It's a possibility, not a given explanation. Nobody holds it as such. Also the 'eyewitness' accounts of Jesus' appearance after he died are not reliable.
Furthermore, people overpower guards armed with automatic weapons in modern times during riots and outbreaks. This could easily happen during the time of swords and shields.
Your explanations don't account for most of the possibilities and proclaim possibilities unlikely or implausible without providing them as such.
it isnt all the same. actually secretly, no one wants you to know it, but hitler believed in evolution. a very popular racist argument given by evolution says that "africans and anyone who is not white are just primitive, pre-evolved beings not greater or superior than the white race."
I've never heard that arguement, I ususally hear stuff like black people actually have better pigmentation so are healthier in certain aspects, and your hitler arguement is like saying "hitler was an advocate of non smoking, so I guess we should all smoke so we aren't nazis"
what? how is that the same? i never saw hitler speak out against smoking. i did hear him speak about how the "Aryan" race or however you spell it, was the most superior race to all other peoples. including blacks. im not saying that all evolutionists believe this, because there are some evolutionists who are black...but im saying that this is most likely what he believed from what he said in his speeches.
It was recorded that he would buy gold watches to any of his officers who quit smoking, but this doesn't make him a good person just like it doesn't make evolution evil, you may not be implying but thats what I took from it.
oh, ok, i see what you mean now. well yeah. i know alot of very good (morally) people who are also smart and follow atheism/evolution belief. i only state that hitler believed this because of the accusations people make saying that he was protestant, which is probably not true. yea, im not implying that, but i dont blame you, it is very easy to get that from just reading what i wrote.
YES - see DOUBTING Thomas AND the Disciples THEMSELVES when the women initially told them the news - i'm making a vid response to this - it oughta be up in a few hrs b/c my comp is a bit slow
grave robbers see that rich man's tomb has just been sealed. they remove the stone and start to try to find any valuables. jesus begans to regain conciousness and starts to move. the grave robbers flee in panic. Jesus scrambles out from the tomb but doesn't get far but falls to unconciusnes. wild animal (I.E Lion,leopard,hyaena.) finds the body and drags it to safer place to consume it.
This is ofcourse assuming that we accept the accounts in the bible as historical truths which I don't.
endless numbers of possibilities. That's why I don't normally go to speculating like this because we don't know and can't know what actually happened.
did you get the note I sent you about Dr. Bob Price? This is the kind of question he knows a lot about - you may be able to find some more info on his website.
Just google his name for the address..
I think this topic is covered in the Infidel Guy show, ' Is Jesus Christ the Risen Savior? ' a debate with Dr. Price and Dr. Phil Fernandez.
yes, Craig and I believe Wright also believes that the guards were Jewish. The reason they were jewish is because, of course, this would NEVER happen. the guards must have been the temple guards. This is also consistent with Matthew's report of Pilate saying "you have a guard, make it secure as you can". He wasn't giving them a guard, he was telling them "use your own damn guard"
There were no guards on the first night, according to Matthew. There was no seal until the second day. The body could have been stolen on the first night.
Also, this apology assumes the biblical account is 100% accurate, with all details being true. Don't you think it MIGHT be possible for the author of Matthew to simply make up those details to refute claims that Jesus's body was stolen? Especially considering that none of the other gospels mention a seal or guards.
Besides, if we're assuming the bible to be true, then there would be no need for debate. You could just say, "The Bible says Jesus resurrected, therefore he was." It would save us a lot of time.
the problem is that Matthew stated that this story was in circulation up until the time of writing the Gospel. If this were not true, this would be INCREDIBLY damaging to Matthew's apologetic. Matthew (or pseudo-matthew) would have been fully aware of this.
Yeah, it's likely that the popular story was that the disciples had stolen the body. So he could have made up details long after the event itself, when all evidence was lost. It wouldn't be hard to say, "The Jews say this and that, but they made it up. And here are some details that they exlude that prove that the body couldn't have been stolen."
Are you kidding? To fake a resurrection. That's what the Jews accused them of doing, and that's the reason that guards were put at the tomb.
Or, they could have wanted to move Jesus to another tomb and bury him themselves. But the Bible even says that the disciples were suspected of stealing the body to fake a resurrection.
Yes, that was the claim and the fear, but honestly how likely is it? Jesus was given a more than decent burial already. Don't you think that desecrating his grave would have been something they would consider quite dishonourable? We are talking about very strict orthodox Jews here. They also had hang ups about touching dead bodies. It made them ritually unclean.
Fake the resurrection? Why? What be the point? To die for a known lie? Absurd Sir!
There is no evidence outside of apocryphal Acts of the disciples that suggests that they did die for their faith. And if they were indeed killed for preaching the resurrection, there is no reason to believe that they had the chance to save themselves by recanting.
Besides, lots of people have died for lies. For instance, David Koresh and the Branch-Davidians.
The circumstances of what happened in Wacko Texas to Koresh and his followers is disputed, but even if they did commit suicide they did not die for something they knew to be a lie. They died believing what they believed. The disciples (if they stole the body) knew that the resurrection was not true.
There is evidence outside the Bible that the disciples died for their faith. Hippolytus of Rome, and Eusebius write about it.
Besides, they would have known that preaching about Christ's resurrection would be likely lead to their death. Why do it under those circumstances? What possible gain was there from it?
You didn't answer my point about desecrating Jesus' grave.
As for desecrating Jesus's grave, that's not my main point (jus an alternative), but they could have stolen his body to put him in a secret grave where they could venerate him privately. They couldn't have been too strict of Orthodox orthodox rules, like working on the sabbath.
By the way, it's Waco, not Wacko. Freudian slip? :)
The people at waco were a bunch of of wackos. That's probably what was in my mind:).
Stealing Jesus' body would have been a shameful act. Desecrating someone's grave would have been a serious matter indeed. Jesus gave them a new insight into what it meant to keep the sabbath, but that doesn't mean they would decide to radically break Jewish law and custom. It would also have been very insulting to Joseph of Arimathea who had provided the grave at great personal cost.
Have you ever heard of religions forming to bilk people out of money? Like Scientology?
Perhaps the original disciples weren't even preaching a physical resurrection, anyway, but a spiritual one.
The disciples clearly weren't below breaking Jewish custom. They were unpopular to begin with for clashing with the orthodoxy of the high priests. Besides, this is all just speculation that assumes that all details of the bible are true to begin with, except for the resurrection.
What in Paul's writings suggests that they preached a physical resurrection?
People were much more gullible back then, especially considering there was no mass communication. The Book of Acts, if I'm not mistaken, says that the apostles "proved" the resurrection to many people simply by quoting scripture.
I like the psychological argument you put forth. It makes sense because your faith relies on the truth and integrity of those who have made the claim.
However, migkillertwo's contention, on logical grounds, that it is the burden of anyone to give priority to a supernatural explanation is not only specious, it is willfully deceptive - and immoral.
I am disappointed that you have not pointed out migkillertwo's error.
Perhaps the guards took bribes from the disciples as well to let them steal the body. Or perhaps, as I suggested, the body had already been stolen by the time the guards had arrived at the tomb on the second day.
Once again, for what purpose? So they could risk their necks for preaching a known lie? What if the guards refused? Do you really think that the Roman guards would risk taking a bribe knowning that they could be executed for doing so? And what's the likihood that all of them would be bribed? One perhaps, but 16 of them (which is probably how many there would have been).
As migkillertwo pointed out, they were not Roman guards. Bible says that all the guards were bribed by the chief priests, so they're obviously open to the concept. Besides, the disciples need not have bribed the guards if they had stolen the body on the frst day, when the guards weren't around.
Whether they were Roman or Jewish guards is debatable. However, you still haven't explained why on earth the disciples would want to steal the body. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. It would mean desecrating their master's grave, a most dishonourable act. It would be insulting to Joseph of Arimathea who provided it at great cost to himself. Do you honestly think that any of these explanations you are providing are really that likely?
First of all, the disciples did have something to gain by faking the resurrection. Perhaps they wanted to make money from a new religion. Perhaps they just wanted to justify their own belief and not be ridiculed for being foolish.
Second of all, yes I do think these stories are likely.
Third of all, no matter how unlikely you think these stories are, given that the alternative is that a man rose from the dead after two days, my explanation is much more likely.
Seriously. I don't mean to be flippant here, but a supernatural explanation should always be considered a last resort.
Fourth, it could have been someone else who stole the body. It doesn't necessarily have to be the disciples.
Fifth, the body may not have been missing at all. Maybe the disciples waited until after Jesus had decomposed to the point that his body in a tomb could not be identified. There are many possibilities.
You say that the alternate explanations to the resurrection are all unlikey, yet the story that the disciples had stolen the body was apparently likely enough for most of the people who were alive at the time.
"Fourth, it could have been someone else who stole the body. It doesn't necessarily have to be the disciples."
Who?
Fifth, the body may not have been missing at all. Maybe the disciples waited until after Jesus had decomposed to the point that his body in a tomb could not be identified. There are many possibilities."
There would still have been a body, and the wounds in the hands and feet would have been visible. Terrible idea!
Perhaps it was a vandal. Perhaps it was a prankster. Perhaps it was someone hoping to make some money off the a notorious body.
Yes, there would have been a body, but whether or not wounds were visible depends on how long they waited. Secondly, that would just mean it was a crucified person, not necessarily Jesus.
Even if it were a terrible idea, that doesn't mean it's impossible. Is it so hard to imagine that the disciples made a stupid mistake? The gospels don't paint them as geniuses.
Jesus's body could still be in a tomb today, but it would be unrecognizable.
Also, you're assuming that people did a lot of fact-checking back then. The people who didn't believe in the resurrection wouldn't necessarily check the tomb, and if the tomb were sealed, there would be no way to open it and find out. Moreover, these nonbelievers wouldn't necessarily have lived in walking distance of the tomb, nor would they no what tomb it was. Believers wouldn't have needed further evidence.
You are saying that the disciples would not have had any motivation to steal Jesus's body. I have explained how they could have. However, even if we were to assume that the disciples had no motivation to steal the body, thus making that idea absurd, the same logic could be applied to God's motivations for the resurrection of Jesus.
Think about it: Why would God be have to send himself down to earth and be killed in order to forgive sins or offer salvation? Why would he be bound to follow his own law, when he is all-powerful and makes the rules? Why would he make the sacrifice occur in an obscure part of the world at a time when not only was there no mass communication to spread the world, but there were 3 whole continents full of people not yet discovered, who would never have the chance to hear about Jesus' resurrection?
Why couldn't Jesus convince everyone that he was the messiah? Why would God send a messiah who is also himself, when that was never mentioned in scriptures? Why send the messiah in a form that was the opposite of what the Jews were expecting? Why would God sacrifice Jesus in an invalid manner that violates the Law (his blood was not smeared on the temple altar)? Why would Jesus rise after only 1 day and 2 nights, rather than 3 days and 3 nights, like he had promised?
While the disciples were mere humans who may have acted for selfish, stupid, or deceitful reasons, God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, and thus wouldn't have made any mistakes. The whole backstory behind the resurrection makes no sense at all, when it should make perfect sense if it was a work of God.
LOL - it makes perfect sense? let me ask you a question: if you were born in saudi arabia, would you still be a xtian? or would you be a faithful muslim defending "the truth" that muhamman is the prophet and Jesus never claimed to be God? if you were born in Utah would you still be a xtian or a Mormon? if you were born in Sweden would you be an atheist? if you were born in Taiwan, Africa etc. i think you get my point...
you may have become one of these if you were born in a country epaminodas. it depends on everything around you that will change your life forever. if it were possible to go back in time and change just one sneeze made by another human being in a conversation, many events in history would have been changed. but if God wanted you to become a Christian. it would happen no matter where you live because He will make it happen one way or another.
great response- THIS makes sense b/c you appeal to logic from the reformed tradition (i.e. predestination and reprobation); my problems are w/ the Arminianist free will apologists who claim that you can use reason to prove the bible etc - in the end it all boils down to FAITH - something which you can't have unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to you (i.e. irresistible grace);
of course adopting the reformed logic brings up a whole lot of other questions
b/c they thought it was real - the mind plays tricks on people all the time and they misattribute what ocurred to something that makes sense to them even though it might not be actually true
- they died b/c they believed the visions they had of Jesus proved his phsyical resurrction in their minds even though no one touched him, and after several disciples faile to recognize him when they first saw him - this has vision written all over it but it doesnt prove the phsyical resurrection
great - please address my points in my video and my comments there regarding the body not being touched, not being recognized, being able to teleport etc and how this squares w/ the fact that these ppl where around Jesus for 3.5 yrs
Again, we have little reason to believe that the original disciples did die for their faith at all, let alone that they could have escaped execution by recanting. They could have simply been murdered, or killed by a mob, like Joseph Smith was. I assume you think he was lying and knew his Book of Mormon to be a forgery.
"The disciples died for their beliefs. That is testefied by multiple sources outside the New Testament."
By whom? Historians, or church fathers at least a century later who would have had motivation to lie? Or are you talking about apocryphal acts of the apostles? What are these multiple sources, and are they independent from each other, or are some simply retellings of others?
"Third of all, no matter how unlikely you think these stories are, given that the alternative is that a man rose from the dead after two days, my explanation is much more likely."
Only because you have an anti-supernaturalist bias which rules out anything like the resurrection before even considering the evidence.
Supernatural claims are less likely than natural explanations. They require extraordinary evidence.
It's impossible to live a sane life if one doesn't have a bias against supernatural claims. Even you have an anti-supernaturalist bias. If you were to enter your home and find your TV missing, with no signs of forced entry, and no one had keys to your home, would you immediately assume that your TV vanished into thin air?
Secondly, even if one believes that miracles are possible, it doesn't mean that one should believe every tale of a miracle. You don't believe that Muhammed's writing of the Koran was a miracle, I imagine.
No, I don't. The Koran does not even accurately represent what Christians believe. It is perfectly consistent with a guy writing centuries later, far removed from the cultural context of the Bible and who had no access to the bible in his own language.
I should clarify what I meant. Yes, to a large extent we are skeptical of supernatural claims. We try to find natural explanations for things first, but if those fail we would then consider the supernatural. What I object to is being so biased against the supernatural that it is not even considered.
Imagine a great magician. I have almost no idea how he could possibly pull off his tricks. I have no likely alternative, natural explanation. For instance, I saw this woman who changed outfits in less than a second, behind a veil. No explanation of how she did it could really be considered very likely, but I wouldn't then jump to the conclusion that she has magical powers.
The same goes for illusionist Criss Angel. I've seen him walk on water on TV. People witnessed him do it in person. I can't think of a single likely naturalistic explanation, but I still don't think he's defying the laws of physics. And that's something dozens of people have seen with their own eyes in the past few years! That's much better evidence than accounts written at least forty years after the fact by mostly unknown authors with agendas.
Also, if we can consider supernatural explanations, why rule out the possibilty that the disciples were given superhuman strength and/or the ability to teleport into the tomb to steal the body? Maybe the disciples were told by God to do it and preach the gospel. After all, God has told people to do some outlandish things, like sacrificing one's son, striking rocks to get water, building agiant ark on dry land, smearing blood on doorposts, etc. God works in mysterious ways, I am told.
You write "What I object to is being so biased against the supernatural that it is not even considered."
The issue is not the supernatural. The issue is integrity. The resurrection has credibility ONLY because of the integrity of those who have testified to its truth.
If one encourages a logical argument based on false premises, one is impugning one's own character - and defaming the character of those on whose testimony one is relying upon to be truthful.
edwardhirsch: what he is saying is right, if they did in fact lie for Jesus, they would not have died for Him or have been persecuted for what they believed verbally and physically. and there are many ancient records that back up that paul was a real man who had gone around the known world preaching the truth of Jesus, and that these other disciples were killed in whatever way they were. there are also many other religious texts and secular texts that tell of a man named Jesus who was real
Since when is saying that the stories are NOT true a positive claim? Do we have any evidence from the first century that these people were martyred? People in general have been known to make things up. Besides, the motivation for making up the legends (or retelling them blindly) is obvious. So we have people who stood to gain from telling these stories of martyrdom, so why should we assume their stories were true, given that they don't have contemporary evidence?
DerivedApe. You know, all this time I thought you were a man! LOL! I don't know why I assumed that. It came as a surprise when Kabane told me you are in fact a member of the female of the species. That is going to take some getting used to for me.
It's a possibility, not a given explanation. Nobody holds it as such. Also the 'eyewitness' accounts of Jesus' appearance after he died are not reliable.
Furthermore, people overpower guards armed with automatic weapons in modern times during riots and outbreaks. This could easily happen during the time of swords and shields.
Your explanations don't account for most of the possibilities and proclaim possibilities unlikely or implausible without providing them as such.
Ethrock 3 years ago
You still fail to address that the accounts of his supposed existence were written quite some time after his supposed death.
DieHardXG2 3 years ago
religion, hitler youth programme. all the same, brainwashing on a massive scale.
madhobbit 3 years ago
it isnt all the same. actually secretly, no one wants you to know it, but hitler believed in evolution. a very popular racist argument given by evolution says that "africans and anyone who is not white are just primitive, pre-evolved beings not greater or superior than the white race."
nateindahood777 3 years ago
I've never heard that arguement, I ususally hear stuff like black people actually have better pigmentation so are healthier in certain aspects, and your hitler arguement is like saying "hitler was an advocate of non smoking, so I guess we should all smoke so we aren't nazis"
lufah234 3 years ago
what? how is that the same? i never saw hitler speak out against smoking. i did hear him speak about how the "Aryan" race or however you spell it, was the most superior race to all other peoples. including blacks. im not saying that all evolutionists believe this, because there are some evolutionists who are black...but im saying that this is most likely what he believed from what he said in his speeches.
nateindahood777 3 years ago
It was recorded that he would buy gold watches to any of his officers who quit smoking, but this doesn't make him a good person just like it doesn't make evolution evil, you may not be implying but thats what I took from it.
lufah234 3 years ago
oh, ok, i see what you mean now. well yeah. i know alot of very good (morally) people who are also smart and follow atheism/evolution belief. i only state that hitler believed this because of the accusations people make saying that he was protestant, which is probably not true. yea, im not implying that, but i dont blame you, it is very easy to get that from just reading what i wrote.
nateindahood777 3 years ago
its simple jesus was an alien
xspacie 3 years ago
lol
aaronk1994 3 years ago
YES - see DOUBTING Thomas AND the Disciples THEMSELVES when the women initially told them the news - i'm making a vid response to this - it oughta be up in a few hrs b/c my comp is a bit slow
epaminodas 3 years ago
Here is an important question: Were there any discussions among the first Christians regarding whether or not Jesus had been resurrected?
tojoha1 3 years ago
Good vid.
TheIrrationalAtheist 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have the burden of proof to prove your deity. Do it then.
AJComixII 3 years ago
You have the burden of proof to prove your deity. Do it then.
AJComixII 3 years ago
grave robbers see that rich man's tomb has just been sealed. they remove the stone and start to try to find any valuables. jesus begans to regain conciousness and starts to move. the grave robbers flee in panic. Jesus scrambles out from the tomb but doesn't get far but falls to unconciusnes. wild animal (I.E Lion,leopard,hyaena.) finds the body and drags it to safer place to consume it.
This is ofcourse assuming that we accept the accounts in the bible as historical truths which I don't.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
endless numbers of possibilities. That's why I don't normally go to speculating like this because we don't know and can't know what actually happened.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
lol, come on DerivedApe, you don't honestly believe any of that is possible, surely.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
I don't. my personal oppinion is that we don't know what happened and all this speculation is just useless.
However the speculation I presented is still plausible and more so than supernatural explanation.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Hey Aaron,
did you get the note I sent you about Dr. Bob Price? This is the kind of question he knows a lot about - you may be able to find some more info on his website.
Just google his name for the address..
I think this topic is covered in the Infidel Guy show, ' Is Jesus Christ the Risen Savior? ' a debate with Dr. Price and Dr. Phil Fernandez.
alienentity 3 years ago
The Guards were not Roman.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
According to Craig they were jewish. right?
DerivedApe 3 years ago
yes, Craig and I believe Wright also believes that the guards were Jewish. The reason they were jewish is because, of course, this would NEVER happen. the guards must have been the temple guards. This is also consistent with Matthew's report of Pilate saying "you have a guard, make it secure as you can". He wasn't giving them a guard, he was telling them "use your own damn guard"
migkillertwo 3 years ago
There were no guards on the first night, according to Matthew. There was no seal until the second day. The body could have been stolen on the first night.
Also, this apology assumes the biblical account is 100% accurate, with all details being true. Don't you think it MIGHT be possible for the author of Matthew to simply make up those details to refute claims that Jesus's body was stolen? Especially considering that none of the other gospels mention a seal or guards.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Besides, if we're assuming the bible to be true, then there would be no need for debate. You could just say, "The Bible says Jesus resurrected, therefore he was." It would save us a lot of time.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
the problem is that Matthew stated that this story was in circulation up until the time of writing the Gospel. If this were not true, this would be INCREDIBLY damaging to Matthew's apologetic. Matthew (or pseudo-matthew) would have been fully aware of this.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Yeah, it's likely that the popular story was that the disciples had stolen the body. So he could have made up details long after the event itself, when all evidence was lost. It wouldn't be hard to say, "The Jews say this and that, but they made it up. And here are some details that they exlude that prove that the body couldn't have been stolen."
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Who would have a motive for stealing the body?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
The disciples.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
What possible motive would they have?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Are you kidding? To fake a resurrection. That's what the Jews accused them of doing, and that's the reason that guards were put at the tomb.
Or, they could have wanted to move Jesus to another tomb and bury him themselves. But the Bible even says that the disciples were suspected of stealing the body to fake a resurrection.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Yes, that was the claim and the fear, but honestly how likely is it? Jesus was given a more than decent burial already. Don't you think that desecrating his grave would have been something they would consider quite dishonourable? We are talking about very strict orthodox Jews here. They also had hang ups about touching dead bodies. It made them ritually unclean.
Fake the resurrection? Why? What be the point? To die for a known lie? Absurd Sir!
ukchristian28 3 years ago
There is no evidence outside of apocryphal Acts of the disciples that suggests that they did die for their faith. And if they were indeed killed for preaching the resurrection, there is no reason to believe that they had the chance to save themselves by recanting.
Besides, lots of people have died for lies. For instance, David Koresh and the Branch-Davidians.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
The circumstances of what happened in Wacko Texas to Koresh and his followers is disputed, but even if they did commit suicide they did not die for something they knew to be a lie. They died believing what they believed. The disciples (if they stole the body) knew that the resurrection was not true.
There is evidence outside the Bible that the disciples died for their faith. Hippolytus of Rome, and Eusebius write about it.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Besides, they would have known that preaching about Christ's resurrection would be likely lead to their death. Why do it under those circumstances? What possible gain was there from it?
You didn't answer my point about desecrating Jesus' grave.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
"What possible gain was there from it?"
Money.
As for desecrating Jesus's grave, that's not my main point (jus an alternative), but they could have stolen his body to put him in a secret grave where they could venerate him privately. They couldn't have been too strict of Orthodox orthodox rules, like working on the sabbath.
By the way, it's Waco, not Wacko. Freudian slip? :)
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
The people at waco were a bunch of of wackos. That's probably what was in my mind:).
Stealing Jesus' body would have been a shameful act. Desecrating someone's grave would have been a serious matter indeed. Jesus gave them a new insight into what it meant to keep the sabbath, but that doesn't mean they would decide to radically break Jewish law and custom. It would also have been very insulting to Joseph of Arimathea who had provided the grave at great personal cost.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
The disciples did it for the money? Really?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of religions forming to bilk people out of money? Like Scientology?
Perhaps the original disciples weren't even preaching a physical resurrection, anyway, but a spiritual one.
The disciples clearly weren't below breaking Jewish custom. They were unpopular to begin with for clashing with the orthodoxy of the high priests. Besides, this is all just speculation that assumes that all details of the bible are true to begin with, except for the resurrection.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Nothing in the gospel accounts or in Paul's writings suggests they were preaching a spiritual resurrection.
Yes, the Benny Hinns and cult leaders of this world have made fortunes out of tricking people, but how did the disciples do that?
As I said, the disciples did have a new insight into the some of those customs, but radically breaking them is another matter.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
What in Paul's writings suggests that they preached a physical resurrection?
People were much more gullible back then, especially considering there was no mass communication. The Book of Acts, if I'm not mistaken, says that the apostles "proved" the resurrection to many people simply by quoting scripture.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
If Benny Hinn can fool people who are educated and in touch with the world, why couldn't the disciples fool the uneducated and ignorant 200 years ago?
There were tons of mystery cults in Rome at the time, so why not start another one? There was a market for them, and people were willing to believe.
PS: At first I thought you said "Benny Hill." I wasn't aware he had a cult.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
To ukchristian:
I like the psychological argument you put forth. It makes sense because your faith relies on the truth and integrity of those who have made the claim.
However, migkillertwo's contention, on logical grounds, that it is the burden of anyone to give priority to a supernatural explanation is not only specious, it is willfully deceptive - and immoral.
I am disappointed that you have not pointed out migkillertwo's error.
edwardhirsch 3 years ago
the story was about the guards, not merely the disciples stealing the body.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Which story and in what capacity? Explain.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Perhaps the guards took bribes from the disciples as well to let them steal the body. Or perhaps, as I suggested, the body had already been stolen by the time the guards had arrived at the tomb on the second day.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Once again, for what purpose? So they could risk their necks for preaching a known lie? What if the guards refused? Do you really think that the Roman guards would risk taking a bribe knowning that they could be executed for doing so? And what's the likihood that all of them would be bribed? One perhaps, but 16 of them (which is probably how many there would have been).
ukchristian28 3 years ago
As migkillertwo pointed out, they were not Roman guards. Bible says that all the guards were bribed by the chief priests, so they're obviously open to the concept. Besides, the disciples need not have bribed the guards if they had stolen the body on the frst day, when the guards weren't around.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Whether they were Roman or Jewish guards is debatable. However, you still haven't explained why on earth the disciples would want to steal the body. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. It would mean desecrating their master's grave, a most dishonourable act. It would be insulting to Joseph of Arimathea who provided it at great cost to himself. Do you honestly think that any of these explanations you are providing are really that likely?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
First of all, the disciples did have something to gain by faking the resurrection. Perhaps they wanted to make money from a new religion. Perhaps they just wanted to justify their own belief and not be ridiculed for being foolish.
Second of all, yes I do think these stories are likely.
Third of all, no matter how unlikely you think these stories are, given that the alternative is that a man rose from the dead after two days, my explanation is much more likely.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Seriously. I don't mean to be flippant here, but a supernatural explanation should always be considered a last resort.
Fourth, it could have been someone else who stole the body. It doesn't necessarily have to be the disciples.
Fifth, the body may not have been missing at all. Maybe the disciples waited until after Jesus had decomposed to the point that his body in a tomb could not be identified. There are many possibilities.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
You say that the alternate explanations to the resurrection are all unlikey, yet the story that the disciples had stolen the body was apparently likely enough for most of the people who were alive at the time.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
"Fourth, it could have been someone else who stole the body. It doesn't necessarily have to be the disciples."
Who?
Fifth, the body may not have been missing at all. Maybe the disciples waited until after Jesus had decomposed to the point that his body in a tomb could not be identified. There are many possibilities."
There would still have been a body, and the wounds in the hands and feet would have been visible. Terrible idea!
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Perhaps it was a vandal. Perhaps it was a prankster. Perhaps it was someone hoping to make some money off the a notorious body.
Yes, there would have been a body, but whether or not wounds were visible depends on how long they waited. Secondly, that would just mean it was a crucified person, not necessarily Jesus.
Even if it were a terrible idea, that doesn't mean it's impossible. Is it so hard to imagine that the disciples made a stupid mistake? The gospels don't paint them as geniuses.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Jesus's body could still be in a tomb today, but it would be unrecognizable.
Also, you're assuming that people did a lot of fact-checking back then. The people who didn't believe in the resurrection wouldn't necessarily check the tomb, and if the tomb were sealed, there would be no way to open it and find out. Moreover, these nonbelievers wouldn't necessarily have lived in walking distance of the tomb, nor would they no what tomb it was. Believers wouldn't have needed further evidence.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
You are saying that the disciples would not have had any motivation to steal Jesus's body. I have explained how they could have. However, even if we were to assume that the disciples had no motivation to steal the body, thus making that idea absurd, the same logic could be applied to God's motivations for the resurrection of Jesus.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Think about it: Why would God be have to send himself down to earth and be killed in order to forgive sins or offer salvation? Why would he be bound to follow his own law, when he is all-powerful and makes the rules? Why would he make the sacrifice occur in an obscure part of the world at a time when not only was there no mass communication to spread the world, but there were 3 whole continents full of people not yet discovered, who would never have the chance to hear about Jesus' resurrection?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Why couldn't Jesus convince everyone that he was the messiah? Why would God send a messiah who is also himself, when that was never mentioned in scriptures? Why send the messiah in a form that was the opposite of what the Jews were expecting? Why would God sacrifice Jesus in an invalid manner that violates the Law (his blood was not smeared on the temple altar)? Why would Jesus rise after only 1 day and 2 nights, rather than 3 days and 3 nights, like he had promised?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
While the disciples were mere humans who may have acted for selfish, stupid, or deceitful reasons, God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, and thus wouldn't have made any mistakes. The whole backstory behind the resurrection makes no sense at all, when it should make perfect sense if it was a work of God.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
It makes perfect sense to me.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
LOL - it makes perfect sense? let me ask you a question: if you were born in saudi arabia, would you still be a xtian? or would you be a faithful muslim defending "the truth" that muhamman is the prophet and Jesus never claimed to be God? if you were born in Utah would you still be a xtian or a Mormon? if you were born in Sweden would you be an atheist? if you were born in Taiwan, Africa etc. i think you get my point...
epaminodas 3 years ago
you may have become one of these if you were born in a country epaminodas. it depends on everything around you that will change your life forever. if it were possible to go back in time and change just one sneeze made by another human being in a conversation, many events in history would have been changed. but if God wanted you to become a Christian. it would happen no matter where you live because He will make it happen one way or another.
nateindahood777 3 years ago
great response- THIS makes sense b/c you appeal to logic from the reformed tradition (i.e. predestination and reprobation); my problems are w/ the Arminianist free will apologists who claim that you can use reason to prove the bible etc - in the end it all boils down to FAITH - something which you can't have unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to you (i.e. irresistible grace);
of course adopting the reformed logic brings up a whole lot of other questions
epaminodas 3 years ago
Again, why would they die for something they knew to be false? This is a huge problem.
aaronk1994 3 years ago
b/c they thought it was real - the mind plays tricks on people all the time and they misattribute what ocurred to something that makes sense to them even though it might not be actually true
- they died b/c they believed the visions they had of Jesus proved his phsyical resurrction in their minds even though no one touched him, and after several disciples faile to recognize him when they first saw him - this has vision written all over it but it doesnt prove the phsyical resurrection
epaminodas 3 years ago
That has been debunked. I will make a response to your video.
aaronk1994 3 years ago
great - please address my points in my video and my comments there regarding the body not being touched, not being recognized, being able to teleport etc and how this squares w/ the fact that these ppl where around Jesus for 3.5 yrs
epaminodas 3 years ago
Again, we have little reason to believe that the original disciples did die for their faith at all, let alone that they could have escaped execution by recanting. They could have simply been murdered, or killed by a mob, like Joseph Smith was. I assume you think he was lying and knew his Book of Mormon to be a forgery.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
The disciples died for their beliefs. That is testefied by multiple sources outside the New Testament.
aaronk1994 3 years ago
"The disciples died for their beliefs. That is testefied by multiple sources outside the New Testament."
By whom? Historians, or church fathers at least a century later who would have had motivation to lie? Or are you talking about apocryphal acts of the apostles? What are these multiple sources, and are they independent from each other, or are some simply retellings of others?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
this is recorded in roman texts and other texts of other countries of the world who had put to death these apostles.
nateindahood777 3 years ago
Which texts specifically? Could you tell me what they are and where to read them?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Church fathers.
Heathenfidel 2 years ago
"Perhaps they wanted to make money from a new religion."
How?
"Perhaps they just wanted to justify their own belief and not be ridiculed for being foolish"
Preaching resurrection brought them far more than ridicule.
"Second of all, yes I do think these stories are likely."
Amazing.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
"Third of all, no matter how unlikely you think these stories are, given that the alternative is that a man rose from the dead after two days, my explanation is much more likely."
Only because you have an anti-supernaturalist bias which rules out anything like the resurrection before even considering the evidence.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Supernatural claims are less likely than natural explanations. They require extraordinary evidence.
It's impossible to live a sane life if one doesn't have a bias against supernatural claims. Even you have an anti-supernaturalist bias. If you were to enter your home and find your TV missing, with no signs of forced entry, and no one had keys to your home, would you immediately assume that your TV vanished into thin air?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Secondly, even if one believes that miracles are possible, it doesn't mean that one should believe every tale of a miracle. You don't believe that Muhammed's writing of the Koran was a miracle, I imagine.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
No, I don't. The Koran does not even accurately represent what Christians believe. It is perfectly consistent with a guy writing centuries later, far removed from the cultural context of the Bible and who had no access to the bible in his own language.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Perhaps it was the early Christians who were deceived by Satan. We can't simply throw out supernatural explanations...
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
I should clarify what I meant. Yes, to a large extent we are skeptical of supernatural claims. We try to find natural explanations for things first, but if those fail we would then consider the supernatural. What I object to is being so biased against the supernatural that it is not even considered.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Imagine a great magician. I have almost no idea how he could possibly pull off his tricks. I have no likely alternative, natural explanation. For instance, I saw this woman who changed outfits in less than a second, behind a veil. No explanation of how she did it could really be considered very likely, but I wouldn't then jump to the conclusion that she has magical powers.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
The same goes for illusionist Criss Angel. I've seen him walk on water on TV. People witnessed him do it in person. I can't think of a single likely naturalistic explanation, but I still don't think he's defying the laws of physics. And that's something dozens of people have seen with their own eyes in the past few years! That's much better evidence than accounts written at least forty years after the fact by mostly unknown authors with agendas.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Also, if we can consider supernatural explanations, why rule out the possibilty that the disciples were given superhuman strength and/or the ability to teleport into the tomb to steal the body? Maybe the disciples were told by God to do it and preach the gospel. After all, God has told people to do some outlandish things, like sacrificing one's son, striking rocks to get water, building agiant ark on dry land, smearing blood on doorposts, etc. God works in mysterious ways, I am told.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Do you believe Jesus could have a magic trick to pretend to rise from the dead?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
To UkChristian28:
You write "What I object to is being so biased against the supernatural that it is not even considered."
The issue is not the supernatural. The issue is integrity. The resurrection has credibility ONLY because of the integrity of those who have testified to its truth.
If one encourages a logical argument based on false premises, one is impugning one's own character - and defaming the character of those on whose testimony one is relying upon to be truthful.
edwardhirsch 3 years ago
edwardhirsch: what he is saying is right, if they did in fact lie for Jesus, they would not have died for Him or have been persecuted for what they believed verbally and physically. and there are many ancient records that back up that paul was a real man who had gone around the known world preaching the truth of Jesus, and that these other disciples were killed in whatever way they were. there are also many other religious texts and secular texts that tell of a man named Jesus who was real
nateindahood777 3 years ago
The disciples could not have stolen the body. the later church fathers (Eusebius, Polycarp, Ignatious) attest to the martyrdoms of the disciples.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"The disciples could not have stolen the body. "
Explain, please.
"the later church fathers (Eusebius, Polycarp, Ignatious) attest to the martyrdoms of the disciples."
They could have made it up to legitimize their cause. Or they could have simply been relaying popular legends of the time about the disciples.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
"They could have made it up to legitimize their cause."
positive claim, requires positive evidence
"popular legends" The traditions fit perfectly within known history, and they're widely attested. we need to take them seriously.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Since when is saying that the stories are NOT true a positive claim? Do we have any evidence from the first century that these people were martyred? People in general have been known to make things up. Besides, the motivation for making up the legends (or retelling them blindly) is obvious. So we have people who stood to gain from telling these stories of martyrdom, so why should we assume their stories were true, given that they don't have contemporary evidence?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Again I must point out the christian relics and tombs of apostles.
If there is church legend/tradition that actually holds any water I would be happy to know about it.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
DerivedApe. You know, all this time I thought you were a man! LOL! I don't know why I assumed that. It came as a surprise when Kabane told me you are in fact a member of the female of the species. That is going to take some getting used to for me.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
eh? I can assure you that I am dude.
Not sure where kabane got that idea.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Sorry, I am confused now. Kabane is wrong?
ukchristian28 3 years ago
yes, he is wrong.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
lol, I am sorry. I am really embarassed now. I am going to slap Kabane!
ukchristian28 3 years ago
this doesnt sound like something you would think of :S
prove me wrong though, i personally think you got this off the internet
thoseofmiddlearth 3 years ago
He got it from Norman Geisler and Patrick Zuckeran. He says so in his description.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Geisler is a very good apologised. Good choice.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
Apologist I mean. lol
ukchristian28 3 years ago