Well, I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I didn't find what you said convincing at all. You seem convinced that early Christians were persecuted because they were a threat. I suspect they were more of a nuisance.
This is some very bad history. Jesus was on the list of "possibles", but He was never recognized by the Sanhedrin or mainstream Judaism.
I didn't say that he was, I said that some people probably followed him around, and when he died, they went back to whatever it was that folks like that do. You forget, this is small town stuff. He was probably sort of like some of those itinerant (sp?) preachers who show up in odd places here and there, spouting stuff, and if he got a bit of a following, he started to get on the local government officials' nerves. Likely they had folks like that offed pretty regularly.
As for producing a body, as I said, the numbers of followers were small. !2 disciples, a few women... Plus a few hundred more people, at least one high-ranking defection...
According to whom?
The Jewish authorities obviously paid enough attention to persecute them, which, to me at least, would involve a little more effort than digging up a body.
Obviously his followers weren't the problem. HE was the problem. And we have no proof that people were running around 3 days later yelling "he lives, he lives!" If the local authorities didn't bother producing a body, they must not have seen a need.
Unfortunately for Stephen, the authorities didn't agree.
Again, if someone becomes a nuisance, off with them. I really don't know how or why you have convinced yourself that this is the smoking gun, this lack of evidence from the Bible that the authorities had Jesus stuffed and mounted near the gates of the city. Like that information would be in the Bible even if it were recorded.
Were you just extremely sloppy in your reading?
I guess. When I'm dealing with people who I think are a little nuts, I don't really put much heart in it. I know that's not very nice, but think about it. Suppose someone came up to you and said "I am Napoleon." And started arguing with you about how he was Napoleon, and ran a bunch of French history by you, lots of war lingo, etc etc... You may be forced to concede that they know more about French history than you, but that doesn't change the fact that they believe in something that is nonsense, so they are frankly, nuts. How much effort would you put into arguing with this person to convince him he wasn't Napoleon?
Fine. They were a nuisance.
The authorities still didn't end the nuisance the easy way.
I didn't say that he was, I said that some people probably followed him around, and when he died, they went back to whatever it was that folks like that do.
Except, you did say it. "There were non-resurrectionist Christians... they're called Jews." Either way, it doesn't address my point. Anyone who left after Jesus was crucified simply ceased to be a Christian. He did not become a Christian who didn't believe in the resurrection. Your point in 83 is still wrong.
You forget, this is small town stuff.
Jerusalem was a significant regional city, not a small town.
Obviously his followers weren't the problem. HE was the problem. And we have no proof that people were running around 3 days later yelling "he lives, he lives!"
Even deliberately throwing out the Bible's statements as proof, we do have evidence they thought it not long after the event. Namely, nothing else makes the least sense for explaning the origin or Christianity. Your rather weak efforts confirm this. The question is then, where did the body go?
If the local authorities didn't bother producing a body, they must not have seen a need.
Or maybe they didn't have it.
And here we reach a legitimate "they themselves admitted", because they really did admit it. They said the Christians stole the body. The empty tomb is a historical fact.
You seem not to have noticed, but your whole model collides with the facts. It is a historical fact that Jesus' tomb was empty. It is a historical fact that the Christians were important enough to the Jews (your ignorant, admittedly nonserious speculations almost 2000 years later notwithstanding; unlike you, they were on the ground when it happened) to persecute them. Whether they felt threatened or annoyed is irrelivant: they were motivated to destroy Christianity. It's a historical fact that they did things harder and less effective than just producing the body, because the body wasn't there. So where did it go?
Again, if someone becomes a nuisance, off with them.
Again, your distinction between a threat and a nuisance means exactly nothing. The motive, whatever it was, was obviously there. The means was not.
I really don't know how or why you have convinced yourself that this is the smoking gun, this lack of evidence from the Bible that the authorities had Jesus stuffed and mounted near the gates of the city. Like that information would be in the Bible even if it were recorded.
If they'd stuffed and mounted Jesus, we wouldn't be have this discussion, would we? But we are having this discussion.
If that isn't a smoking gun, why all the effort to avoid confronting the fact? If someone tells me a bunch of 7th (I think it was 7th) century Arabs thought there was a prophet in their midst and that their enemies had too little political and military acument to stop them, I'd say "yep" and my worldview would be unshaken. But Jesus is different, isn't He?