Talk:Stolen body hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] POV check and unreferenced tags

I've added the above tag due to a general lack of neutrality, despite the edit that someone used to try and remove some of the bias. This article could also be classified as being very controversial, however I lack the specialist knowledge to update and resolve the potential issues in this entry. --82.152.4.187 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Section

The last paragraph is totally unnecessary and irrelevant, and the one before that needs to be better written and more clear, descriptive, and detailed. I'm sure there are more things wrong with this section. I may try to clean it up in the near future. -EdGl 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Soldiers

This is almost certainly un-put-in-able, but there is the notion (unsourced) that at least some of the Roman soldiers were Christians, a theory which very neatly circumvents both of the criticisms listed here.193.62.42.130 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Observance of religious guidelines

The disciples, as practicing Jews, could not and would not come at or near a dead body. So they could not have stolen His body in the night. - heh, to those of you who practice some religion or other: haven't you ever broken the rules of your faith? To claim that A could not commit B only because B is prohibited by his religion is totally ahistorical (as there are numerous accounts of virtualy EVERY religious and ideological rules o be bended or broken 'for a higher good' or some other cause (eg. profiteering on the believers). To claim that religious rules were never broken could also assume that HUMANS ARE INFALLIBLE, which is (2) simply not true from historical, factual, archeological, psychological and all other points of view and (2) against most theologies, especially Judaic, Christian and Muslim ones. It's obvious that they *could* break the rules of their religion in order to honor their Master and Teacher in some way. Critto

[edit] Probability matters

In fact, it’s almost harder to believe that the apostles could have accomplished such a heist than to submit to the probability (given the circumstances) that Christ could have indeed been raised from the grave.

WHAT?!? Since when is any 'miraculous' like ressurection solution more probable than a real-world act? If we admit that it's true, we should also submit to the 'accuracy' of numerous accounts about ghosts, 'domestic' and other demons, UFOs, werewolves and vampires (people have really been afraid of them), levitation, etc, whenever other way out seems improbable (eg. how have he won such a huge sum in casino? He must have been a clairvoyant or the spirits helped him). Also, we would have to admit that Intelligent Design idea is correct: and its essence tells, that whenever an 'impossible' thing happens in the course of evolution (which the supporters of ID don't totally deny), it certainly should be attributed to a 'higher power' (God, Gods, space alien civilization, etc). Do you REALLY want this? Critto PS. I hold no pretense against Jesus or Christians, though I'm not one of them, I only WILL NOT accept 'miracles' in the scientific discourse. On the other hand, I don't want to make editions about Christianity on my own, because I know they COULD be biased.

[edit] Not NPOV

This article fails NPOV horribly; all of the evidence supposedly levelled against this hypothesis relies on using the Bible as fact. Titanium Dragon 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's terribly biased; I have put forth my reasoning above. Most of all, it is UNACCEPTABLE to claim that any kinds of 'miracles' or other supernatural events are more plausible than real ones, which could be solved (proven or disproven) by scientific means. No pretense against ANY faith, but in ENCYCLOPEDIA we're either on the side of FACTS or the one of magic, miracles and supernatural acts. Regards, Critto

Indeed, total failure of NPOV. The entry makes no attempt to set out the stolen body hypothesis before listing criticisms: the first section is "Critique of the stolen body hypothesis" and the second "Rebuttal of the stolen body hypothesis". Surely it should start by setting out the history and/or central principles of the theory. Who proposed it? How old is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a POV-warning for the reasons you already described. The article is terribly biased and needs balancing. 62.1.168.3 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Anointing the body and some chronological questions of death and "resurrection"

The first question arising here is: until when were the guards told to deny entry to the tomb to anybody? Till the Sabbath ends? If so, anybody (or some people who were authorized to enter the tomb, eg. Joseph of Arimathea, Disciples of Jesus, women as Mary Magdalene, etc) could come after it's finished and legally take a body. Therefore there was no need to "steal the body", neither for the "swoon hypothesis", etc. The body could have just been legally and/or openly (or not) moved to another tomb after the guards were called off their duty (as it simply finished).

Also, what would happen to the guards -- considering the threat of death penalty that threatened them would the break their orders -- if Jesus really resurrected, moved the boulder away and quit the tomb? Would anybody among their commanders believe in such an explanation? Would it excuse their incompetence on they duty? Also, how on the Earth could women ever plan to go to ANOINT THE BODY of Jesus Christ (dead body, as no one plans to anoint a living person, as I am aware), if the tomb was guarded AND SEALED by the 2-tonne boulder? Could they have any plan to trick/bribe/etc the guards to help them to open the tomb (it seems unlikely that two fragile women could move a 2-tonne boulder; a strong group of men could cope with this task). Also, does it matter what happened to the guards? Would their fate be recorded anywhere, or were soldiers in such cases (of disobedience) just executed "at the spot", without any "paperwork"?

No side of the debate -- either apologist or critical -- seems to try to resolve this question.

Critto (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)