The history behind Jesus' death

[TheKwas]

A friend of mine made the following argument for the existence of God and christianity.

If we treat the NT as any other piece of literature from Antiquity, applying the same methods of historical inquiry that we would apply to any other document, and use only those portions of the NT that virtually all scholars agree are authentic, coupled with the various extra-biblical documents that would have that same scrutiny applied and the same support from scholars, I believe we can reasonably say Jesus rose from the dead.

The phrase "virtually all scholars" would be those scholars who published works in French, English and German from 1975 to around 2002 dealing with the "historical Jesus" and his resurrection. People throw around phrases like that loosely, but in this case, it's the truth. When I say "most scholars" that really does mean that most of the academics publishing works in peer-reviewed journals or books would grant the information being considered as historically reliable by their historical standards (multiple sources, enemy attestation, principle of embarrassment, early testimony, eyewitness testimony, etc.).

Using then, the information that most scholars will allow, we can reasonably establish that:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion (sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Talmud)

John Dominic Crossan writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

2. His followers believed they had seen him risen (sources: Saul of Tarsus, Clement, Polycarp, Tertullian, Josephus, Hegesippus)

Norman Perrin (who denies the resurrection) states, “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." Atheistic NT scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”

3. The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed (sources: Paul the Apostle, Luke the Physician, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth and Origen)

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria)

5. The tomb was empty (sources: Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30)

Former Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Obviously, much more can (and hopefully will) be said. This was simply meant to serve as an opener of sorts. Only using data from Antiquity that the majority of scholars will grant as historically reliable, we can uncover these 5 basic points. And what they seem to say is that, whatever happened, the disciples genuinely believed they had seen the risen Christ, to the point that most of them were willing to die for this belief. Any explanation that is presented has to account for all of these factors (not just some of them) and I believe that the only explanation that reasonably accounts for the data is the Jesus really did rise from the dead.

And a side note, this does not (necessarily imply that God exists) but is rather simply a historical discussion, the obvious reason for asking being, why did Christianity start in the first place and why did it take the shape that it took? Few would doubt that Christianity has had a vast impact on Western culture, so I think the topic of the resurrection is one that should be relevant and of interest to anyone living today, despite its possible spiritual implications.

It makes a massive leap of logic going from it's 5 points to "therefore jesus came back to life" and I'm sure that there's more plausible explanations--such as people raiding Jesus' tomb and creating the myth that he rose back to life. However, I'm having trouble expressing a counter-argument that is...devestating I suppose.
I know very little about biblical history and never bothered to get into a historical debate about jesus before since the whole concept of god strikes me as silly in the first place, so I figured I should see what people here think before replying. What's the best way to approach this issue and what should I expect as responses in the future?

[Patrick Degan]

Former Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Oh really, Prof. Wand? "Scientific history"? What "strictly historical evidence"? Anecdotes related second- and third-hand by writers who were thirty years out-of-date at minimum to the actual time of the alleged event?

[Darth Wong]

It's funny how any other kind of "historical evidence" is interpreted as subordinate to logic and science, not superior to it. If a classical historian writes something which is scientifically impossible, that is an instant fail ... unless that impossibility happens to suit Christian beliefs. Apparently, science is only good for debunking ancient Greek and Zoroastrian stories, not Christian ones.

All the ancient Chinese historians of that era agreed that the Yellow Emperor ascended into Heaven on the back of a dragon at the age of 100, rather than dying. They all agreed that they saw it, and that he became an Emperor in Heaven. I guess that means it must be "scientific history" too, right? Plus, it is much cooler than Jesus' lame "I snuck out of my cave when the guards weren't looking" resurrection.

[Alyrium Denryle]

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Talmud)

None of these scholars or sources was physically present at the crucifixion, and at best are reporting what they heard by word of mouth decades if not centuries later, are are merely reporting the existence of people who think the crucifixion occured(tacitus). Hell, the worky by Josephus on the subject was inserted in IIRC the 5th century by a european potentate who's name escapes me at the moment.

His followers believed they had seen him risen (sources: Saul of Tarsus, Clement, Polycarp, Tertullian, Josephus, Hegesippus)

See above.

In the case of Saul, he never did have the rabbinical training ascribed to him by christians, he was a helenist, born in Tarsus (turkey), and moreover was a temporal lobe epileptic. He was NEVER a church prosecutor.

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria)

See above.

[Bounty]

whatever happened, the disciples genuinely believed they had seen the risen Christ, to the point that most of them were willing to die for this belief. Any explanation that is presented has to account for all of these factors (not just some of them) and I believe that the only explanation that reasonably accounts for the data is the Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Half of this sentence is correct, half isn't, and it's even wrong in two ways. You can actually spot the exact point where history stops and the agenda begins.

Whatever happened to the historical Jesus, fact is - and here the author is correct - that in the first century there was quite some brouhaha about his life, teachings, execution, and the events that have been claimed to have happened afterwards. Considering that the cult of Jesus Christ actually existed and that his historical existence was not called into question by non-believers at the time, it would be foolish to say he did not exist as a human being.

It all starts going off the rails when the author wilfully confuses the reporting of a fact with the fact itself. You can make a sound case for the existence of the belief in the first century that Jesus rose from the grave and use antique sources to back up that belief. However, proving that a belief existed does not prove that belief itself is historical fact.

Then he takes a number of disparate, individually inconclusive events (conversions, reports of an empty grave), and rather than try to verify them for accuracy or exploring more plausible explanations, he jumps straight into the metaphysical. If had even just tried to pass these events off as a non-metaphysical conspiracy he would have been way off into loony land; attributing them to divine intervention is just plain lazy or malicious.

It's the classic example of taking a belief and working backwards to fit in the facts, hoping that people simply see the sources and the conclusions and assume one is related to the other.

[Thanas]

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Talmud)

None of these scholars or sources was physically present at the crucifixion, and at best are reporting what they heard by word of mouth decades if not centuries later, are are merely reporting the existence of people who think the crucifixion occured(tacitus).

That Jesus died by crucification is actually pretty much accepted for it would fit well within roman legal codes.

Hell, the worky by Josephus on the subject was inserted in IIRC the 5th century by a european potentate who's name escapes me at the moment.

Only one of the two pieces are regarded as forgeries iirc.

John Dominic Crossan writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

2. His followers believed they had seen him risen (sources: Saul of Tarsus, Clement, Polycarp, Tertullian, Josephus, Hegesippus)

Norman Perrin (who denies the resurrection) states, “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." Atheistic NT scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”

3. The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed (sources: Paul the Apostle, Luke the Physician, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth and Origen)

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria)

5. The tomb was empty (sources: Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30)

Former Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Obviously, much more can (and hopefully will) be said. This was simply meant to serve as an opener of sorts. Only using data from Antiquity that the majority of scholars will grant as historically reliable, we can uncover these 5 basic points. And what they seem to say is that, whatever happened, the disciples genuinely believed they had seen the risen Christ, to the point that most of them were willing to die for this belief. Any explanation that is presented has to account for all of these factors (not just some of them) and I believe that the only explanation that reasonably accounts for the data is the Jesus really did rise from the dead.

And a side note, this does not (necessarily imply that God exists) but is rather simply a historical discussion, the obvious reason for asking being, why did Christianity start in the first place and why did it take the shape that it took? Few would doubt that Christianity has had a vast impact on Western culture, so I think the topic of the resurrection is one that should be relevant and of interest to anyone living today, despite its possible spiritual implications.

This is a widely known chain letter circling around the internet. I saw this before, I suspect your friend just copied it.


The above can all be discounted by one single argument - biased sources. Not only does the author makes very huge leaps of logics, but also he uses only christian sources. This is akin to using german wartime propaganda to writing a book on WWII.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The above can all be discounted by one single argument - biased sources. Not only does the author makes very huge leaps of logics, but also he uses only christian sources. This is akin to using german wartime propaganda to writing a book on WWII.

Yes. Also to old skeptic adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" fits this situation perfectly. If people rising from the dead was something that is known to happen from time to time and could be verified from several indepedent sources, there would be nothing that special about Jesus rising from the dead. However, as such things are not known to happen in the real world if the person is truly dead (no registrable ECG for several hours), the claim that the New Testament makes is very extraordinary. Supernatural one might say, since there is no known cases or mechanism how a person with no pulse could rise from the dead after several hours in room temperature or higher (severe hypothermia is a well known exception).

Therefore, although it is certainly true that the disciples believed in that something very special had happened, their word for it is hardly convincing considering the supernatural claim they are making. Funnily enough, the writers of the New Testament (specifically Gospel of John, although there is a somewhat similar passage in Luke) seem to have been somewhat aware of that, since they inserted the story about Thomas actually touching the wounds of Christ. In that they try to provide positive "proof" for the resurrection, but of course we still have only their word for it, so it actually proves nothing. (It also had the secondary theological point that having faith even without positive proof is better than believing only in what you can see and touch. In fact some later theologians like Søren Kierkegaard have argued that believing without rational proof or verifiable evidence and fully realizing it is the only kind of "true Faith". This view, however, is not maintained by most Christians, who still like to believe in miracles, concrete real world answers to prayers etc. Obviously Kierkegaard's position is too cerebral and ethereal for them.)

[Darth Wong]

The above can all be discounted by one single argument - biased sources. Not only does the author makes very huge leaps of logics, but also he uses only christian sources. This is akin to using german wartime propaganda to writing a book on WWII.

Most definitely. It's also logically inconsistent, since this person would never apply this logic to the beliefs of other religions, which also had groups of people agreeing. Honestly, the idea that any group of historical people who agree on something cannot be wrong is so utterly stupid that it barely merits any kind of rebuttal other than derision and laughter.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

The above can all be discounted by one single argument - biased sources. Not only does the author makes very huge leaps of logics, but also he uses only christian sources. This is akin to using german wartime propaganda to writing a book on WWII.

Not only that, but some of those sources are dishonestly distorted. Take the Crossan name-dropping, for instance:

John Dominic Crossan writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

Yes, but Crossan is one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar, and he most certainly does NOT accept many of the stories in the gospels as being "historically reliable". His name is deliberately used to imply, "See! A Liberal theologian agrees with us!" Of course he agrees that Jesus was crucified, but that doesn't mean that he agrees that Jesus was physically resurrected.

[Spoonist]

I know very little about biblical history and never bothered to get into a historical debate about jesus before since the whole concept of god strikes me as silly in the first place, so I figured I should see what people here think before replying. What's the best way to approach this issue and what should I expect as responses in the future?

As for biblical history it is quite easy to read up on this. There are youtube lectures:
This is a nice one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo this is more boring but has several good points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1l6d10Fw1Q

As for that specific c&p job: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007 ... tence.html

After you show your "friend" that you know that this is a c&p job, ask him to come up with an argument himself based on his own words and interpretation.
Otherwise you can just fling links at each other instead it is more productive than using c&p.

[Darth Wong]

If he never admitted up-front that it was a copy-paste job, then his feet should be held to the fire for dishonesty.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That Jesus died by crucification is actually pretty much accepted for it would fit well within roman legal codes.

That assumes the man existed which to my knowledge has never been very well established, and it assumes that even if he did, that the story happened in accordance with the biblical text. There could have been a man named Jesus (or rather, because jesus is latinized, the hebrew version Yeshwua or however it is spelled in hebrew) or something similar who was a jewish heretic and who was executed by the roman authority for upsetting the local population. But that is not the Jesus of the bible.

Only one of the two pieces are regarded as forgeries iirc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt Josephus in the other one still only referring to christians existing?

[Superman]

I believe we can reasonably say Jesus rose from the dead.

What an idiot. There's nothing "reasonable" about taking a Bronze Age zombie god fairy tale seriously. Maybe he was actually trying to use an antonym of "reasonable?" At least that would be honest.

So ask him why no other source recorded any of the supernatural/apocalyptic "events" that transpired when Jesus croaked. The Bible talks about the sky turning black, dead people coming back to life and amazing people, etc. I wonder why, out of all the Romans, Greeks, or anyone else who witnessed this stuff, only the Gospel writers seemed to feel the need to record it... Yeah, it's much more reasonable to just assume the story is true, resurrection and all, instead of realizing that the authors of the gospels might have had an agenda here. Oh, I got it! Maybe the other witnesses decided to suppress the truth with some type of vast conspiracy or something. That must be it.

If Christians are going to be this fucking retarded, they should at least be consistent. They should assume that ALL supernatural type stories, whether they come from a religion, a ghost show on the History channel, a mental patient, etc., are all true. If the logic works, it should apply across the board.

[Akkleptos]

That Jesus died by crucification is actually pretty much accepted for it would fit well within roman legal codes.

Which reminds me that, IIRC in Roman law, death by crucifixion was only applied to slaves, pirates and other no-rank people. Some important Jews were crucified, but were stripped of their rank first, by some ritualistic ceremony at times. In fact, crucifixion itself was the ultimate humilliation ("Debellare superbos", as the old Latin adage says) in that it prevented even a decent burial, since the crucified criminals would have to stay up there until they died, and even then, they were kept up for the vultures and other animals to scavenge. After that, again, IIRC they were supposedly thrown into what was called the Fossa infamia, a mass grave covered only with metal bars so that people couldn't grab for the remains of the executed, but allowing for vermin to continue to feast on whatever was still left.

Which brings the question up again: was this Jesus bloke crucified as an enemy of Rome, or a simple thief. Because if he was, as some say, a guerrilla fighter against Roman occupation, with some Nazirean inspiration, who -as many before him and many after him- claimed to be the legendary Messiah in order to stir the masses and gather support, then AFAIK he would have had to be crucified head down (for pretending to subvert the public order by pretending to be a King of the Jews, given his Davidic linneage) or maybe he was crucified head up, like a common thief.

In any case, I think it would have been quite difficult a task to sneak a body from right under the noses of Roman military guards, whatwith it being either still up in a cross or in the fossa infamia, unless somebody paid a large bribe to be able to give the body a proper burial (from whence the body could later be taken, so that the resurrection prophecy could be said to have been carried out).


Will provide sources later, as I lent the books in which these points were referred to, but I'm sure those well-versed in the workings of ancient Roman legal procedures already know how much of this holds water and how much doesn't.

[Thanas]

That Jesus died by crucification is actually pretty much accepted for it would fit well within roman legal codes.

That assumes the man existed which to my knowledge has never been very well established,

His existence has been much better established than about that of 90% of the romans we know about but we still believe those exist.

and it assumes that even if he did, that the story happened in accordance with the biblical text.

Why?

Only one of the two pieces are regarded as forgeries iirc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt Josephus in the other one still only referring to christians existing?

Yes, but as he talks about christians, he obviously was familiar with their beliefs.

In any case, I think it would have been quite difficult a task to sneak a body from right under the noses of Roman military guards, whatwith it being either still up in a cross or in the fossa infamia, unless somebody paid a large bribe to be able to give the body a proper burial (from whence the body could later be taken, so that the resurrection prophecy could be said to have been carried out).

Considering that the roman guards in question were almost certainly low-quality auxillaries, I do not think bribery is out of the question.

[NecronLord]

In any case, I think it would have been quite difficult a task to sneak a body from right under the noses of Roman military guards, whatwith it being either still up in a cross or in the fossa infamia, unless somebody paid a large bribe to be able to give the body a proper burial (from whence the body could later be taken, so that the resurrection prophecy could be said to have been carried out).

According to the bible, Joseph of Arimathea, a senior religious official, asked and recieved Pilate's special permission to grant a burial.

[Serafina]

Besides, even the most unbelievable Bond/Mission Impossible mixture is more reasonable to assume than "raised from the dead and teleported himself out".

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why?

Combine this with the first. By my statemernt I meant that an argument supporting a religious belief implicitly assumes that the jesus we can (I will concede this) establish existed, in some way resembles the jesus of the bible. To just say "we can establish that some guy named jesus existed and was crucified" means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of christianity unless certain other things can be established. Such as: that he was executed for the stated reasons, that while he was alive he preached heresy and performed miracles, etc.

[Thanas]

Combine this with the first. By my statemernt I meant that an argument supporting a religious belief implicitly assumes that the jesus we can (I will concede this) establish existed, in some way resembles the jesus of the bible. To just say "we can establish that some guy named jesus existed and was crucified" means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of christianity unless certain other things can be established. Such as: that he was executed for the stated reasons, that while he was alive he preached heresy and performed miracles, etc.

On that we are in agreement. I'll certainly not argue that stuff like "rose people from the dead" is historical fact. But what I think that can be assumed as fact is that there indeed was a Jesus of Nazareth who travelled the country with a small following, preaching and later being executed because the powers that were did not like him.

Anything else is just faith and that is a poor basis for a historical argument.

[Spoonist]

In any case, I think it would have been quite difficult a task to sneak a body from right under the noses of Roman military guards, whatwith it being either still up in a cross or in the fossa infamia, unless somebody paid a large bribe to be able to give the body a proper burial (from whence the body could later be taken, so that the resurrection prophecy could be said to have been carried out).

According to the bible, Joseph of Arimathea, a senior religious official, asked and recieved Pilate's special permission to grant a burial.

One of the things that really confounded me when reading the bible was that it explicitly said what "plausably really" happened. Now granted they write right after that that it was a great jewish lie/conspiracy, but come on...

When JC was crucified a rich guy showed up. (Note that the narrative does not need the fact that he is rich which suggests that it had some other importance ie bribe/power). He fixed it with the roman guy so that he could not only take the body right away but also bury it in a brand new grave of the rich dudes making. (A fair bit suspicious right there). Then the bad guys who wanted JC dead show up and say "hey thats not right" so to please them the roman guy sends some guards to make sure the JC dude is not resurrected. (Why specifically the priests would worry about this you ask?) Now those guards are sissies and run at first hint of trouble, then the magicians assistant Mary tells everyone that JC was not in the grave... (well duh...) So now the bad guys get a little pissed and say, we told you so, to the roman guy. But of course they had to hand out some dough before anyone listened to them.

The Burial of Jesus
57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
The Guard at the Tomb
62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."
65"Take a guard," Pilate answered. "Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how." 66So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

The Resurrection
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

The Guards' Report
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

So lets review that shall we?
A disciple of JC gets the body and claims to put it in the grave.
After this is done guards are placed in front of the grave.
Next day the grave built by a disciple crumbles and someone in a sheet scares away the guards.
Another disciple spreads the news that the body was not in the grave.
The jewish community says well you guys took the body away, no way he was resurrected.
Clearly, the jewish guys are the liars...



It is just like when the mormon prophet scammed this dude and the dudes wife said, you are being scammed man, I will prove it by hiding this text of what he claims that he 'translated' of those golden slates, so if the con man can not retranslate the same text you know its false... Then the prophet dude says "God appeared to him in a vision and told him to not retranslate the portion of the Golden Plates the 116 pages were taken from. Instead, the material would be replaced with Nephi's Abridgment of his father's record." Which by the mormons are regarded like some kind of nah nah nah nah nah nah he sure showed that bitch.

when Smith had produced about 116 pages of text. Harris' wife Lucy had grown skeptical of Smith and suspected that he was a con man seeking to defraud her husband. In an attempt to reassure her, Harris asked Smith for permission to take the pages home to show to her and other close friends. After several demurrals, Smith finally gave in and gave the pages to Harris.

Both skeptical historians and Mormon believers agree on the events so far. And they also agree on what happened next: when Joseph Smith finally asked for the pages back, Martin Harris confessed that he had lost them.

What exactly happened to those pages is not clear. In her definitive biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, the skeptical historian of Mormonism Fawn Brodie argues that Lucy Harris stole and destroyed the pages. According to Brodie, she also taunted Smith: "If this be a divine communication, the same being who revealed it to you can easily replace it."

And indeed, she had a point. After all, Mormon theology is adamant that Smith was not inventing, but merely translating by the gift of God. What would be so difficult about returning to the same place in the tablets and retranslating the parts that had been lost? A word-for-word reproduction of the 116 missing pages would have been powerful verification that Smith was actually receiving divine guidance and basing his work off of an actual text. He should have viewed the loss of the pages as, at most, a minor setback.

But this is not what happened. Instead, according to skeptical and believing histories alike, Joseph Smith went into an inconsolable frenzy, moaning that he had brought disaster on himself. Finally, sorrowfully, he announced that he had sinned by giving away the pages, and that God was going to punish him - although, according to the church's own history, it was God who granted Smith permission to give them to Harris. What was to be Smith's punishment? He would, he said, be forbidden to translate that section of the text again. Instead, he would translate a different section of the plates - one that chronicled the same events but was written by a different author, so the basic storyline would be the same but the wording would be different.

But ITS RIGHT THERE... The lie is right there... Its right there in plain sight...

[TheKwas]

I went with Wong's basic point that you can't use historical evidence to overturn well-established scientific evidence, and not surprisingly they (there's two of them now) totally failed in explaining their double-standard in regards to other historical myths. Also, someone else called the author out on plagarism before me(the original argument comes from some intelligent design douche called Lee Strobel and hers was essentially a re-stating of it using google I believe).

However, it's helpful to have Spoonist's explanation in the back of my head, just in case the discussion gets dragged down to that level (which I'm hoping to avoid, since it would be an acceptance of their flawed argument structure).

[Thanas]

If you fail explaining source bias to them, I don't think you can be helped.

[Akkleptos]

Scientific evidence trumps historical evidence any day of the week.

Consider the historical reports in 18th century France where towns authorities unearthed vampires and had to put them down by severing their heads and nailing their bodies to the coffin with a stake. It's all there in the towns' records, written by the civil authorities themselves. I believe even Jean Jaques Rousseau once said (I'll have to look sources up) "Of all the stories told by mankind, none is truer than that of vampires".

Are we supposed then to believe that vampires (the undead that survive by taking blood/life energy/whatever from the living and whose bodies can be found incorrupt in their tombs) are real?

[TheKwas]

Holy crap, do you have any links to more information on French Vampires? I have never heard about this before.

[Captain Seafort]

The stories are probably genuine, albeit evidence of coma or simple unconsciousness being misdiagnosed as death.