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?

[Diagoras]

What I am "skeptical' of, is that the thinking has changed in any way.

Here's the nub of your argument.

Changing one's thinking is hard. We can agree on that.

But not impossible. History is littered with examples of people who changed the world through changing how we think about things.

If one has been indoctrinated into a particular belief system, however, and received a high level of support and validation from one's fellow believers - that's a whole 'nother level of difficulty to change one's thinking to that of a non-believer. I've never been in that position myself, but know there are many who have struggled with 'loss of faith', reconversion, or however you call it.

There is ample evidence of people changing their thinking from Christian (or Muslim, etc.) to atheism. The error you are making here though is an appeal to purity, where:

Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but non-substantive purity platitudes such as "true, pure, genuine, authentic, real", etc.

[Tcg]

If one has been indoctrinated into a particular belief system, however, and received a high level of support and validation from one's fellow believers - that's a whole 'nother level of difficulty to change one's thinking to that of a non-believer. I've never been in that position myself, but know there are many who have struggled with 'loss of faith', reconversion, or however you call it.

I've been through the process and for me it was astonishingly difficult. My total foundation of thought and understanding of reality was completely transformed. For a while it felt like I had no firm footing. Add to that being rejected and shunned by former friends and loved ones, and it is quite an ordeal.

It was doubt that started me down the path and eventually led to my deconversion. I had many questions that could not be answered. I am a strong proponent of trusting one's doubt. All too often folks are encouraged to deny it. That's a big mistake. Doubt is there for a reason. It exists because what you've accepted as true doesn't add up.


Tcg

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Tcg in post #82]

Both you and alexxcJRO (see post #73) in this very thread, in fact. We should thus be able to more confidently dismiss the claim that 'neither of you were ever true Christians'.

Back on topic, I note that posts #42 and #48 in particular remain unaddressed to any significant degree. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence - but if there's a more plausible way to view the empty tomb other than a story, we've yet to see it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Putting on my theist hat (the veil keeps falling down and tickling my nose ) I am well aware that the Empty tomb was the best argument for a risen Jesus. We heard the point: Why involve women? A story would have the disciples find the tomb empty and only one of them would do as valid testimony, yes? And all four of the gospels (five, including Peter) agree on the empty tomb.

But just here I twigged that, once you posit that it Has to be the women as nobody would have a reason to go to the tomb, then the fabrication of the story starts to appear. There is really no good reason for the women to go there and the anointing (already done in Bethany 'for his burial, we recall) is a pretext...hang on... interesting. Mark says they brought spices. Matthew says they just went to look at the tomb. Luke says they prepared spices last thing Friday and that's why they went to the tomb. John, saying that the spices had already been interred with Jesus' body has the women go to the tomb for no particular reason. For what it's worth, the gospel of Peter says they took spices and ointments to the tomb.

While I can't be sure which was the original, it seems evident that some invention is going on to account for why the women went to the tomb at all. As I remarked earlier, the problem is that they would have had to realise beforehand that they couldn't get in, if anointing was the reason; but - whodathunkit - they find the tomb open anyway.

So I suppose I must opt for an empty tomb and the women just going there for no particular reason other than the story requires it, and some writers like Mark (who thinks through problems better than Matthew, and Luke who also thinks things through, invented the anointing (which may explain why he shifted the Bethany anointing to Galilee and disguised it). John doesn't seem to care that there is no reason for the women to go to the tomb at all.
Which may reveal (as does the lack of an exegesis - angel) how the story went originally. Clumsily, with a claim of an empty tomb which the women see for no good reason and so - Proof Positive, Jesus rose.

And just as in the rest of the Resurrection - stories, differing version had to be added because that bald claim was nothing like good enough.

[POI]

[Replying to Tcg in post #82]
I note that posts #42 and #48 in particular remain unaddressed to any significant degree. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence - but if there's a more plausible way to view the empty tomb other than a story, we've yet to see it.

Post #42 was addressed to "Realworldjack". He stated he now does not want to address more than one topic at a time. But he may anyways? If he does not address this post, down the line, I will remind him. Although, it may be a while, as the other thread may take quite a while?

Post #48. Yea, I would like to see some theist take a crack at this...?

[POI]

Bump... For "Realworldjack", or anyone other theist, to address posts 42 (and/or) 48.

[TRANSPONDER]

Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...

What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,

Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never new about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.

these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.

I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?

Above asked for a response to this (and post 48) . I'd say it looks good, or can be made to look good, by taking certain basics on trust:

The gospel accounts are (broadly) reliable if not actually eyewitness.
The disciples died rather than deny the resurrection,
Paul confirms the resurrection -sightings.

But in fact on examination (as is so often the case) these claims turn out to be faith -based rather than evidence -based.

The gospels are demonstrably NOT Eyewitness nor even reliable. Matthew, often claimed to be the 'Jewish' one, has a considerable interest in the OT, mainly to replace it with Jesus' New Commandments. But he is neither Jewish nor eyewitness; as the mistake about the 'Two donkeys' shows him to be neither. Also the very Christian view of Messianic scripture (in Herod talking to the wise men) shows this again, and this only confirms what was known - he had to read his OT in Greek.

The claim on the disciples being martyred for their Faith (never mind the specific doctrine of the resurrection) is based on nothing reliable.

The visions of Jesus in Corinthians is not really support for the Gospel account. Even though Luke tries to fiddle in an appearance 'First, to Cephas' which nobody else mentions.

And I continue to maintain that the omission of significant events by the other writers is heave evidence that it was invented and the others had never heard of it. I reckon I know why Luke added this appearance to Simon, just as he altered the angelic message so the disciples were not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem 'to receive the Holy Spirit'. Because Luke had read Paul's letters and the others hadn't.

[POI]

Bump... To answer post #42 please?

[TRANSPONDER]

post #42

Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...

What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,

Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never new about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.

these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.

I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?

Yes. The point is well taken that Gospel - apologists adopt what I call the 'reporter's notebook' apologetics position. That is, eyewitness report or at least reporting eyewitness testoimony. This supposes that the gospels are read as though a disciple or two are telling the story like it happened last night...well a day or so ago ..oh - Ok, a couple of months, or a few years ago or even as old men, if they hadn't been topped by a Herodian martyring - squad.

This falls foul of what I call 'the camp - fire apologetic'. Because it supplies the excuse for why nobody (for example) knew that Herod Antipas had Jesus bussed over to him to look at before returning him to Pilate. "Nobody saw it other than Luke's informant" But how could they not know about this if they had been reminiscing in their beards about the events while toasting marshmallows of an evening? How could John not know of the nativity? How could Matthew not know of the raising of Lazarus?

While this might work if a report is delivered hours or days after the event when some followers might not have heard about it, how could that be when the stories are all written up long after the events by disciples who had all been hobnobbing in Antioch up to 51 AD? (1)

Matthew says it clear - 'The disciples stole the body' is the story the Jews were telling up to his day. They'd heard about it even though they weren't there, so this was all a lot later than the events. So how could Matthew not know about the raising of Lazarus? Or the messianic announcement in Nazareth and attempt to kill Jesus? or the spear -thrust, for heavens' sake?

The answer is obvious - there is no good reason for him to not know or write of it other than it had never happened. And the same with the raising of Lazarus, the penitent thief, the Tomb -guard and the spear in the side. None of that ever happened and is made -up story -telling.

So where does that leave us with the disciples dying for the resurrection - claim? As I said before, we have NO evidence that the disciples died for any belief, and clearly not for one they had witnessed, because the accounts contradict so much.

As post #42 says, plenty of martyrs die for what they believe, but that doesn't make it true. The apologetic that the disciples would not die for a lie, which argues that they witnessed the risen Christ and were convinced so as to die rather than deny it (convinced like good little Christians that their salvation depended on maintaining their claim of a resurrected Jesus) clearly fails because the 'eyewitness' claim plainly fails and the 'died for their faith' claim also fails, too because they are all later stories (assuming the Bible apologists even bother with any of the stories or anything but the bald claim). As usual, they have NO valid evidence outside the Bible and the claims of the Bible fail because..sorry to push the rocking horse again but it's basic - because of terminally destructive contradictions.

(1) cue the 'they didn't think it important' excuse, incorporating 'Jesus did many other things'. This Excuse Falls when there is something really important involved.

[POI]

post #42

Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...

What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,

Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never new about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.

these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.

I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?

Yes. The point is well taken that Gospel - apologists adopt what I call the 'reporter's notebook' apologetics position. That is, eyewitness report or at least reporting eyewitness testoimony. This supposes that the gospels are read as though a disciple or two are telling the story like it happened last night...well a day or so ago ..oh - Ok, a couple of months, or a few years ago or even as old men, if they hadn't been topped by a Herodian martyring - squad.

This falls foul of what I call 'the camp - fire apologetic'. Because it supplies the excuse for why nobody (for example) knew that Herod Antipas had Jesus bussed over to him to look at before returning him to Pilate. "Nobody saw it other than Luke's informant" But how could they not know about this if they had been reminiscing in their beards about the events while toasting marshmallows of an evening? How could John not know of the nativity? How could Matthew not know of the raising of Lazarus?

While this might work if a report is delivered hours or days after the event when some followers might not have heard about it, how could that be when the stories are all written up long after the events by disciples who had all been hobnobbing in Antioch up to 51 AD? (1)

Matthew says it clear - 'The disciples stole the body' is the story the Jews were telling up to his day. They'd heard about it even though they weren't there, so this was all a lot later than the events. So how could Matthew not know about the raising of Lazarus? Or the messianic announcement in Nazareth and attempt to kill Jesus? or the spear -thrust, for heavens' sake?

The answer is obvious - there is no good reason for him to not know or write of it other than it had never happened. And the same with the raising of Lazarus, the penitent thief, the Tomb -guard and the spear in the side. None of that ever happened and is made -up story -telling.

So where does that leave us with the disciples dying for the resurrection - claim? As I said before, we have NO evidence that the disciples died for any belief, and clearly not for one they had witnessed, because the accounts contradict so much.

As post #42 says, plenty of martyrs die for what they believe, but that doesn't make it true. The apologetic that the disciples would not die for a lie, which argues that they witnessed the risen Christ and were convinced so as to die rather than deny it (convinced like good little Christians that their salvation depended on maintaining their claim of a resurrected Jesus) clearly fails because the 'eyewitness' claim plainly fails and the 'died for their faith' claim also fails, too because they are all later stories (assuming the Bible apologists even bother with any of the stories or anything but the bald claim). As usual, they have NO valid evidence outside the Bible and the claims of the Bible fail because..sorry to push the rocking horse again but it's basic - because of terminally destructive contradictions.

(1) cue the 'they didn't think it important' excuse, incorporating 'Jesus did many other things'. This Excuse Falls when there is something really important involved.

Thank you for your response above. I have to wonder... Do theists not really have any answer(s) for this topic? Seems pretty important to the over all story-line? I've addressed my questions directly to "Realworldjack" 2 or 3 times now, via post #42, to no response from him, or any other theist(s) **yet**... Seems as though that if much doubt can be raised, that "Roman guards were assigned to protect a tomb until (His) disappearance", then the entire Gospel accounts loose credibility. Is the fact that the mere claim was made in the "NT", in and of itself, good enough to believe the claim?