What are the chances that "Saint" Peter and his gang stole Jesus' body from the tomb?I think it's relevant that the gospels fail to mention the actual resurrection, and just mention seeing Jesus after it.Perhaps they stole the body and then performed some rituals and then all assumed they saw him afterwards?
>>18439072Paul only speaks of visions. I think that the early resurrection narrative was that Jesus became a divine being in heaven, and the physical resurrection story came later to distinguish Jesus from other humans who were worshiped as gods after their deaths.
>>18439072>>>/x/
>>18439086Paul insists on a bodily resurrection and uses Jesus as an example.
>>18439072It was guarded by roman guards, so no.
>>18439072>>18439251The idea that he ever had a tomb is revisionism. He was executed for heresy and heretics in 1st century Judea weren’t even allowed to have a tomb, instead they were buried exclusively in unmarked graves.
>>18439122Paul talks about spiritual bodies as opposed to psychical (animal/natural/physical) bodies, and he says things like "Flesh and blood will not inherit the the kingdom of God" and "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" and "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." And there were lots of early Christian supposed heretics who understood Paul to mean that the resurrection body is made out of spirit-substance while the body we have now is discarded.Maybe it's ambiguous exactly what Paul means in our version of Paul's letters, but imo this could easily be the result of orthodox interpolations to mitigate "heretical" interpretations of Paul. After all, even 2 Peter, often considered to be a late forgery, has to admit that Paul's letters are "hard to understand." Were they always so hard to understand, or were they made hard to understand by people trying to change his meaning, mostly by adding to them because that was the easiest tactic to get away with?
>>18439290Romans were willing to acomodate to Judean customs. There was a tomb. Some wealthy guy who followed Jesus paid for the whole ordeal and the romans accomodated him since Pontius Pilate really didnt want another Judean uprising. Below is proof that even crucified victims (the lowest of the low when it comes to criminals) also were entitled to a tomb burial. I dont see why would it be far fetched that Jesus would be given a tomb as well given the huge importance He held among His followers.https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/
>>18439307>Romans were willing to acomodate to Judean customsAnd according to Judean customs no heretic could have anything but an unmarked grave.
>>18439072we've been to the moon and people still insist on taking the writings of lying schizo desert cultists seriously.
>>18439331>Judean customsDeuteronomy 21:22-23 says otherwise
>>18439377Doesn’t refute that Jesus was burred in an unmarked grave.
>>18439447Scripture says that wasnt the case. We dont even know if most historical figures really existed. I really wish ancient history was held up to the same scrutinity as the bible usually is when it comes to naysayers.
>Hey Centurion?>Yes legionary Mischievous?>You know what would be REALLY funny?It's just that simple
>>18439447even the jews acknowledged that he was in fact buried in a tomb. They said the guards (confirming that there were guards) were bribed. You don't get more clear evidence that the historical facts in the bible were accurate than testimony from enemies
>>18439072>What are the chances that "Saint" Peter and his gang stole Jesus' body from the tomb?I don't know, let's just say it's a lot more likely than a person rising from the dead.>I think it's relevant that the gospels fail to mention the actual resurrection, and just mention seeing Jesus after itMeh, it would've been easy enough for one of the gospels writers to create a scene of someone witnessing the resurrection and I'd even wager you could've found "witnesses" who claimed they totally saw it. People love to lie about shit like that. I think the way they wrote it is just more dramatic. >Perhaps they stole the body and then performed some rituals and then all assumed they saw him afterwards?A morbid thought. There's little evidence for it, though. Giving Jesus's body a proper burial would itself have been outside the norm. We should first doubt that there even was an identifiable tomb to rob.
>>18439528>even the jews acknowledged that he was in fact buried in a tomb. They said the guards (confirming that there were guards) were bribed.Citation needed
