so demonstrably unsound and contradictory that any who insist that it is a reliable story are simply doing faith -based denial.

And only faith based denial can ignore it.

And here comes the "faith" card again, which is thrown out when folks have nothing left. When there are facts, evidence, and reasons to base a belief upon, no faith would be required.

I agree, because you evidently suppose that the facts, evidence and reasons to credit the resurrection - claim will hold up under criticism. But I am willing to bet my pension that you'd end up playing the faith - card in the end.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

But the argument is rather that Christianity has a better historical basis than the other religions.

Correct! And I think you go on to agree with this below.

Well, that's the atheist argument, that this may be true, but the religious claims built over the history are demonstrably not true. Which puts Christianity as no better in credibility than any other religion.

You will have to give me an example of what you are talking about?

Then we agree. Christianity is no more likely to be true than any other religion.

Well no! Because I do not deal with the likelihoods.

No, you are well on the way to intellectual suicide if you cannot understand that all claims are legitimately open to question.

I cannot imagine anyone believing this to be the case. Whether the claims made in the Bible are true, or not is indeed open for debate. Whether we actually have the claims made is not. In the same way, to question whether these real historical figures were reporting the truth is open for debate. For one to question as to whether these figures, were real historical figures is to commit intellectual suicide. What I have found is, the few folks who take this route do so, because they are left with no other option. Therefore, they take the dive.

Of course there should be good reason to do so, but nothing can be ruled out just on say -so.

Oh, the idea these Biblical figures may not have been real historical figures can be ruled out, and it would not be on "say so". The problem is, when one takes such a dive, there really is no need in attempting to have the conversation.

Possibly because Christians are confident that the Bible will stand up to historical enquiry. It does not.

This would be an example of "say so".

Of course, dismissing problems in the story is the stock in trade of the Bible - apologist.

Right! And when there seem to be problems with the stories those opposed have the answer, and in their mind the first thing we must do is to reject these things as being false. In reality these problems can be caused by the fact we do not have all the information. As a small example, at one point Paul tells his audience to, "pray for your enemies for in doing so you will heap coals of fire upon their heads". Now, this certainly seems to be suggesting the goal would be to have our enemies suffer in some sort of way, which would contradict what Paul has said elsewhere. However, a little bit of historical context explains this contradiction just fine. In other words, there was some sort of custom at the time where those who were in repentance would walk around with a bowl of hot coals on their head as a sign of this repentance. Therefore, while Paul's original audience would have had no problem understanding what he was saying, this would be impossible for us without this historical context.

So then, while I will agree there are many Christians who are satisfied with any sort of answer at all, I am not that guy. To demonstrate this, there are many Christians, and I would suggest most Christians, who accept the idea Paul, and James do not contradict each other concerning faith alone. Somehow, they have convinced themselves, Paul, and James are saying the same thing. This is not a possibility as far as I can see. There is an answer as to why these men are saying different things, and it can be found by those who are willing to do the actual work, but simply attempting to gloss over the contradiction by forcing these men to say the same thing demonstrates those who are not willing to struggle with the idea there are problems. So, while I am not with the Christians who are looking for any sort of easy answer, I am also not with those opposed whose first response is to demand these things are proof the claims must be false.

But what I say (and can demonstrate) is that the resurrection story in particular is so demonstrably unsound and contradictory that any who insist that it is a reliable story are simply doing faith -based denial.

Thus far, all you have done is, "say so".

I agree, because you evidently suppose that the facts, evidence and reasons to credit the resurrection - claim will hold up under criticism. But I am willing to bet my pension that you'd end up playing the faith - card in the end.

At this point, I am counting 3 "say so's".

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I think that depends on how this jesus was perceived.
If he was worth guarding, then I'd expect a tomb with a guard and little to no way to steal the body

Good point. But how long was he to be guarded for, forever? Once the guards leave, then the body could then be taken, right?

[POI]

This boils down to - what process does one follow to decide whether to accept or reject claims of historic truth.

Good point. We can evaluate each claim, as they are brought forth. Thus, do we have good evidence to suggest that Jesus was placed into a tomb and guarded by Romans?

[YahwhatIsBack]

"In light of numerous legendary stories about disappearing bodies in antiquity, such as the ascensions of Enoch (Gen. 5.24; Heb. 11.5; 1 En. 70.1–3; 3 En. 6.1; 7.1) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2.11–12, 15–18; Josephus, Ant. 9.28), the disappearance of Moses (Josephus, Ant. 4.323–326), the unsuccessful search for the bodies of Job’s children (T. Job 39.8–40.4), the assumptions of Ezra (4 Ezra 14.9, 48 Syr) and Baruch (2 Bar. 76.1–5), and the disappearances of Romulus (Ovid, Metam. 14.805–851; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7–28.3), Aristeas of Proconnesus (Plutarch, Rom. 28.4; Herodotus, Hist. 4.14–15), and Cleomedes of Astypaleia (Plutarch, Rom. 28.4–5; Pausanias, Descr. 6.9.6–9), the possibility that Mark’s account could be a Christian legend cannot be easily dismissed. While many of these stories concern persons from the distant past or legendary figures, the Dialogues of Gregory the Great (540–640) contain an account about Gregory’s contemporary, a Roman craftsman, who died and was buried in the Church of St Januarius the Martyr. Gregory reports that on the first night after the burial the sacristan heard loud shouting from the burial place. When the dead men’s friends opened the grave, they found his clothes untouched but his body disappeared (Dial. 4.56). Pope Gregory assumes the accuracy of this story and even adds that anyone interested to check its veracity could do so, either by speaking with the witnesses or by examining the site of the burial. This is not just a medieval tale that could be simply brushed away. Matthew’s accounts of the resurrected saints who exited their graves and appeared in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Mt. 27.52–53) or the guard at Jesus’ tomb (Mt. 27.62–66; 28.4, 11–15) show that early Christians were capable of inventing stories for theological and apologetic purposes." - Lidija Novakovic, Resurrection A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 138

"The theme of empty tombs was a familiar one in the ancient world. Aristeas disappeared from his temporary place of entombment (the fuller's shop) and later appeared as a raven and as a phantom in Herodotus's version. He received the honor due the gods and sacrifices in other accounts. Cleomedes, presumably still alive, disappeared from the chest he had hidden in and was honored as a hero with sacrifices. Many years after his death, Numa's body had disappeared, although there is no evidence he underwent an apotheosis. Alcmene's body disappeared from her bier. Zalmoxis, by the artifice of living underground, appeared three years after people thought he had died. He promised his followers some kind of immortal life resembling either resurrection or metemsomatosis.....Although Romulus was not buried (in most traditions) his body disappeared, and he was honored as the god Quirinus after appearing to Julius Proculus. Callirhoe apparently died and her lover Chaereas discovered her empty tomb with the stones moved away from the entrance. Inside he found no corpse. He assumed she had been translated to the gods.....Philinnion disappeared from her tomb, walked the earth as a revenant, and her corpse was later found in her lover's bedroom. Lucian's Antigonus (in his Lover of Lies) asserts: 'For I know someone who rose twenty days after he was buried.' Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days). They appeared either lying on their tombs or standing up. Polyidus raised Minos's son Glaucus from the dead after being placed in the son's tomb. The Ptolemaic-Roman temple in Dendera vividly depicts the bodily resurrection of Osiris in his tomb. There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead, including: Achilles (in the Aethiopis), Aeneas, Amphiaraus (under the earth), Apollonius of Tyana, Basileia, Belus, Branchus, Bormus, Ganymede, Hamilcar, and Semiramus." - John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis p. 598-599.

"This passage from the novel Chaereas and Callirhoe, written by the Greek author Chariton of Aphrodisias sometime in the first half of the first century ce, describes the discovery of an empty tomb and illustrates how such a discovery would be interpreted....But Chaereas does not know Callirhoe is alive, so the religious conclusions he draws from the missing body are very important. In fact, Sjef van Tilborg has recently observed that this 'is a text which prototypically determines how . . . the disappearance of a body from a grave was interpreted religiously.'...The similarities between this story and the empty tomb stories in the canonical Gospels are immediately striking: an early morning visit to the tomb, a stone moved away from the mouth of the tomb, a reaction of fear, a hesitant entry, an unsuccessful search for the body, and a reason given for its absence.... In the Gospels, the reader is led to the conclusion that God has raised Jesus from the dead—led, of course, by Jesus’ own predictions and by the interpretive help of those encountered at the tomb. In Chariton’s novel, the conclusion is “assumption,” the bodily removal of a human being (living or dead) directly into the divine realm, as (or at) the end of that person’s earthly life." - Daniel Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, pg. 47-48

"The seventh argument impresses me as even more formidable. It will give skeptics some assurance. Some will indeed find it all by itself enough to brand Mark 16 and its parallels as probable fiction. Not only have people constructed fables about missing bodies, but the Greek and Roman legends, added together, establish that, before and after the turn of the era, a missing body was a not uncommon topos for gods and heroes in the Mediterranean world. Some of those myths, moreover, appear in the historiographical literature, where they are presented as worthy of belief. This undeniable fact merits much pondering." - Dale Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus Apologetics, Polemics, History p. 140

After describing the disappearance of Romulus, Plutarch says these types of "fables" were quite common -

"Now this is like the fables which the Greeks tell about Aristeas of Proconnesus......It is said also that the body of Alcmene disappeared, as they were carrying her forth for burial, and a stone was seen lying on the bier instead. In short, many such fables are told by writers who improbably ascribe divinity to the mortal features in human nature, as well as to the divine." - Life of Romulus 28

Compare Mark 16:6
"He is not here. See the place where they laid him."

And Luke 24:3
but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

To

Gen. 5:24 LXX
"And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him."

Hebrews 11:5
"By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and “he was not found, because God had taken him.”

Philo Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.86
'What is the meaning of the expression, "He was not found because God translated him?" (#Ge 5:24). In the first place, the end of virtuous and holy men is not death but a translation and migration, and an approach to some other place of abode.'

A search party is sent for Elijah in 2 Kings 2:16-17 but they do not find him.
"And they sent fifty men, who searched for three days but did not find him."

So from all this, we can deduce the "missing body" and "empty tomb" motif was a sign of divine intervention/favor and was a common element in apotheosis/translation fables. It would signify to an ancient audience that "this person was special" or that a "miracle had occurred." Hence, we can see why the creators of the Jesus stories would be motivated to invent such a tale. If Jesus was anything special, then surely his body would have to disappear from his tomb!

Since there is no verifiable independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from the Markan narrative), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme of the "miraculous missing body" as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity.

[YahwhatIsBack]

Short highlights why the empty tomb story and surrounding details are probably works of fiction.

1. Most likely there would have been designated graves already prepared for crucifixion victims. The ludicrous scenario that Joseph was somehow in the position of scrambling on Passover for an available burial plot and the only option was to use his own family tomb, is historically implausible and violates practical sense. If crucifixion was a routine occurrence and burial was of the utmost importance then obviously this would have already been thought of and trench graves for crucifixion victims would have been ready to go. The Mishnah even states there were designated graves for criminals so, most likely, Jesus would have ended up in one of these graves since (if the story is true) he was convicted by the Sanhedrin of being a criminal blasphemer. Since Jesus had been "hung on a pole" then he would have been "cursed" (Deut. 21:23). It is unlikely that Joseph would defile his family tomb with the corpse of a cursed criminal blasphemer. Josephus says blasphemers should be buried "dishonorably and secretly."

2. There is an obvious reliance on the Old Testament for the Jesus stories beginning with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (based on Zechariah), the trial and crucifixion (Psalms). What are the chances that they modeled the burial after Isa. 53:8-9 and have Jesus buried in a rich man's tomb? Gosh, we find exactly that don't we!?

3. Joseph, a rich man, would most likely not have personally taken part in burying Jesus. This grotesque task would have been someone else's job.

4. In Mark it says Joseph "bought" linen. Buying and selling items on a festival day was illegal - Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Notice how the other evangelists omit the part where Joseph "bought" linen.

5. The verb for the "rolling" stone apokulio was used to refer to round disc like objects. The archaeologist Amos Kloner found that rolling stone doors in the time of Jesus were ultra rare, reserved for the mega rich (kings and queens). However, after the year 70 CE, rolling stone doors became much more common so we have a likely anachronism here. It is unlikely that the word apokulio was used to refer to a square blocking stone.

6. The reason for going to the tomb in Mark's story was "to anoint the body." The problem with this is that there would be no reason to go anoint an already dead and buried body so it seems like a contrived plot device created in order for the women to "discover" Jesus' body went missing. Matthew alters the reason to "go see the tomb." John has Jesus correctly anointed *before* burial.

7. The question the women have in Mark "Who will roll the stone away? makes them look quite silly. Why would they head to the tomb without thinking of this in the first place? Makes very little sense as history but serves to create tension in the narrative which is released when they reach the tomb and find the door already rolled away.

8. The remark that the women are invited by the angel to "see where he was laid" (Mk. 16:6) sounds mundane at first but realize previously at 15:47 we are told specifically that "they saw where he was laid." The redundancy sounds very suspicious as if it's been artificially set up. The author is informing the readers that the women see where he was laid *so they cannot be mistaken* that this was the place where Jesus was and is no longer there. See Adela Yarbro Collins' Mark: A Commentary on this.

9. The description of the tomb and burial evolves more honorable over time as if they're either trying to cover up a dishonorable burial or make it seem like it *really was* empty or both. In Mark it's just a rock hewn tomb. In Matthew it's Joseph's own "new" tomb. In Luke it's a tomb where "no one had ever been laid." In John it's now a "garden tomb" and the burial is accompanied by 75 lbs of myrrh and aloes!

10. The description of Joseph also evolves. In Mark he is a "distinguished member of the council." Matthew omits this and instead calls him a "disciple" of Jesus. Luke says he was a "good and upright man who did not consent to the Sanhedrin's plan and action." John says he was a "secret disciple for fear of the Jews." In the gospel of Peter he's even called a friend of Pilate! His character is so fluid and the evolution of his character is so apparent that we are justified in questioning whether this figure has any basis in historical fact at all. If the story can evolve this much from 70-100 CE then how much did it evolve from 30-70 CE?

11. The location of gJohn's "garden tomb" seems to contradict it being Joseph's "own" tomb as in the synoptics. In gJohn the location was chosen out of haste due to the Sabbath fast approaching. It's unlikely the historical Joseph owned a tomb nearby the gruesome site of crucifixion. In gJohn Mary asks the gardener for the body as if it didn't belong there due to being someone else's property. So it seems we have contradictory locations of where Jesus was buried.

12. There isn't really any independent attestation of the empty tomb since all gospels follow the same burial sequence and discovery from Mark - burial by Joseph, discovery by women, missing body. We know for a fact that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, thus they're not independent and John was written so late that it becomes extremely unlikely that he hadn't ever heard the Markan narrative.

13. Lastly, the original story in Mark just has Jesus' body miraculously disappear without an appearance report since the original ends at 16:8. This is consistent with other "missing body" stories from antiquity that are employed to signal "this person was special" or that "a miracle has occurred." There were other stories of Jewish prophets and Greco-Roman gods/heroes whose bodies go missing so the Jesus story is just par for the course really. In Dale Allison's new book he even concedes this is the most "formidable" objection to the empty tomb. See previous post.

For more reasons see Matti Myllykoski, 'What Happened to the Body of Jesus?'.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

Not quite. An anonymous writer made a claim in the Bible that we all know. Such claims are a dime a dozen.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

But the argument is rather that Christianity has a better historical basis than the other religions.

Correct! And I think you go on to agree with this below.

Well, that's the atheist argument, that this may be true, but the religious claims built over the history are demonstrably not true. Which puts Christianity as no better in credibility than any other religion.

You will have to give me an example of what you are talking about?

Then we agree. Christianity is no more likely to be true than any other religion.

Well no! Because I do not deal with the likelihoods.

No, you are well on the way to intellectual suicide if you cannot understand that all claims are legitimately open to question.

I cannot imagine anyone believing this to be the case. Whether the claims made in the Bible are true, or not is indeed open for debate. Whether we actually have the claims made is not. In the same way, to question whether these real historical figures were reporting the truth is open for debate. For one to question as to whether these figures, were real historical figures is to commit intellectual suicide. What I have found is, the few folks who take this route do so, because they are left with no other option. Therefore, they take the dive.

Of course there should be good reason to do so, but nothing can be ruled out just on say -so.

Oh, the idea these Biblical figures may not have been real historical figures can be ruled out, and it would not be on "say so". The problem is, when one takes such a dive, there really is no need in attempting to have the conversation.

Possibly because Christians are confident that the Bible will stand up to historical enquiry. It does not.

This would be an example of "say so".

Of course, dismissing problems in the story is the stock in trade of the Bible - apologist.

Right! And when there seem to be problems with the stories those opposed have the answer, and in their mind the first thing we must do is to reject these things as being false. In reality these problems can be caused by the fact we do not have all the information. As a small example, at one point Paul tells his audience to, "pray for your enemies for in doing so you will heap coals of fire upon their heads". Now, this certainly seems to be suggesting the goal would be to have our enemies suffer in some sort of way, which would contradict what Paul has said elsewhere. However, a little bit of historical context explains this contradiction just fine. In other words, there was some sort of custom at the time where those who were in repentance would walk around with a bowl of hot coals on their head as a sign of this repentance. Therefore, while Paul's original audience would have had no problem understanding what he was saying, this would be impossible for us without this historical context.

So then, while I will agree there are many Christians who are satisfied with any sort of answer at all, I am not that guy. To demonstrate this, there are many Christians, and I would suggest most Christians, who accept the idea Paul, and James do not contradict each other concerning faith alone. Somehow, they have convinced themselves, Paul, and James are saying the same thing. This is not a possibility as far as I can see. There is an answer as to why these men are saying different things, and it can be found by those who are willing to do the actual work, but simply attempting to gloss over the contradiction by forcing these men to say the same thing demonstrates those who are not willing to struggle with the idea there are problems. So, while I am not with the Christians who are looking for any sort of easy answer, I am also not with those opposed whose first response is to demand these things are proof the claims must be false.

But what I say (and can demonstrate) is that the resurrection story in particular is so demonstrably unsound and contradictory that any who insist that it is a reliable story are simply doing faith -based denial.

Thus far, all you have done is, "say so".

I agree, because you evidently suppose that the facts, evidence and reasons to credit the resurrection - claim will hold up under criticism. But I am willing to bet my pension that you'd end up playing the faith - card in the end.

At this point, I am counting 3 "say so's".

Yes that's quite so. I would have to give my evidence,and maybe I will, but I feel that readers will have become tired of seeing me post it. And of course it has to be real reasons to doubt that the story is true and not just something to be solved by a bit of interpretation, or just inventing stuff to make it work_

I see some explanations above so maybe I'll join in there.

For the rest, good grief, yes, that there are other religions is a reason to doubt that Christianity is true - IF a case can be made that, no matter how convincing the story looks as an eyewitness account, and may even be based on true events, the religious aspect is not credible.

And the claim that 'we do all know' is your say so. Since there are beliefs in other religions, the Bible claim that we 'all know' is plainly wrong.