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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

The negative part wasn't updating your position upon new information. It was your tune. You were so sure of your original point that you called us out on "skepticism beyond rational skepticism" and "overdose on critical."

Yeah, and all things equal, I stand by my original point 100%.

Then it turns out that it was you who overlooked some trivial "new information"

Um no. I didn't overlook it. I simply was ignorant of it.

you just sailed straight onto the "LOL of course Jesus was special," no less dismissive as the first post.

Yeah, the "Jesus was special" bit came from the narrative itself, just like the crucifixion, empty tomb, and the rest of the story.

So yeah, "LOL".

Speaking of growing list, it's getting close to the one year anniversary of you stating that you were going to start a thread to prove that a "complete lack of existence" is impossible. Have you lost interest completely?

This weekend.

[Bust Nak]

Yeah, and all things equal, I stand by my original point 100%.

Even the bit re: "skepticism beyond rational skepticism" and "overdose on critical?"

Um no. I didn't overlook it. I simply was ignorant of it.

Whatever the reason, you made a point that wasn't applicable to the OP since things were not equal.

Yeah, the "Jesus was special" bit came from the narrative itself, just like the crucifixion, empty tomb, and the rest of the story.

So yeah, "LOL".

I guess a more humble tone after your first point was rendered moot, was just too much to ask for.

This weekend.

I am looking forward to it. I am usually not around on weekends though.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

*Fat fingers on the "thanks" tip.*

Even the bit re: "skepticism beyond rational skepticism" and "overdose on critical?"

Yeah. I said "all things equal", didnt I?

You do understand what that means, correct?

Whatever the reason, you made a point that wasn't applicable to the OP since things were not equal.

Yeah but the info which made my point inapplicable wasn't laid out in the OP, and it was the absence of it as to why I said what I said.

My point is/was, all things equal, according to what I got from the OP; calling in to question the validity of the empty tomb (if you grant the crucifixion) is completely BOGUS.

Now, if the response is: "But all things aren't equal here", then ok, fine...I concede that point but guess what, the narrative has something for that (as was acknowledged).

But then if you say this something was made up to make the story more "better", then guess what; I have something for that too.

So either way; light work.

I guess a more humble tone after your first point was rendered moot, was just too much to ask for.

Again, my tone was according to the actual narrative of the story.

You may not like it but we are talking about the narrative, correct?

I am looking forward to it. I am usually not around on weekends though.

Awww shall I wait til Monday?

[brunumb]

Umm, first of all...in a nut shell, the story involves a person who allegedly rose from the dead. That in itself should be enough to impress anyone, regardless of the particular details.

Allegedly rose from the dead. If he didn't, then the details surrounding the story are necessary to have the best chance of convincing the marks.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Venom, wrote:

Take for example..

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/first-impressions/

Garbage. It's just the same lie as the Nativities - they utterly and totally contradict but nobody knows that. They have been sold the well known unified Christmas tale and just leave out the contradictions. That is what this apologetics explanation does.

Um, whether or not you agree with the explanation doesn't change the fact that the explanation is possible...which in essence makes it NOT a contradiction.

Unless you can somehow explain why it isn't possible, which I don't believe you can.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Allegedly rose from the dead. If he didn't, then the details surrounding the story are necessary to have the best chance of convincing the marks.

Yeah, "if" he didn't.

Well, "if" he did.

So it all comes down to; either you believe it, or you don't...doesn't it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'll deal with any halfway valid points here because Sorry, chum, most of your responses are meaningless.

Yeah, I'm delighted that you feel that way.

Trust me, I will respond in kind.

Including your accusations of skeptical bias (because atheists just want to sin ) ).

Yup. Which is the one thing keeping atheists from God, and the one thing keeping believers from being closer to God.

Myself included.

I at one time credited the whole story, but then (like many a deconvert) examination showed that it did not stack up.

Nothing new. They thought the same thing (John 6:60)...for different reasons, but neverthless the same results. And then they did this...(vs 66).

Yes, I did already mention that any excuse can be made up. But the thing is, is it a credible option?

Depends on who you ask. If you ask me, yes.

Are you going to be able to persuade the ones who haven't bought into it?

You can lead a horse to the water..

Though it's true that most people have been sold the selected combined narrative with the contradictions left out. It's my intent and mission to bring these to peoples' attention.

We all have our missions in life, don't we?

I often refer to Matthew saying the women ran into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples. Luke says specifically that they didn't see him. Some excuse this by saying women's testimony didn't count. Not so. it maybe needed two women to testify before they were credited, but we had two women. Also Cleophas credited them about the angel and doesn't just not mention their seeing Jesus but specifically says that they did not see him.

A poster here suggested that the women split up and one saw Jesus and the other didn't. A memorable apologetic. But I see no reason why they should split up and in fact on the way back from the Mount of Olives to Bethany (which is where the action must be, not in the city (1) there was only one route. Also Luke refers to 'them' which means at least two, even if we discount Luke's troupe of females and say it was just the Marys.

So, in the end the excuses won't wash, not to anyone whose mind is still open and who has this stuff pointed out, as usually it isn't.

What else you have?

And on the flip side, Matthew doesn't share with us any account of Jesus' encounters with the disciples (except a VERY brief one, in comparison to Luke), not to mention the ascension that Luke shares with us.

That is why we take the accounts together as a whole, instead of the nit picky stuff that skeptics like to use.

Yes, sure; if one could credit the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb wouldn't matter. It is because people aren't willing to credit the claim (even without knowing the contradictions that render it three made -up stories) the empty tomb becomes evidence that the skeptics can't explain away. Except that maybe I can. The women were needed to go there because nobody else had a reason to. And according to Theist Think - if you can't refute that 100% and get me to admit it, then it must be true.

?

And finally the old 'copied text' strawman. Yes, if the stories read word for word identical they'd be copied. But that wouldn't make the original untrue. And if they described the same thing in different ways, that would imply credible testimony. But they fail on two ...even three...of these counts: aside from evident fabrications (like Luke's penitent thief) the crucifixion accounts broadly agree. That just shows that all the resurrection is fabrication, because nothing agrees (2). John even debunks the angelic message.
On the other hand, the synoptics do show signs of copying some identical passages of text.

I need specifics, not generalizations.

That doesn't mean it is dismissed as copying, just that there was an original version. So that the "discrepancies prove it's true' argument is a dead duck.

We know that there is an original version, so tell us something we don't know.

(1) if you believe the crucifixion account, only from the mount of Olives could the soldiers overlook the Temple and see the rending of the veil - one of the things that convinced them that Jesus was...Son of God, Righteous or at least innocent, take your pick. Apart from which in Jesus' time burials were being moved to the mount of Olives as the area where the possibl;e sepulchres are located were suburbs and no new tomb could have been built there. So again, tomb, Garden and crucifixion is on the Mount of Olives and nothing of the story is in the city.

(2) "Jesus appeared in the solid body" is the claim, not the evidence for it.

With all due respect, sir...I have no idea what you are talking about.

[TRANSPONDER]

Venom, wrote:

Take for example..

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/first-impressions/

Garbage. It's just the same lie as the Nativities - they utterly and totally contradict but nobody knows that. They have been sold the well known unified Christmas tale and just leave out the contradictions. That is what this apologetics explanation does.

Um, whether or not you agree with the explanation doesn't change the fact that the explanation is possible...which in essence makes it NOT a contradiction.

Unless you can somehow explain why it isn't possible, which I don't believe you can.

Thank you. That's a good point. The answer is First to acknowledge that there is an apparent contradiction. Take for instance the Genealogies. They are both supposed to be the ancestors of Jesus but they differ.

Now one can do denial ("No, they don't differ") which is ludicrous as they obviously do, so they are a contradiction, or one can make your point, which is valid in that there could be an explanation that resolves the contradiction. But is it:
(a) valid

(b) credible?

Now, the explanation is that one is the line through Joseph and the other through Mary, so both are legitimate lines of descent for Jesus through different parents. But that is invalid because both are plainly stated to end in Joseph. The apologist can then appeal to a possible explanation; the one through Mary (supposedly) was edited wrongly and it should have been 'Mary whose husband was Joseph' or some such. But how credible is that? If such a mistake could be made, what else is mistaken? What's more, if there is evidence that Luke and Matthew wrote different gospels in isolation and they do contradict, that the genealogies are just another contradiction is by far the more probable explanation, and the 'possible' one becomes less credible the more such contradictions are found.

That's why the Nativities are a touchstone precedent, because they cannot credibly be reconciled. I don't think even the far -fetched explanations work. The resurrections (and they are the doctrinal basis of Christianity) are 2nd in contradiction, and there is much else. The lack of a transfiguration in John has no plausible explanation that I've heard (1). Thus the contradictory deaths of Judas look more like real contradictions and the attempts to explain the contradictions away are very far fetched and improbable. It gets to the stage where the 'possible explanations' are no improbable that no reasonable person would credit them as likely and only Faith - based denial would credit them.
That rather than semantic dickering about the meaning of 'contradiction' is the real issue here.

(1) it was a different event - No, it is demonstrably between the loaves and fishes and the return by walking on the water. Events that should follow are the messianic declaration and Transfiguration, neither of which are in John. Another effort was 'Jesus told them to say nothing of it '- No, that was only until 'all was fulfilled' which means his death and resurrection, and that didn't stop the synoptics from writing it up.

[Bust Nak]

Yeah. I said "all things equal", didnt I?

You do understand what that means, correct?

Kinda, I know what it means in English, yet I don't understand why highlighting that phrase helps your case...

Yeah but the info which made my point inapplicable wasn't laid out in the OP, and it was the absence of it as to why I said what I said.

My point is/was, all things equal, according to what I got from the OP; calling in to question the validity of the empty tomb (if you grant the crucifixion) is completely BOGUS.

Now, if the response is: "But all things aren't equal here", then ok, fine...I concede that point but guess what, the narrative has something for that (as was acknowledged).

...you conceded and yet at the same time stand by your point that to question the empty tomb is completely BOGUS, that's what I don't get.

Again, my tone was according to the actual narrative of the story.

You may not like it but we are talking about the narrative, correct?

The narrative did not take a mocking/dismissive tone though, that was all you.

Awww shall I wait til Monday?

No, I was just telling you I might not get round to reading it until Monday, you can stick to your original plan.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll deal with any halfway valid points here because Sorry, chum, most of your responses are meaningless.

Yeah, I'm delighted that you feel that way.

Trust me, I will respond in kind.

Including your accusations of skeptical bias (because atheists just want to sin ) ).

Yup. Which is the one thing keeping atheists from God, and the one thing keeping believers from being closer to God.

Myself included.

I at one time credited the whole story, but then (like many a deconvert) examination showed that it did not stack up.

Nothing new. They thought the same thing (John 6:60)...for different reasons, but neverthless the same results. And then they did this...(vs 66).

Yes, I did already mention that any excuse can be made up. But the thing is, is it a credible option?

Depends on who you ask. If you ask me, yes.

Are you going to be able to persuade the ones who haven't bought into it?

You can lead a horse to the water..

Though it's true that most people have been sold the selected combined narrative with the contradictions left out. It's my intent and mission to bring these to peoples' attention.

We all have our missions in life, don't we?

I often refer to Matthew saying the women ran into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples. Luke says specifically that they didn't see him. Some excuse this by saying women's testimony didn't count. Not so. it maybe needed two women to testify before they were credited, but we had two women. Also Cleophas credited them about the angel and doesn't just not mention their seeing Jesus but specifically says that they did not see him.

A poster here suggested that the women split up and one saw Jesus and the other didn't. A memorable apologetic. But I see no reason why they should split up and in fact on the way back from the Mount of Olives to Bethany (which is where the action must be, not in the city (1) there was only one route. Also Luke refers to 'them' which means at least two, even if we discount Luke's troupe of females and say it was just the Marys.

So, in the end the excuses won't wash, not to anyone whose mind is still open and who has this stuff pointed out, as usually it isn't.

What else you have?

And on the flip side, Matthew doesn't share with us any account of Jesus' encounters with the disciples (except a VERY brief one, in comparison to Luke), not to mention the ascension that Luke shares with us.

That is why we take the accounts together as a whole, instead of the nit picky stuff that skeptics like to use.

Yes, sure; if one could credit the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb wouldn't matter. It is because people aren't willing to credit the claim (even without knowing the contradictions that render it three made -up stories) the empty tomb becomes evidence that the skeptics can't explain away. Except that maybe I can. The women were needed to go there because nobody else had a reason to. And according to Theist Think - if you can't refute that 100% and get me to admit it, then it must be true.

?

And finally the old 'copied text' strawman. Yes, if the stories read word for word identical they'd be copied. But that wouldn't make the original untrue. And if they described the same thing in different ways, that would imply credible testimony. But they fail on two ...even three...of these counts: aside from evident fabrications (like Luke's penitent thief) the crucifixion accounts broadly agree. That just shows that all the resurrection is fabrication, because nothing agrees (2). John even debunks the angelic message.
On the other hand, the synoptics do show signs of copying some identical passages of text.

I need specifics, not generalizations.

That doesn't mean it is dismissed as copying, just that there was an original version. So that the "discrepancies prove it's true' argument is a dead duck.

We know that there is an original version, so tell us something we don't know.

(1) if you believe the crucifixion account, only from the mount of Olives could the soldiers overlook the Temple and see the rending of the veil - one of the things that convinced them that Jesus was...Son of God, Righteous or at least innocent, take your pick. Apart from which in Jesus' time burials were being moved to the mount of Olives as the area where the possible sepulchres are located were suburbs and no new tomb could have been built there. So again, tomb, Garden and crucifixion is on the Mount of Olives and nothing of the story is in the city.

(2) "Jesus appeared in the solid body" is the claim, not the evidence for it.

With all due respect, sir...I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are saying nothing but faith -based denial here other than a couple of points.

Yes, you would want specific examples of common text (that is with common linking passages which you'd expect the writers to invent themselves, unless they were copying an original text. But since you accept there was an original that the synoptics used, it seems pointless for you to ask for specifics.

And accounts as a whole not picky stuff Which being translated means, editing the discrepant stories into one narrative, ignoring the contradictions (picky stuff). I aim to see that people aren't fooled by that ploy.

Out of politeness I won't comment on your final.