"I can't see how it's possible that a physically dead body could move itself out of a sealed tomb"

Rob, if you don't even see it as a remote possibility, then you shouldn't really look at the evidence. Your presuppositions have closed your mind from considering all options.

"How about a friend of Jesus, who perhaps did not want to see his body desecrated in any way, moved it out of the tomb and buried it somewhere else? Maybe someone who had the wherewithal to do so like Joseph of Arimathea?"

Whilst this is one argument against the empty tomb, it doesn't touch any of the other 4 historical events I've listed. So any counter theory to the resurrection really needs to take those into account as well.

Bennie:

"The most reasonable explanation is "we don't know". "

That's a cop out.

Of course we don't "know". But if you think about it, you'll realise that you don't really "know" anything. Therefore, the best you can do is follow where the evidence leads.

"However, "in the absence of any strong apriori presuppositions against the possibility of the supernatural" you'd believe just about anything, Trav. Which you do."

Not at all. I simply believe what the evidence points towards. Are you going to come up with anything which contradicts my evidence or statements, or just make general statements like "you'll believe anything"? (Without considering or commenting on what it is which leads me to believe that what I believe is, in fact, the best explanation).

Ho Hum

"Meanwhile these three references and the associated website provide a comprehensive Spiritually informed critique of the origins and ESSENTIALLY POWER SEEKING POLITICAL purposes of the institutional church fathers that created them."

Those actually turn out to be incredibly UNinformed. I see no references or solid evidence there. it's mainly imaginative speculation springing from a fertile mind

Davidf:

"One bit of evidence is that his narrative has similarities with the narratives of other humanoid gods"

So, on the basis of some obscure similarities between the accounts about Jesus and some ancient myths, you conclude that Jesus is also a myth? Incredible.

Regarding the Mithras myth, allow me to refer you to a couple of different sources:

A debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan, lasting 5 minutes, where Habermas clearly establishes that there is basically No solid evidence whatsoever, of resurrection myths predating Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU

A webpage which goes through all of your claims in detail:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_Jesus_Simply_a_Retelling_of_the_Mithras_Myth

The summary:

From this quick examination of the Mithras tradition, we can see that he is formed from the rock of a mountain. His birthday celebration was later adopted at the winter solstice, just as the Roman Catholics did for the birth of Christ. Mithras was not a teacher like Jesus. He did not have twelve disciples like Jesus. He may have offered his followers immortality, as this was common for deity mythologies of all kinds. He was believed to have performed miracles, like other deities. He did not sacrifice himself for the world as did Jesus. There is no evidence that Mithras ever died, was ever buried or ever resurrected. In a similar way, there is no evidence that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd” or associated with the lamb. He was loosely associated to the lion in that he was a sun-god associated to Leo. Mithras has never been called the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" nor "Messiah." He was called a “mediator” but in a very different way than Jesus. Followers of Mithras did celebrate on Sunday in the years FOLLOWING the Christian celebration of the “Lord’s Day”, and while Mithras followers did fellowship together, they did not celebrate a Eucharist of any kind. So in hindsight, how similar is Mithras to Jesus after all

Looks like the thread got taken over by an argument about Jesus.

It is ironic that a socialist should make the connection between political power and religious fervour. That is precisely what is needed to believe in socialism. These are people who worship the state. However bad Obama may be, they want *more* political control over every aspect of everyday life.

Cost 100,000,000 lives where it was tried? Oh that's right, that's just a strange coincidence. Nothing to do with the project of socialising the means of production.

david f,

Thank you for your kind words.

"Tact is the ability to describe
others as they see themselves."
(Eleanor Chafee).

Vulpine?
I love that!

Davidf

'Dear Runner,

Not sharing your superstition makes me arrogant?

Certainly not but your self righteousness certainly does. The Scriptures describes your corrupt mind accurately.

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "daggett, I'm aware of the many conspiratorial 9-11 theories."

... and I have been 'aware' of 'conspiratorial 9-11 theories' since 2003, but 'awareness' of a conspiracy theory is not the same as understanding it.

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "I don't subscribe to them any more than the JFK assassination theories, the notion the moon landings were faked or that the Freemasons are a diabolically powerful sect."

Have you studied the evidence, or do you just reject 'conspiratorial 9-11 theories' and alternate 'JFK assassination theories', because it seems fashionable to do so?

Well, I also don't subscribe to "the notion the moon landings were faked" and I don't know for sure how "diabolically powerful" the freemasons may or may not be.

But, how are either of these questions relevant to 9/11?

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, " ... I'm afraid I'm dismissing that as poppycock."

You can do that if you like, but I don't see how dismissing a theory without having demonstrated any comprehension of that theory is to your credit.