Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

See Keener

That line has become a convenient dodge, Nick.

Why doesn't Jesus EVER heal amputees, Nick? Why doesn't Jesus ever bring decapitees back to life?

Why does Jesus only heal conditions that have natural explanations?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Keener gives cases. OBP has given a case. Every case has been dismissed.

If you won't accept the cases that are given, why should anyone bother?

[Gary]

Keener gives cases. OBP has given a case. Every case has been dismissed.

If you won't accept the cases that are given, why should anyone bother?

I asked for cases that have been investigated by an independent panel of experts and published in a respected scientific or medical journal. Anecdotal claims of "cures" does not meet the standard of evidence used by experts in the field in question. You would not accept "scholarship" claims that did not meet the standards of NT scholars, so why do you use a different standard for medical claims? A medical cure claim should not be accepted as valid unless it has met the standards of evidence demanded by experts in the field in question. If you are unwilling to apply the same standard to medical claims that you apply to NT scholarship claims then it shows very clearly to all that you are not interested in knowing the truth. You are only interested is preserving your belief system at all costs, regardless of the evidence.

[Gary]

Dear Readers: Come on. Let's get serious. If Jesus really loves the entire world and desires the entire world to be saved, why doesn't he perform miracles that are unmistakable? Why doesn't he reattach some poor soldier's severed arm or leg, on camera, live, in front of a group of skeptics and doctors, for all the world to see?

But Jesus never does that, does he? And why not? Are you going to continue believing the lame excuse that your leaders tell you: that Jesus wants people to believe by faith, not evidence? Come on! If that is true, then why all the bother trying to prove the Resurrection with evidence? If Jesus wants you to believe by faith, then apologist websites should shut down. They are doing a terrible disservice to the cause of Jesus.

If you want to believe that Jesus is the living Ruler of the Universe, sitting on a golden throne on the edge of space, and that he performs miracle cures all over the world, go right ahead. But have the guts to admit that you believe it by faith, because the evidence just isn't there.

ANCEDOTAL CLAIMS OF CURES ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE UNEDUCATED AND UNINFORMED, BUT THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.

Nick et al. only insist on expert standards when they believe that these expert standards benefit their position. When expert standards hurt their position, Nick and company always find some excuse to ignore them. I accept the majority opinion and standards of evidence of experts in all fields, including New Testament scholarship. Nick only accepts the majority opinion and standards of evidence of experts when their opinion and standards do not conflict with his preconceived metaphysical (supernatural) beliefs.

[psstein]

You're suggesting the disciples had dreams that convinced them that Jesus was alive again, Gary. That is decidedly not the majority viewpoint of NT scholars.

[Gary]

You're suggesting the disciples had dreams that convinced them that Jesus was alive again, Gary. That is decidedly not the majority viewpoint of NT scholars.

Are you telling me that the majority of NT scholars state, as their scholarly position on the evidence, that the disciples literally saw a walking/talking resurrected body? Please give a source.

My understanding is that the majority scholarly opinion is this: The disciples sincerely BELIEVED that they had seen a resurrected Jesus.

Believing that one sees something and literally seeing that something are not necessarily the same thing. Many, many people believe that they have seen Jesus, even today. But that doesn't mean that they actually did. I have an uncle and a cousin who both had near death experiences, they both believe that Jesus appeared to them...literally. They would swear on the grave of their mothers that it was a real experience.

Could they have been real? Sure. Anything is possible. But once again, in our culture, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence for most people to believe the extra-ordinary claim is true. Just because your neighbor swears on the grave of his mother than he was abducted by Martians last night and flown to the Red Planet for three hours of intensive mind-probing is NOT good enough evidence for most people. And even if TWELVE of your neighbors stated that the were ALL abducted, together, by space aliens and flown to another planet, most people would still not accept this as good evidence for this very extraordinary claim. And the Christian evidence is far worse than that! We have no confirmed eye-witness testimony of the event in question or even of the alleged post-death appearances! All we have are four anonymous stories, in four anonymous, 2,000 year old story books, written decades after the event, in lands far away from the location of the alleged events.

[Bisto]

Friend, don't forget that this "everyone had visions" theory ALSO needs to affirm that Jesus' actual body was stolen. Otherwise any Resurrection claim could have easily been proved false within days.

So far it seems your best theory for HOW it was stolen is to speculate that the tomb was left alone at some point between burial and "Resurrection" Sunday, and that in that period somebody, most likely Jesus' family, moved the body to a family tomb. But your reason for believing Jesus' cousins or whatever would even WANT to do that are later Rabbinical writings, describing burial practices that we have no reliable way to date to the 1st Century, and not forgetting we have no reliable way either to tell whether they were practiced at all by the populace (since those Rabb. writings sometimes have stuff that is not representative of their historical reality, they are shown in charge, etc.).

Besides, EVEN IF we assume the practices are old, AND they were actually performed by some Jews at Jesus' time, AND some of Jesus' relatives wanted to follow these teachings in Jesus' case, AND there was a time window when Jesus' tomb was left unchecked, AND these distant relatives went and moved Jesus' body, AND (independently from all of this) multiple Apostles had visions of Jesus, AND they believed from these visions that he was alive again (and not, like, visiting them from Heaven or something, in line with their beliefs about what happened after death and before the grand resurrection; or even something miraculous THEY WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED EASIER in their Jewish worldview, like Jesus ascending Elijah-style to Heaven and telling them from there to proclaim the ascended Jesus had been vindicated by God!), AND they convinced the rest that these visions were real, AND the Jesus-movers didn't say a word, AND Jesus' brothers either had no idea of Jesus' body being moved or they knew but they still chose to go with the shameful and martyr-making Resurrection idea (why, if you know it's false?), AND later Paul also had a vivid vision (that somehow also affected his men, or Luke is not a historian)... and Jesus' body was still rotting in his family tomb elsewhere... then HOW HARD would it have been for Roman authorities to research and trace the body to Jesus' family?

(Remember, in this scenario, we BELIEVE the Rabbinics' writings were both ancient and authoritative, and in them, the only relevant reason that might have been justified to move the body was to move it to a family tomb, so they would have been among the main suspects. If you wave these burial practices away, so does whatever incentive any relative might have had to move the body.)

I didn't continue with the "AND" ad hoc assumptions because they're near endless historically. You get the point.

Maybe you'll say grave robbers were at work instead (how convenient), along with the visions by the apostles.

Where do the coincidences end?

[Gary]

Friend, don't forget that this "everyone had visions" theory ALSO needs to affirm that Jesus' actual body was stolen. Otherwise any Resurrection claim could have easily been proved false within days.

So far it seems your best theory for HOW it was stolen is to speculate that the tomb was left alone at some point between burial and "Resurrection" Sunday, and that in that period somebody, most likely Jesus' family, moved the body to a family tomb. But your reason for believing Jesus' cousins or whatever would even WANT to do that are later Rabbinical writings, describing burial practices that we have no reliable way to date to the 1st Century, and not forgetting we have no reliable way either to tell whether they were practiced at all by the populace (since those Rabb. writings sometimes have stuff that is not representative of their historical reality, they are shown in charge, etc.).

Besides, EVEN IF we assume the practices are old, AND they were actually performed by some Jews at Jesus' time, AND some of Jesus' relatives wanted to follow these teachings in Jesus' case, AND there was a time window when Jesus' tomb was left unchecked, AND these distant relatives went and moved Jesus' body, AND (independently from all of this) multiple Apostles had visions of Jesus, AND they believed from these visions that he was alive again (and not, like, visiting them from Heaven or something, in line with their beliefs about what happened after death and before the grand resurrection; or even something miraculous THEY WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED EASIER in their Jewish worldview, like Jesus ascending Elijah-style to Heaven and telling them from there to proclaim the ascended Jesus had been vindicated by God!), AND they convinced the rest that these visions were real, AND the Jesus-movers didn't say a word, AND Jesus' brothers either had no idea of Jesus' body being moved or they knew but they still chose to go with the shameful and martyr-making Resurrection idea (why, if you know it's false?), AND later Paul also had a vivid vision (that somehow also affected his men, or Luke is not a historian)... and Jesus' body was still rotting in his family tomb elsewhere... then HOW HARD would it have been for Roman authorities to research and trace the body to Jesus' family?

(Remember, in this scenario, we BELIEVE the Rabbinics' writings were both ancient and authoritative, and in them, the only relevant reason that might have been justified to move the body was to move it to a family tomb, so they would have been among the main suspects. If you wave these burial practices away, so does whatever incentive any relative might have had to move the body.)

I didn't continue with the "AND" ad hoc assumptions because they're near endless historically. You get the point.

Maybe you'll say grave robbers were at work instead (how convenient), along with the visions by the apostles.

Where do the coincidences end?

There are several major assumptions in your comment, my friend.

First, why do Christians believe that skeptics are obligated to provide evidence for THE true, natural, alternative explanation for the empty tomb and the early Christian belief in a resurrection? We are under no such obligation. We are under no obligation to provide evidence for what actually happened, only to point out that alternative explanations are possible that explain all the evidence available. We are also not obligated to prove that our alternative, naturalistic explanations are more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation as probability is a matter of opinion.

Bottom line: If skeptics can demonstrate that there are possible alternative, non-miracle explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, then the onus is on Christians to prove that their extra-ordinary (supernatural) explanation is more probable than these naturalistic explanations. Christians may not like having the onus put on them, but that is how things work in our culture.

Let me give an analogy:

Farmer Brown's cow is missing. Police investigators cannot find any trace of her. The only lead that exists is the claim by twelve members of a local, newly formed religious sect who state that all twelve of them watched as the milk cow levitated one hundred feet into the air until disappearing inside a Martian mothership, which once the cow was inside, sped off into the sky at the speed of a jet airplane.

Question: Should we believe the Cow-abducted-by-Martians story simply because there is no evidence for any other explanation??? Of course not! Just because there is no evidence for any other explanation does not mean that the most PROBABLE explanation is the very extraordinary, never-heard-of-before claim of a group of religious fanatics. The most likely explanation for the missing cow is the same explanation for most missing cows: It was stolen or something ate it.

Most educated (sane) people would not insist that skeptics of the cow abduction story provide evidence of a more probable, natural explanation before assuming that a more natural explanation is the cause of the missing milk cow.

Christians need to apply the same logic to their missing Jewish preacher story.

[Gary]

cow abduction image.jpg

[Gary]

[psstein]

Are you telling me that the majority of NT scholars state, as their scholarly position on the evidence, that the disciples literally saw a walking/talking resurrected body? Please give a source.

My understanding is that the majority scholarly opinion is this: The disciples sincerely BELIEVED that they had seen a resurrected Jesus.

Babbles about Martians/gospels are anonymous/etc.

No, and as usual, you're misstating what I'm talking about. NT scholars are convinced that the disciples, James, and Paul all had resurrection experiences of some nature. These were experiences that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were not dreams, which, believe it or not, people of the time knew a lot about. I know it's tough to wrap your little "rationalist" mind around that, but people in the ANE were not stupid. They knew what dreams were like.

Also, there are very good reasons to argue that the gospels weren't anonymous in the first place. But reading is tough.

[Gary]

No, and as usual, you're misstating what I'm talking about. NT scholars are convinced that the disciples, James, and Paul all had resurrection experiences of some nature. These were experiences that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were not dreams, which, believe it or not, people of the time knew a lot about. I know it's tough to wrap your little "rationalist" mind around that, but people in the ANE were not stupid. They knew what dreams were like.

Also, there are very good reasons to argue that the gospels weren't anonymous in the first place. But reading is tough.

Stein,

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to have a dream yet BELEIVE that it is not a dream, but reality? I encourage you to do this: do a google search on this subject: confusing dreams with reality. You will find a lot of people today have these experiences. Why would it be any different 2,000 years ago?

Some of the people who post comments online about this issue may have mental health issues, but many do not. Haven't you ever experienced a dream that the next day you had to really think about and ask yourself: "Did I dream that or did it really happen?"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...am-and-reality

http://journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=29327

http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...015.01393/full

http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/di...s-remembering/

These articles discuss people living today who confuse dreams with reality. Some of them have mental illnesses but some do not. If people today can "see" a dead loved one appear to them in their bedroom or other location, then people living 2,000 years ago were also capable of seeing a dead loved one and believing it was a real event. The onus is on Christians to prove that first century Jews never had vivid dreams that they mistook for reality.

[Gary]

No, and as usual, you're misstating what I'm talking about. NT scholars are convinced that the disciples, James, and Paul all had resurrection experiences of some nature. These were experiences that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were not dreams, which, believe it or not, people of the time knew a lot about. I know it's tough to wrap your little "rationalist" mind around that, but people in the ANE were not stupid. They knew what dreams were like.

Also, there are very good reasons to argue that the gospels weren't anonymous in the first place. But reading is tough.

Scholars do not define what they mean by "experiences". Vivid dreams qualify as experiences. Therefore, my position is fully consistent with the majority scholarly opinion.

The majority of scholars believe that we cannot know for certain who wrote the four Gospels. You may not agree with that, but that is what the majority believes.

[Bisto]

The Cow and the Dreams

There are several major assumptions in your comment, my friend.

First, why do Christians believe that skeptics are obligated to provide evidence for THE true, natural, alternative explanation for the empty tomb and the early Christian belief in a resurrection? We are under no such obligation. We are under no obligation to provide evidence for what actually happened, only to point out that alternative explanations are possible that explain all the evidence available. We are also not obligated to prove that our alternative, naturalistic explanations are more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation as probability is a matter of opinion.

Bottom line: If skeptics can demonstrate that there are possible alternative, non-miracle explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, then the onus is on Christians to prove that their extra-ordinary (supernatural) explanation is more probable than these naturalistic explanations. Christians may not like having the onus put on them, but that is how things work in our culture.

I'm not sure I'm quite sold on this argument, friend; perhaps in principle, but not in the way you use it. We ARE talking about history, and all alternative theories I've seen so far serve to explain only a handful of things in the data, but come to a dead end in many others, a far cry from explaining the whole system.

Let me give an analogy:

Farmer Brown's cow is missing. Police investigators cannot find any trace of her. The only lead that exists is the claim by twelve members of a local, newly formed religious sect who state that all twelve of them watched as the milk cow levitated one hundred feet into the air until disappearing inside a Martian mothership, which once the cow was inside, sped off into the sky at the speed of a jet airplane.

Question: Should we believe the Cow-abducted-by-Martians story simply because there is no evidence for any other explanation??? Of course not! Just because there is no evidence for any other explanation does not mean that the most PROBABLE explanation is the very extraordinary, never-heard-of-before claim of a group of religious fanatics. The most likely explanation for the missing cow is the same explanation for most missing cows: It was stolen or something ate it.

Most educated (sane) people would not insist that skeptics of the cow abduction story provide evidence of a more probable, natural explanation before assuming that a more natural explanation is the cause of the missing milk cow.

Christians need to apply the same logic to their missing Jewish preacher story.

I get your point. I'm just pointing out why we can say that scenario ("Jesus' distant relatives moved his body while nobody was looking, etc.") is historically implausible and maybe "impossible" (i.e. regarding burial practices in rabbinical writings), or any similar scenario that attempts to work with similar assumptions.

In your fictional example where YHWH actually carried the sins of the world away through the Passover Cow using Flying-Saucer-angels, in line with His previous work and overall plan as kept in the Torah ( this simply means: don't forget the Jewish context, this IS NOT a random beyond-natural event devoid of any context that we're talking about!!!), what you're basically saying is that some possible alternative explanations would involve people stealing the cow with a truck, although it happened in a year when trucks may or may not have been invented yet and even when cow-robbing-via-truck may or may not have been a thing, historically speaking. If there are plausible enough reasons to deem all other possible explanations very unlikely (there are no big enough predators in the region, the cow was healthy, it was left unseen for a short period only, there are no cliffs in the area, etc.), and this had some a priori factors that would add to its consideration (like a big Jewish framework and other things would be), then we might as well think twice. Unprecedented doesn't exactly mean impossible.

I'd surely run short making up parallels to make your Cow example similar enough to our case, because otherwise I think it's just a red herring, but you can see my point. (It's not UFOs.)

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to have a dream yet BELEIVE that it is not a dream, but reality? I encourage you to do this: do a google search on this subject: confusing dreams with reality. You will find a lot of people today have these experiences. Why would it be any different 2,000 years ago?

Some of the people who post comments online about this issue may have mental health issues, but many do not. Haven't you ever experienced a dream that the next day you had to really think about and ask yourself: "Did I dream that or did it really happen?"
...
These articles discuss people living today who confuse dreams with reality. Some of them have mental illnesses but some do not. If people today can "see" a dead loved one appear to them in their bedroom or other location, then people living 2,000 years ago were also capable of seeing a dead loved one and believing it was a real event. The onus is on Christians to prove that first century Jews never had vivid dreams that they mistook for reality.

About the "vivid dreams" theory...

Say some of the disciples woke up on the third day, after having dreams where Jesus appeared to him alive and perfectly well (instead of, say, nightmares remembering his gruesome death... and I'll stop there), wondering whether these "dreams" actually happened or not, then:

-Do you really think the rest of the disciples wouldn't have been able to convince them of the truth? "It was just a dream, pal." How vehement would the dreamers have been about this weird idea? "...You're right. What was I thinking?"

-Do you think THAT experience, even in light of the questioning of their fellow disciples, would be enough to make ALL dreamers change their life (in a way incredible on its own), redefine their whole worldview around this maybe-dream-maybe-reality memory, preach an unprecedented message and endure its manifold consequences to death, and death on a cross (or else)? All for the sake of something they were told might just have been a dream?

-What about the apostles that didn't dream, but still changed and preached all the same, though knowing it might all have been just a dream -- how and why would they go to that length? Wouldn't they give up this belief MUCH easier in the face of persecution and martyrdom? Or should we assume they ALL disciples coincidentally dreamed thus?

-Why didn't they check the tomb to see if their dream was true (or someone else to check their claim)? Right. Grave robbers -- the family theory is too unreliable so let's stick with these guys for now. If these dishonorable entrepreneurs knew anything about what happened that Friday then they'd know this convicted criminal, lying alone in this tomb, wouldn't have anything valuable on him except the anointing he was soaked with. Indeed, if this is what these fellows made for a living, I would expect them to have WATCHED the burial process from a distance, so they could now what people put in the tomb with him. Were they planning to decant the oil from his body or something? (to later mix it with more perfumes to remove the corpse's stench!) Unless (of course!) we assume these grave robbers had been locked in their houses since last week, and therefore they knew nothing about the identity of this man, and just happened to steal this particular body. (But is that really how these people would choose what grave to rob? At random? I would imagine a criminal chooses his targets well...?) Right...

-Where did all other Rez. stories come from then? This theory changes NOTHING of the apostles' and the church's moral teaching (everyone is being honest on what they think happened), so don't just assume they would later invent material to make their maybe-risen messiah look better. There are works dedicated to the unlikelihood that alone has in context. Don't think incredible memories about the deceased doing great deeds would progressively grow in their minds either; I understand the relevant literature shows that's not how memories about the deceased work.

-Why James, Paul, and whoever else had "guilt/shame-induced dreams" of Jesus in such a theory, would assume that dream was true with its really odd nature to them? Wouldn't they just think something like "This must be because I didn't support him in time and now it's come to shame me; he wasn't really a bad man... poor bro. I'll go visit mom one of these days." / "This must be because I've been killing fellow Jews for believing precisely this kind of silly thing."...?

[ And please know I don't really think Paul would have felt "inner shame" or something like that as a Jew for persecuting Christians (before his calling, I mean). In his words, he did it with "zeal" -- a word with a lot of meaning in 1st Century Judaism. It's been compared to what the more modern Torah student (Yigal Amir) did when he shot the Jewish leader (Yitzhak Rabin) who, in his words, was a traitor who had bargained with the land promised to the forefathers -- and in his worldview, he probably felt quite justified in doing so. You could read some about what Saul's former Judaism probably was like (e.g. "What Saint Paul Really Said" by Wright, chapter 2, "Saul the persecutor, Paul the converted" is its English title I think), it's a really interesting topic and helps understand his "conversion" (or just "update"?). ]

-Etc... I can think of more stuff but I will not go on.

Does the point get across?

[Gary]

I'm not sure I'm quite sold on this argument, friend; perhaps in principle, but not in the way you use it. We ARE talking about history, and all alternative theories I've seen so far serve to explain only a handful of things in the data, but come to a dead end in many others, a far cry from explaining the whole system.



I get your point. I'm just pointing out why we can say that scenario ("Jesus' distant relatives moved his body while nobody was looking, etc.") is historically implausible and maybe "impossible" (i.e. regarding burial practices in rabbinical writings), or any similar scenario that attempts to work with similar assumptions.

In your fictional example where YHWH actually carried the sins of the world away through the Passover Cow using Flying-Saucer-angels, in line with His previous work and overall plan as kept in the Torah ( this simply means: don't forget the Jewish context, this IS NOT a random beyond-natural event devoid of any context that we're talking about!!!), what you're basically saying is that some possible alternative explanations would involve people stealing the cow with a truck, although it happened in a year when trucks may or may not have been invented yet and even when cow-robbing-via-truck may or may not have been a thing, historically speaking. If there are plausible enough reasons to deem all other possible explanations very unlikely (there are no big enough predators in the region, the cow was healthy, it was left unseen for a short period only, there are no cliffs in the area, etc.), and this had some a priori factors that would add to its consideration (like a big Jewish framework and other things would be), then we might as well think twice. Unprecedented doesn't exactly mean impossible.

I'd surely run short making up parallels to make your Cow example similar enough to our case, because otherwise I think it's just a red herring, but you can see my point. (It's not UFOs.)



About the "vivid dreams" theory...

Say some of the disciples woke up on the third day, after having dreams where Jesus appeared to him alive and perfectly well (instead of, say, nightmares remembering his gruesome death... and I'll stop there), wondering whether these "dreams" actually happened or not, then:

-Do you really think the rest of the disciples wouldn't have been able to convince them of the truth? "It was just a dream, pal." How vehement would the dreamers have been about this weird idea? "...You're right. What was I thinking?"

-Do you think THAT experience, even in light of the questioning of their fellow disciples, would be enough to make ALL dreamers change their life (in a way incredible on its own), redefine their whole worldview around this maybe-dream-maybe-reality memory, preach an unprecedented message and endure its manifold consequences to death, and death on a cross (or else)? All for the sake of something they were told might just have been a dream?

-What about the apostles that didn't dream, but still changed and preached all the same, though knowing it might all have been just a dream -- how and why would they go to that length? Wouldn't they give up this belief MUCH easier in the face of persecution and martyrdom? Or should we assume they ALL disciples coincidentally dreamed thus?

-Why didn't they check the tomb to see if their dream was true (or someone else to check their claim)? Right. Grave robbers -- the family theory is too unreliable so let's stick with these guys for now. If these dishonorable entrepreneurs knew anything about what happened that Friday then they'd know this convicted criminal, lying alone in this tomb, wouldn't have anything valuable on him except the anointing he was soaked with. Indeed, if this is what these fellows made for a living, I would expect them to have WATCHED the burial process from a distance, so they could now what people put in the tomb with him. Were they planning to decant the oil from his body or something? (to later mix it with more perfumes to remove the corpse's stench!) Unless (of course!) we assume these grave robbers had been locked in their houses since last week, and therefore they knew nothing about the identity of this man, and just happened to steal this particular body. (But is that really how these people would choose what grave to rob? At random? I would imagine a criminal chooses his targets well...?) Right...

-Where did all other Rez. stories come from then? This theory changes NOTHING of the apostles' and the church's moral teaching (everyone is being honest on what they think happened), so don't just assume they would later invent material to make their maybe-risen messiah look better. There are works dedicated to the unlikelihood that alone has in context. Don't think incredible memories about the deceased doing great deeds would progressively grow in their minds either; I understand the relevant literature shows that's not how memories about the deceased work.

-Why James, Paul, and whoever else had "guilt/shame-induced dreams" of Jesus in such a theory, would assume that dream was true with its really odd nature to them? Wouldn't they just think something like "This must be because I didn't support him in time and now it's come to shame me; he wasn't really a bad man... poor bro. I'll go visit mom one of these days." / "This must be because I've been killing fellow Jews for believing precisely this kind of silly thing."...?

[ And please know I don't really think Paul would have felt "inner shame" or something like that as a Jew for persecuting Christians (before his calling, I mean). In his words, he did it with "zeal" -- a word with a lot of meaning in 1st Century Judaism. It's been compared to what the more modern Torah student (Yigal Amir) did when he shot the Jewish leader (Yitzhak Rabin) who, in his words, was a traitor who had bargained with the land promised to the forefathers -- and in his worldview, he probably felt quite justified in doing so. You could read some about what Saul's former Judaism probably was like (e.g. "What Saint Paul Really Said" by Wright, chapter 2, "Saul the persecutor, Paul the converted" is its English title I think), it's a really interesting topic and helps understand his "conversion" (or just "update"?). ]

-Etc... I can think of more stuff but I will not go on.

Does the point get across?

"I get your point. I'm just pointing out why we can say that scenario ("Jesus' distant relatives moved his body while nobody was looking, etc.") is historically implausible and maybe "impossible" (i.e. regarding burial practices in rabbinical writings), or any similar scenario that attempts to work with similar assumptions."

"Implausible" and "maybe impossible" are not "impossible". And if it is at all possible that family members, disciples, grave-robbers, the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimethea, Mary Magdalene, Pilate, etc., etc., moved the body...to us skeptics, this very implausible, but still possible, explanation is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to be the explanation of the early Christian belief in a resurrection, than a literal, once in history, supernatural, resurrection of a dead body.

So again we come down to probabilities. We skeptics say that a resurrection is highly improbable and you believers believe that Jews/Romans/etc. moving the body is highly improbable. So how can we reach agreement on which highly improbable explanation is the more improbable???? I say the answer it that we have to determine the probability of any miracle. But when I ask Christians to present evidence for a miracle, a miracle that has been confirmed by independent experts and published in a respected scientific or medical journal, Christians make up excuses why they won't (can't?) do this or they refer me to books with anecdotal cases. If Christians know of a miracle that has been confirmed and published in a respected journal it should be very easy for them to refer us all to this case.

So why don't they?

If we could prove that miracles are a reality, and specifically, that miracles performed in the name of Jesus, are a reality, then we could do a comparison between two highly improbable explanations for the resurrection belief and determine which is more improbable.