I think I've been collateral damage :-)

He’s being very un-dude.

Yeah, well, that's, like, just your opinion, man.

Odd, his profile image. He’s being very un-dude.

Mike

I don’t care if people are profane, IA is famous for that, but if they don’t have anything else to offer (and IA always has the goods) then I break out my hibachi and fire it up.

Wink wink nudge nudge.

Mike

Simple. On that version the guards would have arrived at the tomb a day later, would probably have looked inside, and would have raised the alarm themselves, if for no other reason than to absolve themselves of disciplinary action against them. The record does not show such an event.

So even if the biblical account of the “guards at the tomb” story is correct, the fact that there is a time period when the tomb was left unguarded, blows a hole in the Christian claim that a resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb and the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been resurrected. For instance, if grave robbers had taken the body, the Jews would say that the disciples took the body and the disciples would say that Jesus had fulfilled his prophecy and had risen from the dead.

Excellent comment.

I concede defy all probability is a different category than highly improbable, but it is also in a different category than your original statement "He also admits no amount of evidence would ever convince him of a miracle." Pretty close, however I have to admit, but I suppose we are both exaggerating a bit to make our point.
I only took issue because most (not all) Christian criticisms have been fraught with character attacks, which I find to be childish and unprofessional. The man was originally an evangelical Christian who lost his faith through studying the Bible historically. Give him some credit, though he certainly is wrong on some points (everyone is), he puts together a compelling explanation of many things in christian history using historical methods that have been standardized and applied to all aspects of history. If historians start accepting miracles, then they would have to behave as if all of the mythologies of all religions and peoples are true. As you can see, historical record would quickly become a quagmire. If Christians want to convince others of their faith, they need to present an impeccable character, and answer scholarship with scholarship. In some ways we are touching on an inherent incompatibility of the superstition in religion and rationality. Belief in that superstition, however is the essence of religious faith.
I was raised in a protestant Christian environment, only went to Christian schools until college. One thing that always bothered me (when I actually believed) was why did God make everything so that it looked like he doesn't exist. No more miracles anymore (I do not give any credit to backwater, snake charming healers), he doesn't appear to people any more...nothing. So much never made sense, and the older I became, the clearer it became that the whole thing was man made. For a while I resentful, feeling like I had been lied to, but as I've grown in understanding, I believe religion, of some type or other, to be necessary for most people to make sense of things, and I have become to appreciate it as a form of art (and it has created so much art).
As you can see, my story is a bit like Bart's, so in some sense I see personal attacks on him as personal attacks on me (as Christians see attacks on other Christians). Disagree, and argue all you want, but leave the character attacks and accusations of bias out, and I'll be a perfectly happy camper. Thanks for conversing.

A resurrection would be a miracle and as such would defy all “probability.” Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a miracle. To say that an event that defies probability is more probable than something that is simply improbable is to fly in the face of anything that involves probability.

These are his words. He does put "defies probability" and "highly improbable" in different categories. Any number of highly improbable events is more likely than one even that defies probability.

Why doesn't St Paul mention the empty tomb? He met the resurrected Jesus. That was his evidence. Besides, he never wrote to a Jerusalem audience. In Jerusalem the empty tomb would have been something you could check. Someone in Corinth or Phillipi might not find it nearly as convincing.