if it was ILLEGAL to identify the body after a few days according to jewish system, then doesn’t matter who stole the body, no one would be allowed to expose the body in public.

the guards at the tomb seem redundant. there was no need for them.

What is the evidence that in the 1st century, badly beaten up bodies, which were placed in a tomb, would’ve been recognized by thieves who stole them?

Bodies (or their loculus, usually in chalk) were marked, precisely because they had to be reburied later. See my chapter on burial in The Empty Tomb, which also challenges a lot of the arguments you are referring to (which aren’t quite correct about the implications of ancient Judean burial law). On the rest, see my comment on the Davis review.

What is the evidence that in the 1st century, badly beaten up bodies , which were placed in a tomb, would’ve been recognized by thieves who stole them?

according to historical records, what did the jews usually do if they feared that x’s body would get stolen? what procedures would they take? would they do ‘hide and seek’ with the thieves by placing the body in another place/bury it?

according to the historical records, do the jews get pagans to handle dead jewish criminals?

i will quote the apologists:

1.

All four gospels are specific: the crucifixion took place on Nisan 14, and the garden near Golgotha was used simply because it was close. There was no time to dilly dally with anything more complex than:
–get the body down
–prep it
–carry it to the cave
–seal the cave

2.

how do we recognize people who badly beaten up today? The family of Emit Till recognized him, barely.

end quote

unfortunately i don’t know JACK about jewish funeral and burial practices. christians try to counter every possibility by appealing to jewish procedures for burial and funeral.

the discussion is going on here

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=521&start=120

lets assume that pilate knew that the deciples had forsook jesus. why would pilate buy into the jewish claim that the deciples would come back and steal the body? why would they dare show thier face in an area where their leader was murdered?

You will have to wait for my next book which has a whole section on that, based on the known anthropology of visionary cults like the Shakers.

Basically, he says he was last because everyone else after him was declared an impostor (Gal. 1). Paul was the last claimant to receive endorsement from the Jerusalem church.

In other words, that is a political statement, not an honest declaration that people stopped claiming to see Jesus.

When the apostle Paul says that “last of all, He appeared unto me”, how are we supposed to interpret this?

Why would Paul state that no one else would ‘see’ Jesus ? How could he presume that no one else would claim to have ‘seen’ the actual resurrected Jesus, as he supposedly had?

I know that you always have a lot going on in your professional life, so I always appreciate that you take the time to respond to your blog questions.

So, thanks in advance.

Yes I do!

😉

You don’t have to post this.

Do you think it is appropriate for you to insult readers of your blog?

You acted like an ass and disobeyed the posted rules of this blog to say something ignorant, bigoted and asinine in a thread where you knew damn well it wasn’t relevant. You were treated accordingly. Actions have consequences. You just experienced yours.

Your claims about the harmlessness of “evidence-based atheism” are not convincing. The Soviets made endless claims about the their “scientific socialism” so why should I believe your brand of atheism would be any different?

Which is an appeal to evidence. See how that works? Marxism evidentially is a disaster. Hence I did not refer to “faux evidence based atheism,” but actual evidence-based atheism, as in, the atheism that take into account the evidence of what actually happened when Marxism was instituted.

Once you understand the difference, you’ll be halfway where we are.

For example: then you’ll be someone who knows Murdock’s media empire is lying to you pretty much always, and thus you should actually check your facts first before stupidly saying something so demonstrably false.

Then you won’t get butt hurt when you get schooled by facts that you should have had the moral responsibility to check before rudely blurting them.

Won’t that be nice?

Not a dime.

Your claims about the harmlessness of “evidence-based atheism” are not convincing. The Soviets made endless claims about the their “scientific socialism” so why should I believe your brand of atheism would be any different? You are making similar claims as those of the Soviets. When I observe how you treat some people who disagree with you, it leads to many questions. It also does not help when I listen to the vitriol and ridicule that is showered on Christians by some of the speakers at the conferences you attend.