Why is it not plausible? Because you say so? They were Jews so they believe in the supernatural. They didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God or that he rose from the dead. They would believe an angel appeared and that the body was missing but that would not be proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that he was the Son of God.
You are telling me that Jesus reportedly committed hundreds, if not thousands, of miracles, then predicted that he would rise from the dead, then his body was gone and angels were at the scene, and after all this the most educated men in the city conclude that the body was simply stolen? Why would there be angels there if Jesus' body was stolen?
In your OP you stated:
That is saying, in fact, that an investigation must happen for there to be evidence that the miracle took place.
1. An investigation MUST follow a supernatural event
2. There was no investigation
3. There was no supernatural event
That is a slippery-slope fallacy. See how there is a conclusion? See how it portrays itself as a logical syllogism?
I am saying this:
1. No investigation is documented
2. I present an analogy to show an investigation is expected
3. This is EVIDENCE that the resurrection did not occur
You are CLEARLY wrong. You say you admitted being wrong. Draw from that experience.
It is nothing more than speculation that the skepticism was short lived.
Speculation stemming from no investigation being documented.
It is understandable that it makes no sense to you. You interpret my arguments by reading your views into what I am saying. This is evident in the propositions 4a and 4b you cooked up and tried to get me to adopt one and defend it.
You suggested 4c: the guards lay there while the women spoke with the angels, then you ASSERT WITH NO EVIDENCE that the angels left and the guards were bold enough to look inside the tomb. Granted this, the pharisees' reaction is still not plausible. It says clearly that they were aware of Jesus’s claim that he would rise from the dead (you probably did not read this), and you claim that they believed angels appeared but that nothing else interesting happened? So they believed God sent the angels to distract the guards so the disciples could steal the body? Well if God was on Jesus’s side, as this would suggest, and if Jesus claimed he would rise from the dead, and now angels appeared and his body is gone... just how stupid do you think they were?
You are stuck on throwing this in the ring aren’t you? I made an error, I admitted the error was mine and it does nothing to add or detract from my views. You bring this up because you have nothing to back up your OP and you are trying to hide that by pointing out this error of mine in almost every post since I made the error.
You admitted to wording something incorrectly. Except it was more than that. You said nothing supernatural happened at the sepulcher, and you corrected this but did not correct the errors carried forward from this. Also I saw no apologies for the ridiculing I got for not taking the time to read the gospel when clearly you hadn't bothered to read it yourself. Normally I couldn't care less about apologies, but if repentance is a pillar of your beliefs and yet the thought of doing so doesn’t cross your mind, combined with the host of insults and your aversion to reading the gospels, I find it hard to take your faith seriously on any level except intellectual belief. But even the demons have this. When I speak with a Christian, I expect love, not insults. I expect humility, not rebukes. People like you are why I say there are seven billion antichrists walking this earth.
If you knew the gospel better than me then you would have understood that the answer to your OP was there all along. All you did was take an argument you found on some anti-Christian site and post it here without doing research into it.
This is my own original argument. I've never heard it in my life.
