I bet his body was stolen by space aliens.
At some point it's necessary to recognize conspiracy theories for what they are.
That must of been an interesting autopsy.....
His kidneys were in his elbows and he had a thirteen lobed brain. That's why he was able to turn into a zombie and fly up to heaven to meet his father (who is actually from the planet Zorg-zorg). A lot was lost in translation in the first century A.D.
It's extremely unlikely that anyone who was crucified would have had a tomb to begin with. Period.
Crucifixion was a deliberately humiliating punishment, and part of that humiliation was to be left rotting up on the cross, to feed vultures and other scavengers. They wouldn't have just allowed someone to come and take the body away; the punishment wasn't complete. So: Not even a burial, much less a tomb.
But assuming Jesus of Nazareth was a rare exception, there's no more reason to believe he was removed from the tomb than there is to believe he left it under his own power. Mind you, that's not an endorsement of the hypothesis that he left under his own power; it's a statement that the most likely option (assuming he wasn't left up on that cross, which is far and away the most likely alternative, actually) was that his corpse simply remained in the tomb.
"there's no more reason to believe he was removed from the tomb than there is to believe he left it under his own power."
Unless there is excellent evidence to the contrary there is a reason to believe the former over the latter - even if we believe that both are false. The reason is that the former is less of an exceptional event. We understand both the mechanics and the motivations behind Jesus followers removing his body from the tomb even if we don't believe it actually happened. This is Occam's razor. Given two explanations for the same phenomenon we should naturally favour the more straightforward one unless we have a solid reason not to.
How dare you suggest any lucidity of thought on my part is a miracle! ;-)
@simon, you're correct of course, looking at "resurrection" vs. "body carried off" in a vacuum, the latter is more likely--given he was placed in a tomb. The one is impossible, the other is metaphysically at least possible.
There's no real positive documentation of either, which is what I was trying to get at. Of course the negative argument against "ressurrection" is stronger than the negative argument against "body carried off."
Michael, was it a prophetic fulfillment or is it trying to make it fit into earlier narratives?