I see that as a story for public consumption, if you know what I mean, i.e. the "official story." But is there motive to steal a body and bury it elsewhere and proclaim resurrection? You bet. And only a handful needed to know the real truth. In other words, the evidence is inconclusive.
Would they willingly die for a testimony that Jesus had supernaturally risen? Hardly kosta because they knew it was a lie
Again, here we are dealing with inconclusive evidence. First of all, people die for all sorts of ideas. The very act of dying for them doesn't prove them true or genuine. Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves up for their faith every day it seems. is that proof that Mohammad is the prophet? Hardly.
Secondly, the story of Resurrection was the only way for the disciples to survive. They were on the wrong side of the law and they needed followers. And what better way to find followers than to tell them they saw risen Jesus? I am not saying this is what happened. I am simply raising logical objections to the story to show that reasonable alternatives exist.
There was no motive for Jesus' enemies to remove the body
That is obvious. The only people who could profit from an empty tomb were the disciples.
It is by sheer necessity, but the unreliability of eyewitness accounts is well documented and established...which is precisely why in criminal trials "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is the litmus test for evidence.
But it doesn't stop there for you kosta, this same Jesus was observed and spoke to these disciples on numerous occasions and up to as many as 500 at one time
G, some 7,000 people at Fatima "saw" the Sun "dance" and "fall" towards earth; some even reported feeling increased heat from the proximity of the Sun! The only source of such "eyewitness" accounts and numbers is a book that is not unbiased and that has an obvious agenda.
I think the word would have spread about this, and some evidence outside the Bible of such sightings would have been recoded or alluded to. At this point we have no such evidence. We only have Josephus who doesn't list sources and rather uses hearsay, which was the standard method of collecting 'data" in those days, again highly unreliable, essentially a "rumor mill".
Your conclusions on this subject are expected from anyone who denies the reality of the resurrection. The only reason that people do this is, because of all the things that happened during and after the time of Jesus, the resurrection becomes the pivotal point of Christianity. As Paul said, if Christ be not raised we are dead in our sins and are of all men most miserable. He was himself a witness of the resurrection and he gave up EVERYTHING for it. He changed from a persecutor of Christians into its greatest evangelist. Why? Because he wanted a following? Give me break! A very good article on this subject is found at: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/contemporary-scholarship
We can try to explain these appearances away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.
At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical [elements].
The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul.
You have other features that your 'excuse' fails to address. First - I've already pointed out that the disciples were already in fear of their lives and hiding. Secondly, they had NO expectation of a resurrection - go back and read the sections where Jesus was trying to tell them - they were pretty dense. Third, a key component of Jesus' followers - the women, were left out of the 'plot', they provided the first word. Finally, any 'removal' would have had the disciples doing so on a sabbath and having to deal with guards (see point 1 above).
One other aspect you miss kosta - Jews of that era made note of their 'holy men' and their tombs (such as Joseph's tomb of todays Israeli/arab conflicts). They would venerate the site of the burial - this has never occured kosta - only an empty tomb has been venerated.
Again, here we are dealing with inconclusive evidence. First of all, people die for all sorts of ideas. The very act of dying for them doesn't prove them true or genuine. Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves up for their faith every day it seems. is that proof that Mohammad is the prophet? Hardly.
Jihadist bombers are not declared eyewitnesses to a resurrection kosta - so there is no comparison. The witness of the disciples from pentecost on was that they were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.
Secondly, the story of Resurrection was the only way for the disciples to survive. They were on the wrong side of the law and they needed followers. And what better way to find followers than to tell them they saw risen Jesus? I am not saying this is what happened. I am simply raising logical objections to the story to show that reasonable alternatives exist.
Objections - yes, logical for the time period, not really. Having followers did not stop later persecution of the disciples kosta - it didn't stop the jailing of peter or the stoning of Stephen. Furthermore, they could have faded away from Jerusalem and back to Galilee and back to fishing. Instead they publically condemned the people ("whom ye have crucified" - Acts 2:36) for their involvement in the death of Jesus.
Finally kosta - why would they believe the disciples if a dead man was still in the tomb - which would have been easily proven. No, kosta- announcing the resurrection of Jesus was unlikely to provide them cover from the Jewish authorities, no does the record indicate that the increased followers provided any protection either.
That is obvious. The only people who could profit from an empty tomb were the disciples.
How did they 'profit' kosta? I can hardly consider being arrested, beaten, killed, etc being considered as profiting.
It is by sheer necessity, but the unreliability of eyewitness accounts is well documented and established...which is precisely why in criminal trials "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is the litmus test for evidence.
I don't think you have the legal language quite correct, but that is insignificant at this point. Lets take and examine the degree of unreliability of eyewitness testimony in regards to the resurrection.
1. Empty tomb discoverd by women - clearly the women were expecting to find a body
2. Empty tomb verified by Peter and John - both were expecting to find a body.
3. Resurrected Jesus appears to followers walking to Emmaus
4. Resurrected Jesus appears to disciples (minus Thomas and Judas(who had killed himself))
5. Resurrected Jesus appears to all remaining disciples including Thomas.
6. Jewish leaders come up with story to cover for the guards and explain away the empty tomb - hostile witness testimony.
Now that is a lot of collaborative eye-witness testimony kosta that a court would find compelling and beyond a reasonable doubt. But lets examine something more modern for comparison.
Say some people observe an automobile accident. In court does the judge throw that testimony out? No, that evidence is valid.
No in the case of an empty tomb - what is hard to make invalid - either the body was in the tomb or it wasn't. That is a very fundamental point - they are not going to say "well I think it was empty, I don't remember" or "well half the body was there". No, the event would be of such magnitude that simple fact would not be corrupted as the car wreck could be (such as the exact car color). Sorry kosta the 'unreliabilty of witnesses' arguement doesn't hold weight when compared to the events and the simplicity of the witness - either the tomb was empty or it wasn't.
G, some 7,000 people at Fatima "saw" the Sun "dance" and "fall" towards earth; some even reported feeling increased heat from the proximity of the Sun! The only source of such "eyewitness" accounts and numbers is a book that is not unbiased and that has an obvious agenda.
Poor comparison once again. First the resurrection was not expected by the disciples - as evidenced by their surprise by the women's witness. The Fatima incident - something WAS expected that day. In this case, many valid alternatives are available, most focused on mass hysteria. In this case there were many other versions as well as those who didn't see the incident. How does this related to the empty tomb? Once again, either the tomb was empty or it wasn't. It was an unexpected event. If they 'thought' it was empty, but it wasn't, the Jewish leaders could have shut down the budding church by simply opening the tomb and producing the body - an event that didn't happen, but they did concoct a story to try to explain away the event - so were the pharisees and high priest hallucinating too? Once again kosta - the simplicity of the eye-witness account and the additional items that need to be answered are not accounted for by your 'unreliability' arguement.
I think the word would have spread about this, and some evidence outside the Bible of such sightings would have been recoded or alluded to. At this point we have no such evidence.
In a predominatly greek/roman culture that has within its own religious culture a mythological basis to accept some things like this at face value? Or the piddly little country of Israel that later was decimated in AD 70. Would you expect the Jewish leadership - who was hostile towards Jesus and his followers - to document such an event which would put them in unfavorable light - or vindicate Jesus?
We only have Josephus who doesn't list sources and rather uses hearsay, which was the standard method of collecting 'data" in those days, again highly unreliable, essentially a "rumor mill".
AFAIK, there are only two sources who recorded the history of the Jews during this period - Josephus and the NT. Because a source is "heresay" doesn't necessarly invalidate it. In the case of the Gospel accounts kosta - emphasis has always been - both internally and externally - that the source of the information was first hand - from the witnesses themselves. This is not 'rumor' mill writings like you could and do ascribe to Josephus, but from the source.