h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The body could have been taken by someone else.
But the NT goes way beyond saying the body simply wasn't there to claiming that Jesus appeared physically many times to the disciples and demonstrated to them he was alive.

< Is this story any different from the Turin Shroud? Again, you only needed one faker and a bunch of people who would believe anything...>

And when it is shown to be a fake STILL not throw it on the rubbish heap.

Imagine: Turin Shroud few hundred years old. Shown to be fake, Catholics can't bear to totally reject it.

Someone shows through logic and mounting evidence that Christianity is a mix of previous religions and ideas...Christians don't even bother thinking about rejecting it...what 'proof' is that and since there is no full way of proving a negative believers can carry on believng knowing there is nothing that can shake their faith apart from themselves if they used logic and rationality.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

What time is it?

8 O'clock.

How do you know?

It's written on this piece of paper.

Erm, perhaps I'm a step behind everyone else here, but...

Exactly what evidence is there for an 'empty tomb'?

Gif

<<
ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
What time is it?
8 O'clock.
How do you know?
It's written on this piece of paper>>



Very funny, but that is the claim.

We've got to be right about the claim whether it be true or false; we have to deal with what the early church claimed. It's not just "on a piece of paper", it's in the last supper ritual that goes directly back to the night before the crucifixion.

Hi WG,

As I was in the process of pointing out, none of the 'witness' statements in the Bible is credible evidence. You appeared to accept that, yet now you're citing Biblical witnesses again.

I'm getting confused. Are you saying the Bible contains eye-witness accounts, or are you saying it was written many years later by unknown authors? Or both? Or neither?

Gif

"it's in the last supper ritual that goes directly back to the night before the crucifixion."

And how do you know that?

Gif

<>

Do you not think that if Jesus' body was known to have remained in the tomb there would be a shrine there with countless pilgrims visiting it in a constant train?

I don't particularly see why. Mohammed's tomb isn't a shrine. Buddha's tomb isn't a shrine. King Arthur's tomb isn't a shrine.

It's entirely possible that Jesus' body was never ceremonially interred - I can't imagine the Romans were particularly careful about returning the bodies of criminals to their families.

Gif

"Do you not think that if Jesus' body was known to have remained in the tomb there would be a shrine there with countless pilgrims visiting it in a constant train?"

Do you not consider that ample motivation for a disciple to move the body?

"Very funny, but that is the claim.

We've got to be right about the claim whether it be true or false; we have to deal with what the early church claimed."

We've dealt with it. A rational explanation has been provided.

You have so far failed to address why a modern educated adult should reject the rational explanation in favour of the fairy story.

Do you intend to try?

No, not funny making the point about what you have been doing for weeks.

It's in the last supper ritual THAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PIECE OF PAPER.

You just keep telling us WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PIECE OF PAPER.

For Eccles to prove that his piece of paper is correct he would need to get a separate piece of evidence i.e. look at a timepiece. He of course has the chance of being correct twice during the day.

You need to find the equivalent of that timepiece to ratify what is in the Bible other wise you will just keep showing us what it says in the Bible i.e. on that piece of paper.

In fairness, Dot^3, the only evidence possible is writings on paper.

What is at issue is the interpretation one chooses - rational, or fairy tale? I'm asking for the justification an adult uses for selecting the less likely, irrational interpretation when there's a more likely rational one available.

<>

Ok I'll spell it out - the last supper is a tradition separate from what is on a piece of paper. That's my point here. All Christian traditions practise it, and it's origin stems from that night before the crucifixion, and it is tied in with the resurrection.

"the last supper is a tradition separate from what is on a piece of paper"

Irrelevant. The subject is not the last supper. Pleas stop trying to pretend it is in any way relevant.

The subject is the resurrection.

<<"Very funny, but that is the claim.
We've got to be right about the claim whether it be true or false; we have to deal with what the early church claimed."

<>

Sorb, is your rational explanation the one where the disciples, experiencing cognitive dissonance between the fact that their leader has been killed and their belief that he was the messiah sent by God, seek to reduce their cognitive dissonance by pretending to themselves that he rose from the dead?

As I said, this would increase, not decrease the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing.

So you haven't provided a rational explanation.

Incidentally, what is now known as the NT was culled from dozens, maybe even hundreds of writings from the early Christians, and probably other groups as well. Then the Church decided on what was politically acceptable and put the majority of them out of sight, by whatever means (necessary?).

Therefore, even by WG's own argument, what's left in the NT is simply what the Church wants us to believe. There's no reason for everyone else to believe that the gospels are the only account of what happened to Jesus. I'm pretty sure Muslims believe he didn't die on the cross but was spirited away (sorry) by his followers. Whether Mohammed made it up or it was part of some other tradition, I've no idea, but claiming unanimity from a small, politically-acceptable group from a larger group of almost certainly more diverse writings proves absolutely nothing, and is almost certainly wrong itself.

SoRB: Yes, granted it only on a piece of paper but one could try to find other bits of paper.

Quoting the same piece of paper proves nothing.



Which is based on...the piece of paper.

< All Christian traditions practise it, and it's origin stems from that night before the crucifixion, and it is tied in with the resurrection.>

Which is written on the one piece of paper.

Therefore, as SoRB says look elsewhere to corroborate the piece of paper.

Dot^3 (Thanks Sorb)

As I said in 136, these were the disciples' dissonant cognitions:

1. That Jesus was a great teacher from God, the messiah.
2. That he was killed.

The disciples knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he'd been killed. Like I said, they could have reduced the dissonance between these facts simply by seeing this (2) as not conflicting with (1). Easy.