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?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #339]

When you have evidence to consider that your interpretation is true, rather than just stating it is true, Im here to listen. Saying that Romans 1:32 is the same way of talking as Leviticus 20:13 must be supported; you are just saying it is the same. Saying that beating with a rod will always leave more than a bruise needs support as well. Ive also responded to the role of law codes in the ancient near East to where they are admonitions, rather than the practical punishment always carried out in POI's thread that you have been in.

Until you can support your interpretations above as reasonable, Im not interested in hearing your interpretation on hell and how to avoid it.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #338]

My reasoning is solid, your special pleading is embarrassing. I'm not making a claim, you are. You're claiming resurrection as fact, I'm requesting evidence of the conclusive empirical sort, to consider such an extraordinary claim. To date, none exists.

In this thread I had not claimed the resurrection was a fact. I addressed POIs claim that resurrection was impossible and then you joined that discussion and, therefore, took that claim as your own, that I was asking you to support.

Fair enough you don't claim "the" resurrection as fact. You argue in behalf of its possibility so if you proved it as fact it'd go a long way for your position. Can't do it? In other threads you've claimed the resurrection as fact?

The fact there are no known documented cases independently researched, verified with accompanying evidences of predictability, and repetitiveness of actual dead people rising out of their graves, I stand by my claim as of to date there is no example of the dead rising and is thus far impossible considering manifested reality that we experience and observe everyday.

The fact swans exists makes your analogy fail before getting it even off the ground. Because the evidence wasn't a "new" type, it was found in reality, nature where all evidence of what we know to be true is always found about our universe.

You misunderstand my point. I didnt say the evidence for black swans was a new type of evidence, but simply new evidence that overturns the previous conclusion. To fall back on but all the previous evidence didnt point to black swans existing is irrational.

So nothing new like you said? Why say it then?

And yet it remains hidden. This, new evidence. However you're choosing to define it.

Because we werent asking that question, we were critiquing a claim that resurrections are impossible because of all the previous evidence that rationally led to believing resurrections dont happen.

It's fact, not belief. They don't happen. Your long lost family pet is never coming back. Reality.

Im fine with moving on to offering that support. If you have good reasons to reject that support, then you are rational in maintaining that a resurrection has never happened, but not because dead things stay dead, which just begs the question or because all the other evidence leads to dead things stay dead.

Unless you can prove dead things don't stay dead, it is you who needs to disprove the observance dead things stay dead, if that's your assertion? That they don't stay dead?

Ill stop here to hear your thoughts and then share the new evidence (which is of the same type we always use, historical data, philosophical reasoning, etc.) if you would like to have that discussion.

So you have no new evidence, no evidence at all? Why was it called "new"?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #342]

Whoever makes the positive claim has the burden. I was under the impression that POI (and then yourself) was positively arguing that the Christian claim of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus has been proven impossible. The inductive evidence offered and alluded to does not accomplish that. And, therefore, a supernatural resurrection is still logically possible. You are still perfectly rational (at the moment at least) to disbelieve that Jesus actually supernaturally rose from the dead. If we can come to an understanding here, then we can move forward to where I would be making the positive claim and have the burden to bear concerning Jesus having historically, supernaturally rose from the dead.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #342]

Whoever makes the positive claim has the burden. I was under the impression that POI (and then yourself) was positively arguing that the Christian claim of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus has been proven impossible. The inductive evidence offered and alluded to does not accomplish that. And, therefore, a supernatural resurrection is still logically possible. You are still perfectly rational (at the moment at least) to disbelieve that Jesus actually supernaturally rose from the dead. If we can come to an understanding here, then we can move forward to where I would be making the positive claim and have the burden to bear concerning Jesus having historically, supernaturally rose from the dead.

It is the original claim of a supernatural resurrection that is being positively asserted in favor of and our rejection of it. It is on the one who makes a positive claim of resurrections happening that has the burden of demonstrating how it is possible. In this specific case it is the need for a reasonable argument that resurrections are not only possible, but how so considering everyone who dies stays dead and that is an observed fact of reality. Talking truly dead not, not mistakenly thought dead. This futile effort to shift the burden of proof onto the ones rejecting such fantastical claims is pointless.

[POI]

I was under the impression that POI (and then yourself) was positively arguing that the Christian claim of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus has been proven impossible.

Being Christians get to seek refuge, due to both the philosophical and historical positions, you guys get to remain safe forever, based upon technicalities. Just like the Muslims, the Mormons, the Hindus, the Scientologists, etc etc etc... As for mentioning me, we are already discussing in another thread. Meaning, you cannot pick and choose. The claims to Jesus are far and wide. -- Not only that he rose from the dead. As long as I can show evidence that your believed upon god is illogical, then a Jesus is an illogical consideration. Which would then rule Jesus out as a considered logical possibility. I'll see you in the other thread

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #344]

Anyone who reads my posts in this thread knows that I did not make that original claim. I have only addressed three claims: Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and physical resurrections aren't logically impossible. If you had other claims in mind, that's fine, but it's not okay to hold me to those claims in what I've offered.

To turn to the claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected, I would say there are two main steps. First, what is the factual data? Second, what theory is the best explanation for that factual data. I like to take things a step at a time, so the first piece of data involves Jesus being buried in a tomb. Do you agree with this or would you like to hear my case for it?

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #344]

Anyone who reads my posts in this thread knows that I did not make that original claim. I have only addressed three claims: Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and physical resurrections aren't logically impossible. If you had other claims in mind, that's fine, but it's not okay to hold me to those claims in what I've offered.

Okay, so? You've yet to address why you think, "physical resurrections aren't logically impossible"? Given the fact there is no official documented case of it ever happening?

To turn to the claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected, I would say there are two main steps. First, what is the factual data? Second, what theory is the best explanation for that factual data. I like to take things a step at a time, so the first piece of data involves Jesus being buried in a tomb. Do you agree with this or would you like to hear my case for it?

Prove your data factual. Prove the "Jesus" of biblical times is actually the same Jesus of the bible. Then prove the biology of how people who have decomposed resurrected, rose out of their graves and took a public stroll? There are no documented official cases.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #347]

As I've been saying, Logical possibility has nothing to do with what has actually happened in reality. Here is a proof that a physical resurrection is logically possible.

P1. If something is logically impossible, then there must exist a logical contradiction in the concepts involved.
P2. There is no logical contradiction in the concept of a body coming back to life.
P3. Therefore, the concept of a body coming back to life is not logically impossible (M.T.)

As to the data, first is the fact that Jesus was buried in a tomb. I'm also assuming (as was already talked about earlier in this thread) that we aren't having a ridiculous standard of 100% certainty and that we are using standard historical methods for analysis. So, we have:

1) early attestation in Paul as 1 Cor 15:3-5 preserves a non-Pauline formula showing he got it from followers before him

2) early attestation in the pre-Markan passion story since the Gospel accounts don't diverge until after the burial, thus making the burial part of the passion story. That it doesn't mention Caiaphas as the high priest means this dates prior to 37 AD

3) The mention of Joseph of Arimathea in all 4 Gospel accounts, as this would unlikely be a Christian invention due to the Christian resentment against Jewish leadership

4) There is no historical trace of any competing burial story

5) I've already given all the reasons and evidence in this thread against Jesus dying by some other method or of being left on the cross

Thus, the most reasonable position to hold is that Jesus was, in fact, buried in a tomb.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #348]

Let me repeat, "There are no documented official cases." What do you not understand?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #339]

When you have evidence to consider that your interpretation is true, rather than just stating it is true, Im here to listen. Saying that Romans 1:32 is the same way of talking as Leviticus 20:13 must be supported; you are just saying it is the same. Saying that beating with a rod will always leave more than a bruise needs support as well. Ive also responded to the role of law codes in the ancient near East to where they are admonitions, rather than the practical punishment always carried out in POI's thread that you have been in.

Until you can support your interpretations above as reasonable, Im not interested in hearing your interpretation on hell and how to avoid it.

^^^ The Tanger, in response to your post number 341 shown above;

First thing, can you tell the membership in what Satanic Pseudo-Christian Apologetic books you are using to try and defend the indefensible Jewish Bible topics in question in your runaway post number 341? ..... Thanking you in advance again.


Secondly, and in chronological order before I continue with your grasping for straws modus operandi, you FAILED to address the following in my post number 339 as shown herewith:

1. Barring the revealing Leviticus 20;13, and AGAIN for the 2nd time; how do you feel in the 21st Century about your Jewish God Jesus in saying that homosexuals are to be put to death in Romans 1:32, whereas, in addition, is your Jesus as God still ever loving (Romans 5:8) and forgiving (1 John 1:9) in this respect?

EXPLAIN:



2. Regarding that pseudo-christians like YOU in the name of your God can BEAT YOUR CHILDREN WITH A ROD (Proverbs 23:13-14) you misquoted me saying; "that beating with a rod will always leave more than a bruise needs to be supported" is totally incorrect! Where I said "because when a "ROD" is used in said BEATINGS, it will more so than not leave a BRUISE!" GET IT?

I am hopefully thinking that when you misquoted me as shown, that it wasn't for YOU to try and gain a higher position in said proposition! Tsk, tsk, tsk .....

Therefore in addition, how do you feel in the 21st Century in your Jewish God Jesus saying it is correct for you to BEAT YOUR CHILDREN WITH A ROD?!

The Tanager, in turn using your MO of supporting said propositions, then you are to support that when an offspring is BEATEN WITH A ROD, that no bruise will be shown upon said person.

BEGIN:



3. You once again conveniently forgot to address the following in my post number 339 where you admitted that you were a pseudo-christian, and the ramifications thereof, where you are headed to the sulfur lakes of HELL as I had "biblically" shown you!..... tsk, tsk, tsk:

The Tanager, you said that you thank me for my thoughts upon the topic at hand, BUT, you didn't mention that I have easily shown you to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of HELL upon your demise as you admitted that you are a pseudo-christian that does't follow your Gods true words, especially when God tells you this: Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

Therefore in turn, support that you are not going to HELL in being a pseudo-christian that does not follow your God's words per Luke 6:46!

BEGIN:



Therefore, is there some written rule in this prestigious Religion Forum that moderators like you can run away from disturbing biblical axioms and blatant factual conclusions, where in turn, Atheists, like you have proposed, have to support propositions that are as "biblically factual" as can be in the first place? ..... LOL!

Awaiting a cogent response this time. Thank you.





.