The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[TRANSPONDER]

This is why 'biggies' count. It is inconceivable that John did not know of the Transformation, thatt the synoptics did not know of the raising of Lazarus, that only John knew of the spear -stab, only Luke knew of the penitent thief or the attempted murder (and messianic declaration) in Nazareth, that John did not know of the birth in Bethlehem, that only Matthew knew about the tomb guard or the women meeting Jesus - but he didn't know about Jesus appearing that evening. Ot if they did, they didn't mention it. That's what you ask us to believe. That striking events like this were left out.

So, your argument is, it can't be so, because it is in your opinion not probable, or it is inconceivable. I don't think there is any good reason to think John wrote everything he knew, because he says:

And there are also many things, whatever Jesus did, which if they were written singly, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books having been written.
John. 21:25

It is possible John knew everything the other disciples knew, he just didn't write everything down.

Ah, well John says a lot of spices were put in the tomb, so why would the women need to bring some?...

Maybe the spices were put in hastily and they wanted to put them in nicer way. I don't think that is improbable, even today many people go to tombs/graves and put candles and flowers next to a tomb, even though the person in the tomb may have dead many years.

Aside the Passover hadn't been eaten according to John (our pal JW argues that the priests had a different Passover feast day - not that I ever heard of) but when would they prepare the stuffs? Sabbath the hops were closed. Friday they spent the trial buying stuff his burial? Would you like to have them shouting for his crucifixion, too?

Passover meal can be eaten at the beginning of that day, which in Jewish system begins at 21:00. Disciples and Jesus ate it about that time and the priests later that day. I don't think there is anything in the scriptures that supports your claims.

It is just a few doubts. I am pretty sure the resurrection discrepancies debunk it but the women going to the tomb is basic to all 4, so I'm just raising the possibility. Not the absurd strawman of my case you present, though maybe unintentinally, because Belief makes on think in terms of 'believe it all or believe none'. Except where cherry picking is convenient.

Yes, it is possible to argue that the spices were dumped there in a hurry and the intent was for the women to go back Sunday and do it properly. But there was no need. The women could have done it there and then, and once the body was off the cross, the near - Sabbath was not in danger of being violated. It makes no sense that the women were bringing the stuff when it was already there and they wouldn't be able to get in, anyway. This is why some say they brought spices, others say just to look at the tomb. They get into contradiction about what they did and why. This is why I say it smacks of plot construction to explain 'How we know there was an empty tomb', which is needed to prove that Jesus resurrected. Even though Paul shows (I Cor.) the resurrections didn't happen like that.

John 18. 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Thus the priests had not yet eaten the Passover. It appears that the last supper was not the Passover though (as I explained) our Pal JW argues that the priests might eat it any day during the week (which would make it Saturday Passover). I have never heard it debunked that Passover could be eaten by the priests any day during the feast, but I have never heard it as a known Jewish procedure, so I am still inclined to think it a valid Question.

So propose your excuses, but they are a bit weak and none weaker that the infamous 'Jesus did many other things' which. being translated meaneth, 'There is probably some explanation'. That is just faithbased dismissal of evidence, the evidence being the problems with thew whole Bible narrative, biggies, smallies and terminal. As also said, it isn't about you being able to wave problems away but the sort of case we Bible - doubters can make to those still with an open mind.

[1213]

Yes, it is possible to argue that the spices were dumped there in a hurry and the intent was for the women to go back Sunday and do it properly. But there was no need. The women could have done it there and then, and once the body was off the cross, the near - Sabbath was not in danger of being violated. It makes no sense that the women were bringing the stuff when it was already there and they wouldn't be able to get in, anyway. This is why some say they brought spices, others say just to look at the tomb. They get into contradiction about what they did and why. This is why I say it smacks of plot construction to explain 'How we know there was an empty tomb', which is needed to prove that Jesus resurrected. Even though Paul shows (I Cor.) the resurrections didn't happen like that.

They would have known it anyway, because the guards could have told it. It was not in any way necessary for the story to make up a spice trip.

Thus the priests had not yet eaten the Passover. It appears that the last supper was not the Passover though (as I explained) our Pal JW argues that the priests might eat it any day during the week (which would make it Saturday Passover). I have never heard it debunked that Passover could be eaten by the priests any day during the feast, but I have never heard it as a known Jewish procedure, so I am still inclined to think it a valid Question.

By what I know, people can have Passover seder early, or late. Obviously, Jesus and his disciples could not have had it late, so they had it early, right after 14 th day ends at 21:00, even if the custom would have been to have it later that day.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, it is possible to argue that the spices were dumped there in a hurry and the intent was for the women to go back Sunday and do it properly. But there was no need. The women could have done it there and then, and once the body was off the cross, the near - Sabbath was not in danger of being violated. It makes no sense that the women were bringing the stuff when it was already there and they wouldn't be able to get in, anyway. This is why some say they brought spices, others say just to look at the tomb. They get into contradiction about what they did and why. This is why I say it smacks of plot construction to explain 'How we know there was an empty tomb', which is needed to prove that Jesus resurrected. Even though Paul shows (I Cor.) the resurrections didn't happen like that.

They would have known it anyway, because the guards could have told it. It was not in any way necessary for the story to make up a spice trip.

That means nothing. I mean it is a word salad. Aside the guards were not placed until after the burial (likely midday on the Saturday) assuming there was a guard at all (nobody but Matthew says so) the tomb guard gets you nowhere. They explain nothing. You still have the women there being told by Arimathea that the spices were in the tomb IF they were supposed to go after Sabbath to finish the job, so you don't even need the guard telling them. Apart from they could have done in there and then. Once Jesus was off the cross and in the tomb, Sabbath was not being defiled and more than it already had been. The 'spices' excuse to get women going to the tomb at all is full of holes aside from Matthew says they just went to look at the tomb.

Mark and Luke both say they brought spices, so the suspicion is that was the original but Matthew realises the problem and just ignored the spices. I'm just saying that there is evidence of plot - fiddling with the empty tomb.

Thus the priests had not yet eaten the Passover. It appears that the last supper was not the Passover though (as I explained) our Pal JW argues that the priests might eat it any day during the week (which would make it Saturday Passover). I have never heard it debunked that Passover could be eaten by the priests any day during the feast, but I have never heard it as a known Jewish procedure, so I am still inclined to think it a valid Question.

By what I know, people can have Passover seder early, or late. Obviously, Jesus and his disciples could not have had it late, so they had it early, right after 14 th day ends at 21:00, even if the custom would have been to have it later that day.

What do you know about this, and how do you know it? I have seen nothing to say that Passover could be eaten any time during the week, except the JW claim that the flatbread festival being a week long could have the Seder on any day, or at least for the priests. I have never seen this argued out and confirmed or denied by those without an axe to grind. Someday I'll get the answer but right now it looks like an unconfirmed apologetics claim. Tossing irrelevant dates or times adds nothing but an attempt to smokescreen. The disciples supposedly ate Seder before the trial and Crucifixion and the Sadducees apparently afterwards. That is the problem and all the rest is irrelevant.

[1213]

...I'm just saying that there is evidence of plot - fiddling with the empty tomb.

It is interesting that you seem to want to ignore everything that doesn't fit to your opinion.

What do you know about this, and how do you know it? I have seen nothing to say that Passover could be eaten any time during the week, except the JW claim that the flatbread festival being a week long could have the Seder on any day, or at least for the priests. I have never seen this argued out and confirmed or denied ...

I think the main source for this should be the Bible, because the order is given there. Passover Seder was to be eaten in the night between 14th and 15th day.

A flock animal, a perfect one, a male, a yearling, shall be to you. You shall take from the sheep or from the goats. And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day of this month. And all the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the evenings. And they shall take from the blood, and put it on the two side doorposts and on the upper doorpost, on the houses in which they eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat it raw, or at all boiled in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs and with its inward parts. And you shall not leave any of it until morning. And you shall burn with fire that left from it until morning.... ...And on the first day shall be a holy gathering, and in the seventh day a holy gathering shall be to you. Not any work may be done on them. Only what must be eaten by your soul, that alone may be done by you.
Ex. 12:5-8,16

Disciples of Jesus did so. It is possible that the priests didn't obey it as strictly.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I'm just saying that there is evidence of plot - fiddling with the empty tomb.

It is interesting that you seem to want to ignore everything that doesn't fit to your opinion.

What do you know about this, and how do you know it? I have seen nothing to say that Passover could be eaten any time during the week, except the JW claim that the flatbread festival being a week long could have the Seder on any day, or at least for the priests. I have never seen this argued out and confirmed or denied ...

I think the main source for this should be the Bible, because the order is given there. Passover Seder was to be eaten in the night between 14th and 15th day.

A flock animal, a perfect one, a male, a yearling, shall be to you. You shall take from the sheep or from the goats. And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day of this month. And all the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the evenings. And they shall take from the blood, and put it on the two side doorposts and on the upper doorpost, on the houses in which they eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat it raw, or at all boiled in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs and with its inward parts. And you shall not leave any of it until morning. And you shall burn with fire that left from it until morning.... ...And on the first day shall be a holy gathering, and in the seventh day a holy gathering shall be to you. Not any work may be done on them. Only what must be eaten by your soul, that alone may be done by you.
Ex. 12:5-8,16

Disciples of Jesus did so. It is possible that the priests didn't obey it as strictly.

Well thank you. That seems to settle it - if Passover Seder was eaten of a specific day it should be for the super literal Sadduces the same as the disciples.

I think it is so, and the passage seems to say the fourteenth day the lamb is killed and the night (the new day starts at evening) is when they eat the Seder. There is no reason to suggest the priests ate it some other time, not unless the Bible direct it. Today Rabbis can be strict about observing ritual commands - the Gospels complain about it. For the Sadducees - the temple priests, they were even more strict that the Pharisee rabbis.

The excuse that maybe they didn't do what the Bible said to do is, pretty weak. It may do for you but I think it does for the last apologetic I got, so thanks again. It is a string problem - the Seder was eaten by the priests in the day after the time the Disciples ate it. Mind - I have heard that the Sadducees and Pharisees might have disagreed over the calendar.

"While the specific dispute between these two parties can be reduced to the night on which the Passover was to be eaten, this detail was the result of a far more basic and substantive dispute. The Sadducees, on the one hand, believed in strict adherence to the Torah. " *The whole council of God - calendars old and new)

Of course the difference must be one day, or it doesn't solve the problem.

The calendar system decreed by God to Moses was with the day beginning at sunrise and the new year beginning in the spring. The Sadducees used this luni-solar calendar. This was the calendar used by the priests at the Jerusalem Temple when Jesus entered its courts. The Sadducees controlled the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Jewish festivals were observed according to this calendar.1 (New Testament chronology)

However, that site doesn't look like it was a matter on one days' difference.

[TRANSPONDER]

2) In the year Christ died, the priestly calendar commission agreed to the Sadducees preference to have Pentecost fall on a Sunday. The Pharisees meanwhile followed the normal course of time, which had the month start one day earlier. Hence, Passover occurred on two consecutive days.

3) Matthew, Mark, and Luke were based on Galilean Time and John was based on Judean / Roman Time. When considering the different time zones, the Matthew, Mark, and Luke accounts of the Last Supper was indeed the Passover supper, and in John's account the Last Supper was indeed the night before the Passover Supper.

4) The Gospel of John portrays the crucifixion as occurring during the slaying of the Passover lambs!

While theory #2 is possible, it currently cannot be proved that the first century Jew adopted two different calendars. There is no evidence that Jesus followed a Galilean calendar, and it is unlikely that temple authorities would have allowed Passover to be held on two different days. (help me with the Bible study org)

While this would sort the problem, it is not clear this is what the difference in the calendar was, even though I could be persuaded that the disciples (following Pharisee teachings) ate Passover a day before the Priests (sadducees) did. The difference might have been more than a day, which would scupper that theory.There's a problem however

Mark 14.12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

I have never heard of the lambs being sacrified by Jews anywhere in Judea but the temple, so the day of preparation (killing the lambs) had to be the same for everyone, no matter which Calendar they preferred. I had also read that, when the Pharisees got the Priestship, they changed the calendar, but they could hardly eat the lamb that the Priests could not have sacrificed in the temple.

I see no help it. Ig the priests had not yet eaten the seder on the Friday, the disciples cannot have eaten it on the day before never mind Mark saying they#d already killed the lambs.

The discrepancy remains, and if you call that ignoring anything that doesn't go with my opinion, you show disrespect for honest research. Which you haven't done. You not only ignore anything that doesn't fit your opinion - you even ignore what the Bible actually says if it doesn't fit your opinion. I at least don't do that.

I have seen Bible apologists accuse Atheists or reading the Bible too literalist. It is the apologists who need a bit more respect for what the Bible actually says, not the atheists needing less.

[POI]

It is interesting that you seem to want to ignore everything that doesn't fit to your opinion.

The pot calling the kettle black....

[TRANSPONDER]

It is interesting that you seem to want to ignore everything that doesn't fit to your opinion.

The pot calling the kettle black....

That's before the empty tomb however, but it makes the point that John is often so different one would think John and the synptics are not telling the same story; same events, even same features, but not the same story. It's rather like the sci fi franchises and the Kelvin timeline or alternative universes to account for violation of canon. Rven there, the buy 0 in to the revised Iteration of Star Trek and Star wars will excuse such alterations, and the others will reject the excuses and the different version.

So the believers will excuse the disparities and the ones who aren't Bought - in may think these are different accounts 0 once the differences have been pointed out.

The apologists may simply make something - anything - up, liuke the tomb guard accounting for why the women didn't know that there were already spices in the tomb, which of cours emakes no sense, but it doesn't have to It is far from uncommon to toss something that sounds like the Title given an explanation (the 2nd census, the Black sea Flood, the priests bought the field with Judas' money so in efect He bought the field) and the efforts at dismissing the angel at the tomb problem Mary split off, didn't go into the tomb, didn't hear the explanation though she did see the angels (Luke) but apparently didn't in John. The explanations are intended to sound like they explain, but they don't.

So back to the Passover date and yet again Luke and Mark agree and Matthew doesn't. They all agree it was the first day of the Passover and Mark and Luke say the lambs were killed. Matthew (if Synoptic originality is a thing) must have dropped it. and possibly he knew John, though it is hard to believe he wouldn't have picked up some of the stuff that was missing, or he realised it wasn't right. The crucifixion ought to be of the sacrifice day, but that was already gone, according to Mark and Luke.

[1213]

....
The excuse that maybe they didn't do what the Bible said to do is, pretty weak. It may do for you but I think it does for the last apologetic I got, so thanks again. It is a string problem - the Seder was eaten by the priests in the day after the time the Disciples ate it. ...

I think they ate it the later the same day. But, I didn't found scripture that tells it, therefore it may be that all Jews ate it about the same time.

And sorry, I said wrongly, it was meant to be eaten in the night between 13th and 14th day. 15th day was a Shabbat day and that year it was apparently Thursday.

[TRANSPONDER]

....
The excuse that maybe they didn't do what the Bible said to do is, pretty weak. It may do for you but I think it does for the last apologetic I got, so thanks again. It is a string problem - the Seder was eaten by the priests in the day after the time the Disciples ate it. ...

I think they ate it the later the same day. But, I didn't found scripture that tells it, therefore it may be that all Jews ate it about the same time.

And sorry, I said wrongly, it was meant to be eaten in the night between 13th and 14th day. 15th day was a Shabbat day and that year it was apparently Thursday.

No problem. The Jewish (which I think is the same fro Roman) evening to evening does confuse.

But slice it where you like, it is First day of Passover (lamb killed in the Temple by Sadducees and day or preparation, according to Mark and Luke, but Matthew omits that seeing a problem) and the evening of the Seder starting at twilight which is Friday, because Jesus is arrested and tried the morning of the same day which (according to John) is the day of preparation and John says they still had to eat the Passover.

This is clear and unavoidable - they two Seder feasts are a day apart and is either a contradiction (implying a false story) or there are two Passover dates. But I did just remember that the Synoptics say the preparation day (sacrificing Passover lambs in the temple by the Sadducee priests, was on the day before the last supper.

I see no way around it, even with trying to fiddle the Passover days, the two evidence Seder feasts are a day apart. John and the synoptics contradict yet again.