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?

[brunumb]

As far as you claiming not to know if there would be a God, we may as well not have the conversation since we would not be able to demonstrate this one way or the other. In other words, this is simply a claim you are making which cannot be demonstrated.

I believed in as much as a child believes things they are told by their trusted elders. When I reached my teens and gave it all some considered thought, it was very much a case of "Yeah, Nah" as we say here. I can confidently say that I never knew that God existed.

Oh okay? So then, we can eliminate you from ever really being a convinced Christian then?

If you consider that any children up to their teens cannot be convinced Christians, then yes, whatever floats your boat. I am happy that I found my way out of the labyrinth at an early age and did not end up wasting much more of my life engaging in superstitious rituals and paying homage to an imaginary being.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I think that depends on how this jesus was perceived.
If he was worth guarding, then I'd expect a tomb with a guard and little to no way to steal the body

Good point. But how long was he to be guarded for, forever? Once the guards leave, then the body could then be taken, right?

Again, I think it would be how he was perceived. If he was 'a thug' or a 'nobody', probably not long if at all. If he was 'somebody' or 'dangerous' probably a long time. But forever? That seems like a stretch

I understand what you are saying completely. And agree...

I'm just trying to push this 'theistic argument' a bit further, is all... Below are follow-up question(s), which are aimed towards the theists who believe this event actually happened:

How long was the Roman guards supposed to guard the tomb? Having guards there would raise curiosity, as to what is being guarded. As soon as they left, then criminals would be criminals. If the objective was to protect from a stolen corpse, you can still steal a dead corpse one or five years later.

[POI]

Attention to all the theists who are reading this thread, and not responding.... I have to wonder? Why aren't we seeing many answers from believers here, in this topic? I am genuinely open to accepting that "Jesus was placed into a tomb, and guarded by Romans". It may very well have happened, who knows?

But as I see it, here is where this claim stands:

1. If true, that "Jesus was placed into a tomb, and guarded by Romans", then us doubters can still move on to all the claims there-after. But at least we can confidently place this claim to bed.

2. If false, well.... This would be a rather crushing blow to the follow-up narrative, right?

So I have to ask... Why the lack of engagement? Seems as though this claim alone, is quite pivotal, to the story to come there-after....

I would like to see answers for the following posts, thus far: Posts 42, 46, 48, 62, and maybe some others?

[Realworldjack]

As far as you claiming not to know if there would be a God, we may as well not have the conversation since we would not be able to demonstrate this one way or the other. In other words, this is simply a claim you are making which cannot be demonstrated.

I believed in as much as a child believes things they are told by their trusted elders. When I reached my teens and gave it all some considered thought, it was very much a case of "Yeah, Nah" as we say here. I can confidently say that I never knew that God existed.

Oh okay? So then, we can eliminate you from ever really being a convinced Christian then?

If you consider that any children up to their teens cannot be convinced Christians, then yes, whatever floats your boat. I am happy that I found my way out of the labyrinth at an early age and did not end up wasting much more of my life engaging in superstitious rituals and paying homage to an imaginary being.

Well listen! I was brought up in a Christian home myself, and like most children I simply accepted what I was taught until I was old enough to begin to think for myself, and at that point I was really not all that interested one way or the other. Therefore, when I became of age, around the age of 19, I simply no longer attended Church, not because I was convinced either way, but rather that I was not interested either way.

Therefore, if you are telling me that you did not even get out of your teens (or even a little later) before you came to realize you did not believe, then that is certainly fine, and we can eliminate you from being a convinced Christian for decades of your adult life who came to understand they were convinced of something there would be no reason to be convinced of. With this being the case, you cannot really argue you were a convinced Christian who later came to realize you were convinced of something for which there would be no reason to be convinced of, since you were never really convinced.

My problem comes in with those who make the argument they were indeed truly convinced Christians for decades of their adult life, who then come to realize they have been convinced of something, there would really be no reasons at all to believe, as if this is some sort of argument against the Christian claims, when all this really demonstrates is one who is easily convinced. Therefore, since these folks demonstrate it did not take a whole lot to convince them a man was raised from the dead, then why are we to suppose that it would take a whole lot to convince them to doubt?

So then, my problem is not with those who were never convinced Christianity was true. Rather, my problem comes in with those who claim they were convinced Christianity was true for decades of their life, who now want to tell us they had no good reasons to believe Christianity was true, as if this would be a reason to doubt the claims.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to brunumb in post #61]

You know what? Now that I think about it there are a number of things which you seem to have failed to address. First you brought up the idea, the author of what I was referring to would have been "anonymous". I was wondering what point you were attempting to make? I mean, we all know now you were mistaken, but it stills begs the question as to why this would have mattered?

Next, you referred to what we have contained in the NT as "propaganda", and I believe I have demonstrated these things could not possibly be "propaganda" and you have failed to address this. My thinking is, if you are going to make such claims, and I address these claims, then why do you not defend what you were claiming?

Then it was your claim that I "shove it in your faces" that Christianity is a fact, when this is not the case at all, since I give all liberty to not believe, and or doubt as they wish, not insisting that those opposed would not have a reason to hold the position they have, while going on to demonstrate there are those who go on to insist I would have no reason to believe as I do, who cannot demonstrate this to be the case, which begs the question as to whom is attempting to "shove" what is they believe into another's face?

[Realworldjack]

Attention to all the theists who are reading this thread, and not responding.... I have to wonder? Why aren't we seeing many answers from believers here, in this topic? I am genuinely open to accepting that "Jesus was placed into a tomb, and guarded by Romans". It may very well have happened, who knows?

But as I see it, here is where this claim stands:

1. If true, that "Jesus was placed into a tomb, and guarded by Romans", then us doubters can still move on to all the claims there-after. But at least we can confidently place this claim to bed.

2. If false, well.... This would be a rather crushing blow to the follow-up narrative, right?

So I have to ask... Why the lack of engagement? Seems as though this claim alone, is quite pivotal, to the story to come there-after....

I would like to see answers for the following posts, thus far: Posts 42, 46, 48, 62, and maybe some others?

Well, maybe you did not see this post?

viewtopic.php?p=1067227#p1067227

[brunumb]

So then, my problem is not with those who were never convinced Christianity was true. Rather, my problem comes in with those who claim they were convinced Christianity was true for decades of their life, who now want to tell us they had no good reasons to believe Christianity was true, as if this would be a reason to doubt the claims.

Maybe the average Christian just goes with the flow. Their childhood indoctrination inculcated their beliefs and they never felt the urge or need to scrutinise them in any way. They never really have any reasons to believe Christianity is true, they just do. Something may prompt some of them to look a bit closer and before you know it, boom, faith no longer carries any weight.

[brunumb]

You know what? Now that I think about it there are a number of things which you seem to have failed to address. First you brought up the idea, the author of what I was referring to would have been "anonymous". I was wondering what point you were attempting to make? I mean, we all know now you were mistaken, but it stills begs the question as to why this would have mattered?

My point is the same with or without the embellishment of an "anonymous" author. God didn't tell us that we all know about him. It was just the opinion of the author who made that claim. That's all. Analyse to your heart's content.

[sp]

[POI]

Well, maybe you did not see this post?

viewtopic.php?p=1067227#p1067227

I replied in post #42.

[TRANSPONDER]

As far as you claiming not to know if there would be a God, we may as well not have the conversation since we would not be able to demonstrate this one way or the other. In other words, this is simply a claim you are making which cannot be demonstrated.

I believed in as much as a child believes things they are told by their trusted elders. When I reached my teens and gave it all some considered thought, it was very much a case of "Yeah, Nah" as we say here. I can confidently say that I never knew that God existed.

Oh okay? So then, we can eliminate you from ever really being a convinced Christian then?

If you consider that any children up to their teens cannot be convinced Christians, then yes, whatever floats your boat. I am happy that I found my way out of the labyrinth at an early age and did not end up wasting much more of my life engaging in superstitious rituals and paying homage to an imaginary being.

Well listen! I was brought up in a Christian home myself, and like most children I simply accepted what I was taught until I was old enough to begin to think for myself, and at that point I was really not all that interested one way or the other. Therefore, when I became of age, around the age of 19, I simply no longer attended Church, not because I was convinced either way, but rather that I was not interested either way.

Therefore, if you are telling me that you did not even get out of your teens (or even a little later) before you came to realize you did not believe, then that is certainly fine, and we can eliminate you from being a convinced Christian for decades of your adult life who came to understand they were convinced of something there would be no reason to be convinced of. With this being the case, you cannot really argue you were a convinced Christian who later came to realize you were convinced of something for which there would be no reason to be convinced of, since you were never really convinced.

My problem comes in with those who make the argument they were indeed truly convinced Christians for decades of their adult life, who then come to realize they have been convinced of something, there would really be no reasons at all to believe, as if this is some sort of argument against the Christian claims, when all this really demonstrates is one who is easily convinced. Therefore, since these folks demonstrate it did not take a whole lot to convince them a man was raised from the dead, then why are we to suppose that it would take a whole lot to convince them to doubt?

So then, my problem is not with those who were never convinced Christianity was true. Rather, my problem comes in with those who claim they were convinced Christianity was true for decades of their life, who now want to tell us they had no good reasons to believe Christianity was true, as if this would be a reason to doubt the claims.

Your problem should really be with those who sold these convinced Christians a bill of goods until they (for some reason or other) came to realise that something did not stack up. From what I've seen of deconversiopn stories, it is either the problem of evil (which is a real doubtmaker, no matter how much believers try to explain it away (and using your argument that should be taken to prove that they are wrong and working hard to deny it) or they really analysed why they believe. A test case is Rachel Slick who was indoctrinated by her father all her life until she went to college and ran up against doubters and really dug into the Bible to prove to them that it was right and discovered it wasn't.

I can already see that you have no real case because I've seen it before, though (as you [pointed out) I haven't presented the evidence yet. But I must and I will.

I'll skip over the demonstrably fictitious Nativities, the contradictions...well throughout; Major contradictions, not just minor slips that can be waved away. And I just mention in passing that the crucifixion is (on evidence) true, even though the trials are not and the Passover exchange, the blaming of the Jews and involvement of Antipas can go in the same bin as the penitent thief. But from then on, the resurrection accounts contradict on every point other than the claim: Jesus resurrected (1), and even then Mark can do no more than refer to the empty tomb and the angel explaining everything, which is contradicted by John. There is an empty tomb, but no angel. I'll get back to that, but Mark debunks any sighting after that as he says the women ran away and said nothing to anyone. End of story. There never was any more, originally. No 'Lost Ending'.

Of course you will say 'They must have talked to some people because look at the sightings!'

Yes, look at them. They all contradict. If there was a common (never mind true) story, they'd agree at least as much as the crucifixion.

But John has nothing until the Marys (they are both involved) tell the disciples the body has gone and they don't know where. That debunks the angelic message right away. Never mind contradicting Matthew claiming they'd seen Jesus on the way, which Luke also contradicts. He has Cleophas on the way to Emmaeus say that they saw the angels but did not see Jesus (2).
Can we bin Matthew's story, even without the descending angel and opening tombs and that dubious tomb - guard with it?

So Mary sees Jesus after the disciples have left the tomb, but Luke says that Jesus appeared to Simon (evidently because he'd read Paul's list of appearances) and we know that Luke and John both have an evening appearance, which rather debunks Matthew having the disciples trek to Galilee, and Luke's story of Jesus' ongoing series of slide lectures to the disciples over 40 days totally debunks it..

Luke further debunks John because the disciples stay put in Jerusalem (as ordered in the amended angelic message) and all the 11 (absent Judas) were there, no Thomas. No fingers in the side. Isn't it evident that these are totally concocted and contradictory stories and the reason why is because there was actually no resurrection -sighting (other than in the heads of believers)?

We have only the empty tomb (topic) but that could just be made up because a claim of a resurrected Jesus needed more. Of course even an empty tomb wasn't convincing enough, which is why the contradictory appearances also had to be invented. Even the involvement of the women can be explained because nobody else (in fact I think you noted this) had any reason to go to the tomb. Amusingly (go on, smile, it won't hurt you - much) John says they just went to look at the tomb because in his story 100 lb of spices had already gone into the burial, so there was no real reason for the women to go there, which sort gives the game away, doesn't it? (3)

But suppose it was true. The women went there and found the door open and the body gone. What's the best explanation? Well Matthew tells us. The Jews claimed the disciples took the body. And despite the best efforts of the Believers to explain away that possibility (which, as I recall, you mentioned is proof that they know it's true but have to work hard at convincing themselves that it isn't) it is still a better explanation than out bunch of contradictory resurrection - stories.

Have a great and hopefully thoughtful week end

(1) may be an Axiom no. 13 - 'A claim is not evidence for the claim'.

(2) cue 'Womens' testimony did not count' As I gather, it did; but you needed two women to testify to be of the value of one man't testimony. We had two women, and Luke refers to them seeing the angels, so why not their claim to see Jesus - if they had? The answer, so far as Luke knew, they hadn't. Totally debunks Matthew.

(3) even funnier is the account in the Gospel of Peter which tackles the problem of the conveniently open tomb. The women knew that it would be shut and didn't expect to be able to open it. Peter says that just, supposing that nobody had taken the trouble to open the tomb, they'd just shy their bottles and jars of gunk at the obdurate rock door.