Do you actually have any evidence that negative 'selective editing' ever occurred? Remember that modern-day police have to select evidence that corroborates other evidence in building a case against criminals, etc. so this 'selective editing' seems to be quite acceptable to modern society.
Selective editing is only 'positive' or 'negative' in relation to particular angles. As to evidence for editing, I'd say that the mere existence of the New Testament apocrypha demonstrates the fact of that. I've read of textual analysis that suggests elements of various books in the NT have been subsequently amended, but confess that I lack the background to accurately assess those more detailed claims.
I think that, on other threads, we have come to an agreement that Paul's early work as an apostle took place very much in isolation from the original disciples.
I think it was agreed that the work attributed to Paul occurred in isolation to the author(s) of the other works, I'm not sure there's anything reliable to suggest that it's actually Paul.
Option 1: the report of 'blood and water' is, even today, recognised as an indicator of death. The Roman soldiers who would have taken part in the act of crucifixion would have been experienced in knowing the signs. Therefore, in disussion with medics and others in this field of science I am happy to discount this as viable option.
This works from an initial assumption that the event happened, which is far from demonstrable. As you say, the Romans of the day performed enough crucifictions, and other means of public execution, as to be reasonable confident that they could determine if someone was dead. The point of public executions is such that a large portion of the general populace would have seen more than a few executions. It's therefore easily conceivable that someone could have invented a crucifiction and merely alleged it was Jesus.
Investigations are replete with people convinced they have seen events they could not possibly have attended, and the more emotionally invested they are in the event the more likely to genuinely believe it they are.
Not only that, but say that 'Jesus' genuinely was put on a cross, and that event was genuinely attended by a collection of people who might be emotionally invested. Given the sentiments of the time, the Romans may have - I have no reason to think this, it's purely hypothetical - not wished to risk a riot and taken him down early. The watchers, well aware of why people are normally cut down, presume he's dead and create the sure and certain knowledge of the death scene that never happened.
I know that we have a tendency to imagine that ancient civilisation people were somehow more stupid than us, but this is a phenomenon we see in modern people, it's a facet of human nature.
Option 2: The disciples stole the body. In view of the other messianic claims that had been doing the rounds over the period of 50-100 years, no other disciple-group had tried this. When one remembers the politico-militaristic nature of many of these messianic claims compared to the peaceful nature of Jesus' messianic claims, one has to ask oneself which disciples would have been more likely to try this kind of action. When all is taken into account, I find this option as viable as options 1 & 3.
Other groups had been making claims and gaining no traction - that's a motivation for this group to try something different, surely?
Option 4: Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for. Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.
No. I don't understand does not mean "therefore magic." I don't know means just that, I don't know. You appear to be trying to set up a 'methodology' that is essentially a false dichotomy: the God of the Gaps.
Science explains lots of things, but what science doesn't explain is therefore the work of a god. Firstly, that's not a methodology, and secondly it fails to appreciate (ironically, given the foundations of Abrahamic mythology) that humans are imperfect: our science isn't finished, so what we don't understand today we might tomorrow.
Even if we never understand something through science, though, that doesn't mean 'therefore gods'. That's not a methodology, that's just an assertion.
One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.
So? That's what distinguishes your unsubstantiated claims from those of, say, Hinduism. We're not looking for details of what your claims are, we're asking for a method to determine if there's any justification for accepting the claims.
O.
