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?

[alexxcJRO]

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?
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?

Off course its possible.
The simpletons were like: “OMG an empty tomb”. Our beloved Jesus has risen.
Non sequitur simpletons.
Jesus may just decompose in other unmarked hole or grave.
Why should I trust the validity of the accounts in the gospels when there is clear evidence of plagiarism-coping(Matthew and Luke taking inspiration from Mark), of forgeries-later additions(Mark ending), of clear intent to make Jesus more divine(Matthew), of the real subjective mechanism of choice involving the choosing of which gospels is genuine or not admitted by Eusebio.
We have plenty evidence of cult leaders( Sathya Sai Baba, Joseph Smith and Charles Milles Manson) exhibiting signs of Narcisistic Personality Disorder making grandiose claims of being divine and manipulating simpletons into believing all kind of things , sometimes ever after their death.

We also have the possibility Jesus survived the crucifixion. According to gospel accounts he was only few hours on the cross.
Crucifixion is a historical method of capital punishment in which the victim is tied or nailed to a large wooden beam and left to hang for several days.
Since death does not follow immediately on crucifixion, survival after a short period of crucifixion is possible, as in the case of those who choose each year as a devotional practice to be non-lethally crucified.
There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted. Josephus recounts: "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."[58] Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of the crucifixion of his three friends before their reprieve."

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

Because the romans were afraid they, the Israelites(the fanatics follower of Jesus) might stole the corpse of Jesus.
Q: Who knows?
We are talking of 2000 years old bogus testimonial evidence.
I have plenty testimonial evidence from alive people(a neighbour in my apartment building and others) who have told me of their encounters with shape shifters-strigois/talking dogs.
We have plenty of testimonials for all kinds of miracles from all religions(Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism), levitation, YETI, Lock Nest Monster, The Greys Abductions, Ghosts, Poltergeists, telepathy and so one.
Q: Should I believe now in strigois and a myriad of other things? Some even mutually exclusive?

[nobspeople]

[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
If he was seen as nothing more than 'a crazy, annoying guy that goes against the grain of society', then sure: toss him in a hole, ditch, leave him out for scavengers....
Today's christian is not likely to perceive him as simple 'a crazy, annoying guy that goes against the grain of society'.

[1213]

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?
...

Yes, there is no reason why you must believe so. You don’t have to believe anything. I think Bible is basically a report what the people witnessed. And for them all those things were meaningful. And I don’t think they would have told the stories, if they would not have witnessed them. But, no, you don’t have to believe. I don’t think Bible is really a matter of belief. I think it is a matter of understanding. The goal is that people would become righteous. Even if you would believe everything, but you would not be righteous, it would not be useful for you.

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

[We_Are_VENOM]

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?

I mean seriously; if you can accept the fact that Jesus was crucified, then why is there a need to be skeptical about him being buried??

This is just another example of what I would call "overdosing on skepticism".

I mean, it is enough to be skeptical about Jesus rising as the promised Messiah...but the claim that the man died and was BURIED is called into question.

It just never fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?
...

Yes, there is no reason why you must believe so. You don’t have to believe anything. I think Bible is basically a report what the people witnessed. And for them all those things were meaningful. And I don’t think they would have told the stories, if they would not have witnessed them. But, no, you don’t have to believe. I don’t think Bible is really a matter of belief. I think it is a matter of understanding. The goal is that people would become righteous. Even if you would believe everything, but you would not be righteous, it would not be useful for you.

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

It all comes down (as a fair argument) to whether we can credit the tale or not. Faith may have one believe the resurrection, even if totally debunked. Skeptical bias might have dismissal of the Bible -claim even if it looks convincing.

So Faith might do for the believer, but not the skeptic. And the Bible is 'evidence'. It really is, and 'if we don't trust the Bible, how can we trust any other book?' In other words, the skeptic has the burden of proof and there has to be good reason to reject what's in the Bible.

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?

I mean seriously; if you can accept the fact that Jesus was crucified, then why is there a need to be skeptical about him being buried??

This is just another example of what I would call "overdosing on skepticism".

I mean, it is enough to be skeptical about Jesus rising as the promised Messiah...but the claim that the man died and was BURIED is called into question.

It just never fails.

Yes. There has to be better reason to reject the Gospel story than 'Miracles don't happen' or 'I just don't believe it'. And I'm sure some unbelievers argue like that. This is why for me Bible credibility and specifically, contradictions, are fundamental, and that means that the it is important that the resurrections come second to the Nativities in being debunkable through contradiction. The disciples didn't go to Galilee in Luke? Wangle a trip to Galilee that he didn't bother to mention. But apart from contradicting everything (including Jesus telling them to stay in Jerusalem, not to go to Galilee) it makes no sense if he'd appeared to them that evening. That's only the start; the resurrection accounts contradict fatally on every other point. There's also an argument that doesn't get the attention that it should. No tomb guard in anyone but Matthew. Does it really work to say 'nobody else bothered to mention it'?

Yeahhh..you can say that the other writers didn't bother with it or know about it, but here's where we get other precedents, like the synoptics don't report the raising of Lazarus. Not important? They never knew about it? Also the messianic announcement in Luke and the attempt to kill Jesus. Nobody else mentions this? It wasn't important? They didn't know? But they actually record the 'event' "Is this not Joseph's son?' and variants. But without all that stuff in Luke. Sinking Simon in Matthew - nobody else knows of it. No transfiguration in John, though he describes the events around the loaves and fishes and Jesus recognised as the messiah.

No spear wound or leg breaking? Just it wasn't important or it had slipped their mind? How about Luke doesn't even refer to the wound in his side let alone getting anyone put their fingers into it? No, chum, the evidence is that Matthew invented a tomb guard to make sure nobody could say the disciples took the body, though they could have had it out at any time until the guard was posted.
Even if Pilate wasn't helping them to do it. Because if we (broadly) credit the crucifixion (and I do) it works with the narrative that Pilate was sympathetic to Jesus, Joseph went to see him and Pilate's soldiers co -operated in what looks like a plan to get Jesus off the cross as soon as possible. That's if one trusts the narrative. If one doesn't, than one certainly can't trust the resurrection.

So we have to empty tomb and various claims that it has to be true as nobody would credit a woman's testimony back then and the only explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus walked out of it. Back that up with some talk of the disciples being scattered (so they couldn't do it) and Paul referring to witnesses to the resurrection and the apologists reckon they have a good case.

I had a think and I reckoned that the women were chosen as nobody else had a reason to go to the tomb at all. There's no point in saying 'the tomb was empty' if there was no witnesses to attest to that, so you needed a couple. And that (just as per Mark) was all there ever was as 'evidence' to start with. The appearances and indeed the angelic explanation were later add - ons.

However, as i said, even if there is a basis in truth and the tomb was open and the women did see it was empty and even ran to tell the disciples. That Arimathea (before the guard was posted, if there ever was one) took the body away. No doubt any true believer will simply dismiss all of that as opinion and never mind if it makes more sense. But the point is, that won't be good enought for the doubter and really, the believer keeping the Faith isn't what debate is about - it's about trying to persuade the doubter, and mate, I think my explanation will be more persuasive, that is, if they get to hear it. Up to now, only the 'Resurrection is reliable eyewitness' claim, and the apologetics for it have been the only version you heard.

It just remains to say that there are some indications that Jews would try to give a crucified friend or relative some kind of burial.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes. There has to be better reason to reject the Gospel story than 'Miracles don't happen' or 'I just don't believe it'. And I'm sure some unbelievers argue like that.

Indeed. This is like saying "I believe that Greg ironed his clothes, but why am I to believe that he ironed his clothes on an IRONING BORD".

All things equal, when people die, they USUALLY get buried.

When people iron, it is USUALLY on an ironing board.

I don't see why one is granted, but the other is questionable.

This type of skepticism goes far beyond what is rational skepticism (in my opinion).

This is a complete overdose on what it means to be "critical", and I am of the opinion that is a deeper, underlining reason as to why such the skepticism is so high, namely, because the Holy Spirit is doing a great job of convicting people...and these people suppress these convictions by raising the skeptical bar higher, i.e. goalpost moving.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but heyyy..

I recall in my younger years when I was living in sin...and deep down inside, I knew my actions were sinful, however, I keep looking for loopholes within the Bible to justify my sinful actions.

By "justify", I mean making excuses, and with those excuses, I felt justified in keeping the sin alive.

This is what I believe is going on here. Just my opinion and I am entitled to it.

This is why for me Bible credibility and specifically, contradictions, are fundamental, and that means that the it is important that the resurrections come second to the Nativities in being debunkable through contradiction. The disciples didn't go to Galilee in Luke? Wangle a trip to Galilee that he didn't bother to mention. But apart from contradicting everything (including Jesus telling them to stay in Jerusalem, not to go to Galilee) it makes no sense if he'd appeared to them that evening.

First off, in order for it to be a contradiction, that would mean that there is no POSSIBLE reconciliations between the accounts.

But since this issue raised is nothing new, there have been many explanations given as to why the accounts in question appear to conflict...and if any of these explanations are even POSSIBLE, that in itself makes it not a contradiction.

Take for example..

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

That's only the start; the resurrection accounts contradict fatally on every other point.

Points such as?

There's also an argument that doesn't get the attention that it should. No tomb guard in anyone but Matthew. Does it really work to say 'nobody else bothered to mention it'?

You do realize that when some people tell a story, they cut to the chase. However, some people are more detailed.

So it would go a little something like this..

Cut to the chase: When Mary & company went to the tomb, the large stone had been removed, and they discovered that Jesus' body was gone.

Detailed: There were guards placed outside the tomb, you know, just in case the disciples came to the tomb and tried to pull a funny stunt. However, an angel from the Lord scared the guards half to death and rolled away the large stone. So, by the time the women arrived at the tomb, the stone was already removed.

See? One story is no more true than the other, regardless of depth.

Yeahhh..you can say that the other writers didn't bother with it or know about it, but here's where we get other precedents, like the synoptics don't report the raising of Lazarus. Not important? They never knew about it? Also the messianic announcement in Luke and the attempt to kill Jesus. Nobody else mentions this? It wasn't important? They didn't know? But they actually record the 'event' "Is this not Joseph's son?' and variants. But without all that stuff in Luke. Sinking Simon in Matthew - nobody else knows of it. No transfiguration in John, though he describes the events around the loaves and fishes and Jesus recognised as the messiah. No spear wound or leg breaking? Just it wasn't important or it had slipped their mind? How about Luke doesn't even refer to the wound in his side let alone getting anyone put their fingers into it? No, chum, the evidence is that Matthew invented a tomb guard to make sure nobody could say the disciples took the body, though they could have had it out at any time until the guard was posted.
Even if Pilate wasn't helping them to do it. Because if we (broadly) credit the crucifixion (and I do) it works with the narrative that Pilate was sympathetic to Jesus, Joseph went to see him and Pilate's soldiers co -operated in what looks like a plan to get Jesus off the cross as soon as possible. That's if one trusts the narrative. If one doesn't, than one certainly can't trust the resurrection.

Hmm. So, there is a catch 22 here.

If you are like my good friend Alex on here, you will pose the "synoptic problem"...."oh, the synoptics are too similar!! Plagiarism!! Copying!! Codependent!!!".

But then when you have differences between them (or from John), then all of a sudden the validity is questioned because they aren't the same.

A clear case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So we have to empty tomb and various claims that it has to be true as nobody would credit a woman's testimony back then and the only explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus walked out of it. Back that up with some talk of the disciples being scattered (so they couldn't do it) and Paul referring to witnesses to the resurrection and the apologists reckon they have a good case.

Huh??

I had a think and I reckoned that the women were chosen as nobody else had a reason to go to the tomb at all.

There's no point in saying 'the tomb was empty' if there was no witnesses to attest to that, so you needed a couple.

Not necessarily. The "empty tomb" narrative is merely how it played out. If Jesus appeared physically to people, that itself would imply that his tomb is empty...so you wouldn't need a "empty tomb" verification if the man is standing there in front of you.

And that (just as per Mark) was all there ever was as 'evidence' to start with. The appearances and indeed the angelic explanation were later add - ons.

Huh??

However, as i said, even if there is a basis in truth and the tomb was open and the women did see it was empty and even ran to tell the disciples. That Arimathea (before the guard was posted, if there ever was one) took the body away. No doubt any true believer will simply dismiss all of that as opinion and never mind if it makes more sense. But the point is, that won't be good enought for the doubter and really, the believer keeping the Faith isn't what debate is about - it's about trying to persuade the doubter, and mate, I think my explanation will be more persuasive, that is, if they get to hear it. Up to now, only the 'Resurrection is reliable eyewitness' claim, and the apologetics for it have been the only version you heard.

It just remains to say that there are some indications that Jews would try to give a crucified friend or relative some kind of burial.

Huh??

[brunumb]

All things equal, when people die, they USUALLY get buried.

When people iron, it is USUALLY on an ironing board.

I don't see why one is granted, but the other is questionable.

One is questionable because people who were crucified were USUALLY left on the cross for scavengers, or tossed into a mass grave, or even burnt. Probably what really happened, but a rather undignified ending for the preacher who was allegedly the son of God. What to do? Create a scenario whereby a wealthy man gets plucked out of nowhere to conveniently provide a tomb which would allow for a subsequent magical resurrection event. Makes for a much better story.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to brunumb in post #8]

The question posed in the OP asks if it is plausible. I have to say it is plausible for some random wealthy man is convinced by a preacher, it is plausible for a wealth man to have enough influence to have Roman soldiers guard a tomb.

[POI]

Cool... Now we can explore....

What's MORE likely, being that He was considered a blasphemous man; deserving of death (by breaking the law)? During this time period/era, deemed 'criminals' were sometimes hung on a cross apparently. Thus, this particular claim does not seem too far fetched, until we address what was to remain of the carcass?

A). Left for the buzzards, taken off the cross and fed to animals, dropped in an unmarked grave, burnt, thrown over a cliff, other other other?

B). What the Gospels say happened?

I've placed this topic for discussion, because it seems to not matter if you are a believer to a risen Christ, or not. You can still ascribe to either A) or B). Maybe He was placed into a tomb and guarded by Romans, and maybe not? Personally, I think it's more likely not... HOWEVER, if a guarded grave is NOT the case, then the rest of the story line is already on very shaky ground, isn't it????

So how may we investigate, moving forward? Or, can we only take it upon faith that He was or wasn't treated as stated in the Gospels? And if we take it upon faith alone, which proposition seems to need more faith; A) or B)?