Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Gary]

Dear Readers: It is very clear that the Ascension story is an embellishment. It never happened. This story occurs in the writings of only one author who admits that he was not an eyewitness to the fantastical supernatural event he describes. We would never believe in a Bigfoot, a Loch Ness Monster, Martians, nor any other supernatural story based on such poor evidence.

And if the Bible includes this supernatural tall tale, how do we know that the other supernatural claims are not also tall tales? The evidence for these other claims is a little better, but still very, very weak.

Believe and follow the humanistic and pacifist teachings of Jesus the man, but abandon the ancient superstition of Jesus the Resurrected Man-God, Judge and Jury of all Humanity, Cosmic Ruler of the Universe.

[psstein]

I would describe them as honest and brave.

I started laughing when I read that.

Dawkins/Hitchens/et al. know little about Christianity and even less about religion in general.

[psstein]

You're like a synthesized, automated Richard Dawkins. All the phrases are recycled from his lexicon. You should at least try to emulate the braver and more linguistically superior Christopher Hitchens or Thomas Paine. I think they were more respectful, but I may be wrong. I'm not a student of any skeptic orator.

Gary seems to have no understanding of how to interpret things non-literally. Hooray for fundamentalism!

[Gary]

I started laughing when I read that.

Dawkins/Hitchens/et al. know little about Christianity and even less about religion in general.

They know a tall tale when they hear one.

When someone tells you that a seventh century prophet flew on a winged horse to heaven, there is no need to "study the scholarly research" on this claim to know that it is superstitious nonsense, and immediately dismiss it as such. And the same goes for your first century dead-but-now-alive prophet who allegedly flew off into outer space.

Now, Stein. Why don't you answer one very simple question that you seem to want so desperately to avoid: Is it possible or is it impossible that a Jew or group of Jews moved the body of Jesus resulting in the Empty Tomb? I'm not asking if you believe this is probable or plausible, only possible. Will you please answer this very simple question with a simple answer: yes or no.

[Gary]

Gary seems to have no understanding of how to interpret things non-literally. Hooray for fundamentalism!

I interpret the alleged bodily resurrection of a first century apocalyptic Jewish preacher VERY non-literally.

[psstein]

It is not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

It's also not impossible that we live in the Matrix. Actually, Nick Bostrom wrote a paper showing that it's more likely that we live in the Matrix than not.

[seanD]

Now, Stein. Why don't you answer one very simple question that you seem to want so desperately to avoid: Is it possible or is it impossible that a Jew or group of Jews moved the body of Jesus resulting in the Empty Tomb? I'm not asking if you believe this is probable or plausible, only possible. Will you please answer this very simple question with a simple answer: yes or no.

Not impossible, but highly improbable if you understand the Jewish burial rituals practiced in the first century. But of course to know that, you have do your research.

[Gary]

It is not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

It's also not impossible that we live in the Matrix. Actually, Nick Bostrom wrote a paper showing that it's more likely that we live in the Matrix than not.

Even if we accept your position that it is extremely unlikely that a Jew or Jews moved the body of Jesus (so extremely unlikely that it is more likely that we live in a Matrix), the question every educated human being must ask himself or herself is this:

Which is more probable/likely of two very improbable events:

---a Jew or Jews moved the body
---a supernatural/divine being moved the body.

There is no correct answer. The answer depends on each person's view of the probability of supernatural/divine beings moving bodies.

[Gary]

Not impossible, but highly improbable if you understand the Jewish burial rituals practiced in the first century. But of course to know that, you have do your research.

I agree with you. It would be highly unusual for a Jew or Jews to have moved the body of Jesus under the circumstances presented in the Gospels. But it is still a possibility, correct?

That is my point.

[seanD]

I agree with you. It would be highly unusual for a Jew or Jews to have moved the body of Jesus under the circumstances presented in the Gospels. But it is still a possibility, correct?

That is my point.

Assuming the remote possibility, it only explains the missing body, it doesn't explain the appearances (nor does it solve the problem of why this wasn't corrected in the community when misconceptions about risen Lord's and inevitable Jewish violations of body removal began to develop). So, you'd have to stack this implausible theory onto another one in order to explain why they saw visions and what the visions were. Then after that, you'd have to explain why they formed a theology about a resurrected Messiah when such a theology was contrary to Jewish socioreligious beliefs about Messiah and what he would accomplish.

Then, from there, it becomes a matter of prerogative of the person analyzing this as to whether believing the official story is less or more problematic than trying to solve it with these problematic alternatives.

[Gary]

Assuming the remote possibility, it only explains the missing body, it doesn't explain the appearances (nor does it solve the problem of why this wasn't corrected in the community when misconceptions about risen Lord's and inevitable Jewish violations of body removal began to develop). So, you'd have to stack this implausible theory onto another one in order to explain why they saw visions and what the visions were. Then after that, you'd have to explain why they formed a theology about a resurrected Messiah when such a theology was contrary to Jewish socioreligious beliefs about Messiah and what he would accomplish.

Then, from there, it becomes a matter of prerogative of the person analyzing this as to whether believing the official story is less or more problematic than trying to solve it with these problematic alternatives.

Excellent points. I suggest we address each piece of evidence for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection one at a time and then put it all together. However, before we leave the empty tomb evidence, I would like to pose the same question regarding "possibility" to other possible explanations for the empty tomb.

Would you or would you not agree that the following non-miracle explanations for the empty tomb are also possible, even if you regard them as extremely improbable:

---the Sanhedrin moved the body on Saturday night, after the end of Passover.
---Pilate/the Romans moved the body after a change of heart regarding giving a traitor to Caesar a proper tomb.
---grave robbers moved the body, thinking that as the "King of the Jews" his remains might have some monetary value.
---family members, who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, moved the body.
---Mary Magdalene, a rich woman, followed Arimathea to the tomb, and after he left, ordered her servants to move the body, never telling the Eleven.
---a couple of Jesus followers moved the body and did not tell the Eleven.

I am not suggesting that there is any evidence for any of these possible explanations. All I am asking is: is it possible, no matter how improbable, that these non-miracle explanations could explain the empty tomb?

[seanD]

Excellent points. I suggest we address each piece of evidence for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection one at a time and then put it all together. However, before we leave the empty tomb evidence, I would like to pose the same question regarding "possibility" to other possible explanations for the empty tomb.

Would you or would you not agree that the following non-miracle explanations for the empty tomb are also possible, even if you regard them as extremely improbable:

---the Sanhedrin moved the body on Saturday night, after the end of Passover.
---Pilate/the Romans moved the body after a change of heart regarding giving a traitor to Caesar a proper tomb.
---grave robbers moved the body, thinking that as the "King of the Jews" his remains might have some monetary value.
---family members, who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, moved the body.
---Mary Magdalene, a rich woman, followed Arimathea to the tomb, and after he left, ordered her servants to move the body, never telling the Eleven.
---a couple of Jesus followers moved the body and did not tell the Eleven.

I am not suggesting that there is any evidence for any of these possible explanations. All I am asking is: is it possible, no matter how improbable, that these non-miracle explanations could explain the empty tomb?

This is where lack of knowledge of first century Jewish culture becomes a major problem, hence is why I said what I said in post #202 and why it's so important in order to have a firm grasp of the entire historical framework when tackling this subject. I'm obviously not going to address all your points, I'll just pick one example. The family wouldn't remove the body for two reasons: there is evidence that the burial, since Jesus was condemned as a criminal by the Jews, would have forbade the family coming into contact with the body, thus they would have been in violation of Jewish law and protocol (assuming they even had access to the body under these circumstances), and they wouldn't remove the body for purification reasons. Bodies were placed in tombs until atrophied, then the bones were later buried in family or public ossuaries. So, even if we disregard the criminal aspects of this and the violations thereof, there would have been no reason to remove the body so soon, especially by the family. So, I can't even entertain the possibly of these explanations here because your entire historical premise is faulty.

[Gary]

This is where lack of knowledge of first century Jewish culture becomes a major problem, hence is why I said what I said in post #202 and why it's so important in order to have a firm grasp of the entire historical framework when tackling this subject. I'm obviously not going to address all your points, I'll just pick one example. The family wouldn't remove the body for two reasons: there is evidence that the burial, since Jesus was condemned as a criminal by the Jews, would have forbade the family coming into contact with the body, thus they would have been in violation of Jewish law and protocol (assuming they even had access to the body under these circumstances), and they wouldn't remove the body for purification reasons. Bodies were placed in tombs until atrophied, then the bones were later buried in family or public ossuaries. So, even if we disregard the criminal aspects of this and the violations thereof, there would have been no reason to remove the body so soon, especially by the family. So, I can't even entertain the possibly of these explanations here because your entire historical premise is faulty.

But you wouldn't rule it out as impossible, would you?

[seanD]

But you wouldn't rule it out as impossible, would you?

Well, nothing is impossible in theory, but what good is that? I know that it's historically improbable, so for me to not rule it out as impossible I would need reasons why the family removed the body, and again, the reasons would have to fall within the historical framework of we know about this culture.

[Gary]

Well, nothing is impossible in theory, but what good is that? I know that it's historically improbable, so for me to not rule it out as impossible I would need reasons why the family removed the body, and again, the reasons would have to fall within the historical framework of we know about this culture.

But you are having a discussion with a person who believes that it is highly improbable that an invisible Being moved the body. So we need to both acknowledge the improbability of both positions and then determine, if we can, which explanation is most improbable.

I think we need to dispel once for all the notion that Second Temple Jews NEVER violated the Sabbath or the Law in general. Remember, we are talking about a very long period of time, approximately SIX HUNDRED YEARS, therefore we are talking about the behaviors of millions and millions of Jews. And Second Temple Jews were still human beings, and all human beings are imperfect and make mistakes, deliberate or accidental. Therefore out of millions of Second Temple Jews how often did a Jew move a body, that had not completely decomposed, on a Sabbath? I would bet that this very rare event happened at least 100 times out of so many millions of people, but for the sake of being as conservative as possible. Let's say that it only happened 10 times.

But I am not asking what the probability is of a Jew or Jews moving the body of Jesus on a Sabbath. I am asking what the probability of Jews moving the body during a non-Sabbath time period, such as Friday night before the guards arrived, or Saturday night if Matthew's guards are non-historical (which even many Christian scholars believe to be the case). So how many times did a Jew or Jews move a body (not on the Sabbath) during Second Temple Judaism? When the Greeks or Romans killed large numbers of Jews and threw their bodies in a mass pit, did the Jews always wait a year until the bodies had completely decayed to bones before giving them a proper Jewish burial? I don't think anyone can prove that is the case. So let's estimate how many times a body was moved, on a non-Sabbath day, during Second Temple Judaism. I would bet the number is in the thousands. But to be as conservative as possible, let's say that it only happened 100 times.

So using these numbers, what is the probability that the empty tomb of Jesus was due to a Jew (family or friend) moving the body versus a resurrection?

Now remember, Christians (except OBP) claim that there has been only ONE resurrection in all of human history. So if there have been 100 times in history that a Second Temple Jew/Jews have moved a body prior to fully decomposing and only once that a missing tomb has (allegedly) been due to a resurrection, which explanation is more likely/probable?