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?

[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

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

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

Not quite. An anonymous writer made a claim in the Bible that we all know. Such claims are a dime a dozen.

You are quite incorrect! This author would not be anonymous. Rather, he identifies himself as The Apostle Paul. Moreover, most all the critical scholars would agree this would have been a genuine letter authored by Paul.

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

So then, while I have no idea what point you would have been making concerning the author being anonymous; whatever it may have been this fact takes away whatever point that would have been.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

Not quite. An anonymous writer made a claim in the Bible that we all know. Such claims are a dime a dozen.

You are quite incorrect! This author would not be anonymous. Rather, he identifies himself as The Apostle Paul. Moreover, most all the critical scholars would agree this would have been a genuine letter authored by Paul.

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

So then, while I have no idea what point you would have been making concerning the author being anonymous; whatever it may have been this fact takes away whatever point that would have been.

OK, so he wasn't anonymous. Big deal. If God really wanted us to know, we'd know. I don't. It's still an unsupported claim from some ancient author producing religious propaganda.

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. While I have little doubt that Paul wrote the Epistles up to Ephesians/Philemon, his claim that we all 'know' is plainly his opinion and questionable. Firstly his argument is merely the Watchmaker (ID) argument which is flawed, and secondly, even if persons before science really took off assumed that a big invisible human had to have made everything, the existence of other religions shows that Paul in merely fitting this 'knowing' into his own religious preferences.

Sure, a case can be made that the Christian religion is the right one, and Bible reliability is the only case with some traction. All the other arguments would appear to prove nothing.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #0]

The point is, they can't all be true, so they could all be false, or just one. But which?

GOOD GRIEF! And you think that is some kind of argument against Christianity?

If God wanted us to know, we'd All know, so it's evidence they are All false.

According to the God of the Bible, we all do know.

Not quite. An anonymous writer made a claim in the Bible that we all know. Such claims are a dime a dozen.

You are quite incorrect! This author would not be anonymous. Rather, he identifies himself as The Apostle Paul. Moreover, most all the critical scholars would agree this would have been a genuine letter authored by Paul.

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

So then, while I have no idea what point you would have been making concerning the author being anonymous; whatever it may have been this fact takes away whatever point that would have been.

OK, so he wasn't anonymous. Big deal. If God really wanted us to know, we'd know. I don't. It's still an unsupported claim from some ancient author producing religious propaganda.

Oh? Well, it certainly seemed to be some sort of "big deal" when you posted it, otherwise why would you have attempted to point this out? So, there was no point to be made by referring to the author as being anonymous? I mean, was that simply "filler information" which would have had nothing to do with it at all?

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. However, I kind of wonder if you may be one of those who claimed to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who is now claiming not to know? In other words, we have many on this site who claimed to have been convinced Christians who had no good reasons to be convinced, which sort of demonstrates those who are easily convinced. I'm just saying, it is difficult for me to put a whole lot of stock in those who admit they were easily convinced a man rose from the dead, who now want to claim otherwise.

You go on to refer to this writing as "religious propaganda". How in the world would this be the case, since the author was writing to those who would have already been believers? In fact, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences at the time who would have already believed. It seems to me we have one who likes to throw in these extra words with a purpose, but as demonstrated above, they really have no purpose.

[Diagoras]

<..>

So from all this, we can deduce the "missing body" and "empty tomb" motif was a sign of divine intervention/favor and was a common element in apotheosis/translation fables. It would signify to an ancient audience that "this person was special" or that a "miracle had occurred." Hence, we can see why the creators of the Jesus stories would be motivated to invent such a tale. If Jesus was anything special, then surely his body would have to disappear from his tomb!

Since there is no verifiable independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from the Markan narrative), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme of the "miraculous missing body" as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity.

<bolding mine>

I've. been impressed with the amount of supporting material you provided for your claim here. It fits nicely with my claim (in another thread) that such invented stories were necessary to 'elevate' Jesus - and in particular to better compete with the nascent emperor worship cult of the time.

[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.

That works both ways. The Bible makes its claim and that can't be demonstrated either, but you accept it well enough to shove it in our faces as if it is fact.

[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.

That works both ways. The Bible makes its claim and that can't be demonstrated either, but you accept it well enough to shove it in our faces as if it is fact.

You are mistaken again. I do not "shove it in your face as if it is fact". Rather, I am simply insisting there are reasons to believe the claims, based upon the facts. I am not insisting you believe the claims, nor am I insisting you would have no reason to doubt the claims. On the other hand, there certainly seem to be those who want to insist I have no reason to believe the claims, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. So then, who is it really, who is attempting to shove what they believe in another's face?

[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.

[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?