Originally posted by Seasanctuary

Begs the question.

in what way?

Uh, Genesis?

and?

I disagree, but you're (and JP Holding) on the right track. The known facts are that the Church existed in the first century and believed such-and-so. If the only reasonable possibility is that Christian stories about Jesus are true, then fine. But there are other reasonable explanations for the rise of Christianity.

we have an unbroken written history of the church right from the beginning. You act like we just know a church existed and that's all and are trying to guess at the history and circumstances of it. That is not the case.

I would agree you shouldn't feel compelled to give up your belief in the resurrection without positive evidence to the contrary.

However, non-Christians shouldn't feel compelled to believe in the resurrection just because early Christians made the claim and no one made a [surviving] counter-claim.

You seem to be conflating these two ideas.

This is a straw man. Where have I said that you had to believe anything? I was talking about your claim that nobody refuted FF's scenario. Two totally different things.

His scenario has no evidence whatsoever other than a "just so" story. Aren't you guys the ones who keep arguing that we shouldn't believe anything without good evidence? In fact you said pretty much that right above saying "non-Christians shouldn't feel compelled to believe in the resurrection just because early Christians made the claim and no one made a [surviving] counter-claim"

Well there is NO evidence for FF's scenario. Nada, zip. So if you don't think you should believe Christian claims despite us having SOME evidence, why should anyone believe a scenario with ZERO evidence?

Originally posted by Sparko

This is a straw man. Where have I said that you had to believe anything? I was talking about your claim that nobody refuted FF's scenario. Two totally different things.

I'm glad you agree. "Refuted" is an ambiguous word which could have meant very different things.

Well there is NO evidence for FF's scenario. Nada, zip. So if you don't think you should believe Christian claims despite us having SOME evidence, why should anyone believe a scenario with ZERO evidence?

Depends on whether he's putting it out there as "this is definitely what really happened" or "here's an example of how it could have happened which is consistent with the objective evidence yet doesn't require a resurrection."

I hope he's going for the second. I too would take issue with the first.

Originally posted by Sparko

we have an unbroken written history of the church right from the beginning. You act like we just know a church existed and that's all and are trying to guess at the history and circumstances of it. That is not the case.

Another common skeptic trick: acknowledge that there's evidence but try and make it sound as vague and obscure as possible even when that's not the case.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

I'm glad you agree. "Refuted" is an ambiguous word which could have meant very different things.



Depends on whether he's putting it out there as "this is definitely what really happened" or "here's an example of how it could have happened which is consistent with the objective evidence yet doesn't require a resurrection."

I hope he's going for the second. I too would take issue with the first.

again, merely tossing out "what if" scenarios does not show that it is likely that is what happened. It doesn't make it any more "plausible" either (which he claimed)

Personally I think my Alien Robot Messiah story fits the story much better because not only does it eliminate the supernatural, but it even explains why the eye witnesses wrote what they did (because from their perspective that is what happened) whereas FF's theory makes them out to be liars or complete idiots who couldn't find a dead body.

Originally posted by aspirnietzche

don't you see how this is a baseless assumption?

Correction: Historical Fact It is your nonsensical and unsubstantiated theories which are the "baseless assumptions."

Unless you have another alternative theory we can rip to shreds, consider Jesus Resurrected

Ps. Alien Robot Theory? Oh, that ones been destroyed too, sorry

Originally posted by ProjectEnquirer

Correction: Historical Fact It is your nonsensical and unsubstantiated theories which are the "baseless assumptions."

Unless you have another alternative theory we can rip to shreds, consider Jesus Resurrected

Ps. Alien Robot Theory? Oh, that ones been destroyed too, sorry

what? no alien robot theory? Never!!!

OK what about a time traveler from the future? yeah that's the ticket.

Originally posted by Sparko

what? no alien robot theory? Never!!!

OK what about a time traveler from the future? yeah that's the ticket.

LOL What a farce!

Originally posted by ProjectEnquirer

LOL What a farce!

its as good as any other theory without any evidence!

What about an alien robot time traveler from the future? Bet you never thought of that!

Originally posted by Sparko

its as good as any other theory without any evidence!

What about an alien robot time traveler from the future? Bet you never thought of that!

That's it everybody. It's finally happened. Christianity has been debunked after hundreds of years. If anybody wants me I'll be in the pub drowning my sorrows.

Sparko: what? no alien robot theory? Never!!!
OK what about a time traveler from the future? yeah that's the ticket.

ProjectEnquirer: LOL What a farce!

Sparko: its as good as any other theory without any evidence!
What about an alien robot time traveler from the future? Bet you never thought of that!

I may well be off-topic here, but I am curious how the evidence for or against these scenarios compare to the Jesus was the son of God and also God himself scenario.

Originally posted by seanD

Why not throw the body into Gehenna in the first place? This would have been quicker than a burial, which was time consuming and costly. Then you got to explain what the apostles saw? Mass hallucination theory? What made outsiders and zealous Jews believe that Jesus was Messiah, and why were some of these Jews zealous about keeping the Mosaic law, yet willing to overlook Deu 21:22-23? Why did the gospel authors continue to proclaim him the political Messiah they were expecting prior to his crucifixion after 70 CE? The authors used various Jewish scriptures as fulfillments, scriptures that proclaimed the restoration and victory of Israel and the Jews over their enemies.

You got some s'plainin to do there, FF.

I intend to offer a full explanation. One thing at a time.

Originally posted by FormerFundy

I intend to offer a full explanation. One thing at a time.

BTW, I don't see anyone explaining why my scenario could not be true to history? It fits with what we know about crucifixtions and burials. It fits with the fact that executed criminals were buried in the criminal graveyard (and sometimes thrown into Gehenna). It explains why the women came back to the tomb on Sunday morning and found the stone rolled away and the body gone. It explains all the facts from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

It is a purely naturalistic explanation and is simpler than interjecting a supernatural cause. Thus it fits better with Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by FormerFundy

BTW, I don't see anyone explaining why my scenario could not be true to history? It fits with what we know about crucifixtions and burials. It fits with the fact that executed criminals were buried in the criminal graveyard (and sometimes thrown into Gehenna). It explains why the women came back to the tomb on Sunday morning and found the stone rolled away and the body gone. It explains all the facts from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

It is a purely naturalistic explanation and is simpler than interjecting a supernatural cause. Thus it fits better with Occam's Razor.

There is no real reason why your take on events cannot, in fact, be correct. At least arguably so, as you account for the textual evidence, at least up until the discovery of the Empty Tomb.

You are, however, inserting somethings that the texts, themselves, do not specifically say and as a result these areas become simply conjecture. I do appreciate the exercise of making the story fit without invoking the supernatural.

Of course, by removing the supernatural from the equation, you are asking Christians to deny the resurrection.

Originally posted by FormerFundy

BTW, I don't see anyone explaining why my scenario could not be true to history? It fits with what we know about crucifixtions and burials. It fits with the fact that executed criminals were buried in the criminal graveyard (and sometimes thrown into Gehenna). It explains why the women came back to the tomb on Sunday morning and found the stone rolled away and the body gone. It explains all the facts from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

I did explain why your senario is not plausible. Joseph would have needed help to remove the body from the grave and that person would have been a witness that they had removed Christ's body. Paul as a member of the inner circle of anti-Christian Jews would have had access to such knowledge as this ie the evidence of two witnesses that they had re-buried the body or threw it away and yet what we see in Luke (a close associate of Paul) is the empty tomb being seen as evidence of His resurrection (which would have been highly misleading if he had left the tomb still dead). IOW since there seems to be no knowledge of Joseph moving the body from either Jewish circles, via Joseph or his helper,or Roman circles, via the soldiers guarding the tomb allowing Joseph to take the body away, it seems the original version is more consistant with the facts.

Further the women would likely have needed to seek authority from Joseph to enter 'his' tomb and so being the good Jew you agree he is he would have told them not to bother coming back as he was going to move the body/had moved the body.

Further, since the soldiers were placed at the tomb on account of the rumours that Christ would resurrect after three days, Joseph would have been an idiot to move the body so soon since he would have forseen the furore it would cause.

Originally posted by FormerFundy

BTW, I don't see anyone explaining why my scenario could not be true to history? It fits with what we know about crucifixtions and burials. It fits with the fact that executed criminals were buried in the criminal graveyard (and sometimes thrown into Gehenna). It explains why the women came back to the tomb on Sunday morning and found the stone rolled away and the body gone. It explains all the facts from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

It is a purely naturalistic explanation and is simpler than interjecting a supernatural cause. Thus it fits better with Occam's Razor.

You're not the first skeptic to abuse Occam's Razor, and I'm sure you won't be the last.

Why do I say you're abusing it? Because you beg the question by implying that a supernatural cause is unnecessarily complicated and that a natural cause is always preferable. Sorry, kiddo, but you're going to have to actually make that case rather than just asserting it.

The other problem with your explanation is that it doesn't account for what happened after the empty tomb was discovered. The disciples along with a few hundred other people genuinely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and that they had seen him in the flesh, and they were able to convince thousands of others who were in the position to verify the facts that the resurrection was a genuine miracle.

Hate to break it to you, but abusing Occam's Razor isn't going to get you out of this one. Oh, and don't resort to special pleading by trying to claim that the gospels are accurately only so far as they support your argument but are not accurate enough to support mine. Looks like you've got your work cut out for you.

Originally posted by Mountain Man

You're not the first skeptic to abuse Occam's Razor, and I'm sure you won't be the last.

Why do I say you're abusing it? Because you beg the question by implying that a supernatural cause is unnecessarily complicated and that a natural cause is always preferable. Sorry, kiddo, but you're going to have to actually make that case rather than just asserting it.

The other problem with your explanation is that it doesn't account for what happened after the empty tomb was discovered. The disciples along with a few hundred other people genuinely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and that they had seen him in the flesh, and they were able to convince thousands of others who were in the position to verify the facts that the resurrection was a genuine miracle.

Hate to break it to you, but abusing Occam's Razor isn't going to get you out of this one. Oh, and don't resort to special pleading by trying to claim that the gospels are accurately only so far as they support your argument but are not accurate enough to support mine. Looks like you've got your work cut out for you.

But Mountain Man

What about the alien robot time traveler from the future theory? It fits all the workings.