Many Christian apologists state that it is impossible for the empty tomb to have been the result of a stolen body, even though the author of Matthew states that the guards were not posted until the second day, giving a least a short period of time that the tomb was not guarded. However, If the Stolen Body Hypothesis is impossible, why did Mary Magdalene believe that Jesus body had been stolen?

Matthew is the only Gospel that mentions guards at the tomb. John's Gospel says nothing about guards. If John was an eyewitness, as Christians claim, isn't that a pretty important detail to leave out of your story? The missing Roman guards in the Book of John raises an important issue. Christians often contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to have surreptitiously removed Jesus’ corpse from the tomb because there were guards posted at the tomb who would have prevented such an occurrence. Therefore, they argue, without any possibility for the body to have been quietly whisked away, the only other logical conclusion is that Jesus must have truly arisen from the dead. A stolen body hypothesis is impossible.

This argument completely collapses in John’s account, however, because according to the fourth Gospel, this is precisely what Mary thought had occurred! Mary clearly didn’t feel as though the scenario of Jesus’ body being removed was unlikely. In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. Clearly, Matthew’s guards didn’t dissuade John’s Mary from concluding that someone had taken Jesus’ body because Roman guards do not exist in John’s story. To further compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts, John’s Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time, only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb. Mary is still unaware of any resurrection as she complains to the angels that someone had removed Jesus’ corpse. As far as John’s Mary is concerned, the only explanation for the missing body was that someone must have removed it, and she was determined to locate it.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying12 , one at the head and the other at the feet. 13They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:11-13)

Although in Matthew’s account the angel emphatically tells Mary about the resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7), in John’s Gospel the angels do not mention that anyone rose from the dead. The angels only ask Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary responds by inquiring whether the angels removed Jesus’ body. Then, Mary turns and sees Jesus standing before her, but mistakes him for the gardener. Mary is still completely unaware of any resurrection, and therefore asks the “gardener” if he was the one who carried away Jesus’ body. It is only then that Mary realizes that she was speaking to the resurrected Jesus.

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” which means Teacher. (John 20:14-16)

It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every Christian must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead? According to Matthew, the angels did inform Mary of the resurrection, but in John’s account they did not. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we see that we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are reading two entirely different stories!

Jesus had a big ego and then again He didn't. The humility of the cross yet He claimed again and again to have a central role in the story of humanity. Yet another interesting paradox.

You need to distinguish between the church making claims and Catholics making claims. The church is slow. Catholics are often slow but not always. There are some exceptions.

Not sure what statement by Pope Francis you are referring to. He is not anti-supernatural. Just look at the statement he made on the Feast of Divine Mercy. He asked us to venerate St Faustina. Thunk about that. This woman claimed to have numerous long conversations with Jesus. Would he ask us to venerate her if he didn't believe she was telling the truth about that? So this supposedly modern pope thinks these amazing visions are totally legit.

"Extraordinary claim: "I just won the lottery, and the odds were 200 million to one!" Ordinary evidence: "Look, here's the winning ticket.""

No. This and the jesus claim is a spurious category error. For them to be in the same category your 'Jesus has risen' claim is akin to the example of winning the lottery without buying a ticket. Now that would be a REAL miracle.

That book told me a lot of things I suppose should be obvious. The cool thing is, the book was written in the '50's, but you can see the similarities in groups as diverse as the Tea Party anf March on Wall Street. Mass movements all have similar charachteristics. Religion is just an old mass movement.

When I was a teenager and living at home and still going to Mass regularly I had a passing interest in the more esoteric end of left-wing politics such as anarchism. Listening to sermons at Mass the similarity between the styles of true belief was fascinating. Thanks for the book suggestion - it's added to my rather long list of things to read on my kindle!

"Extraordinary claim: "I just won the lottery, and the odds were 200 million to one!" Ordinary evidence: "Look, here's the winning ticket.""

A: how is the claim extraordinary? what's your definition, when there are examples of lottery winners in the past?

B: should I accept any piece of paper as proof you won? if it's a crayon scribble on cardboard, or a big pile of monopoly money, then you haven't met the burden of proof.

"Extraordinary claim: "A flying saucer just landed in the front yard!" Ordinary evidence: Go outside and look. There it is."

and what if it's not there? what if you're waving your hand at nothingness, or trying to say it must have vanished when we weren't around? why should I believe you?

"Extraordinary claim (by the Apostles): "Jesus has risen!" Ordinary evidence: See Him, talk with Him, touch Him, eat with Him. (as they did, and then told us)"

and we should believe that without being able to do all that ourselves? why should we believe the claim? because the apostles were honest? about everything? about this? how can we know that? says who? what is the source?

Controversies tend to leave evidence.

I suppose so, but the evidence left by a controversy that was debated 2,000 years ago would not necessarily have survived for very long. We certainly don't have evidence for every controversy that was discussed in the Roman senate.

The fact that they were able to settle on what was legit in the fourth century says a lot.

Yes. It says that somebody won the debate. It does not say, however, that they won because they had the best evidence on their side.

" The church is very slow to make claims. "

Oh come on, there have been so many claims of Marian miracles that pope Francis basically told people to lay off we'll handle it. I have family members who are Catholic who see miracles everywhere. " Our tires didn't blow out on our camping trip, because we had the camper blessed, but they blew out on thenext poor guy, It's a miracle!" I could go on, and on, and on, and on, but I won't.

"don't see exactly what belief in the resurrection does"

Are you familiar with Eric Hoffers "The True believers". Belief in impossible or difficult to believe things is a hallmark of belonging to a group. It's common to lot's of groups. And, once you believe one outlandish or impossible thing, that opens up the brain for more.