The Empty Tomb!

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3268
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1047 times

The Empty Tomb!

Post #1

Post by 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?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #71

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #70]
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.
First, while there are indeed many folks who are indoctrinated who later go on to reject this indoctrination, there are also many who were opposed to Christianity so much, so they were actively opposing it, who come to be convinced of the claims. One which comes to mind would be one who was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, who was a lesbian in a lesbian relationship for years, and was actually head of the LBGQT community at the university. This professor was in the process of writing a paper exposing the religious right in America, and events stemming from this process caused her to actually read the Bible for herself, and she credits her vast knowledge of language for her conclusions. She is not alone.

With that being said, I have no problem with Christians explaining to their Children what they believe along with why they believe as they do, allowing the child to use their mind to process what they are hearing. I do have a problem with Christians who have no idea what they believe, nor why they believe as they do, who go on to almost force their children to believe. Not only am I opposed to such things, but I have also actually stood up against it. I also have a problem with the many Churches which do not even attempt to engage the mind at all, but rather simply appeal to the emotions, including the children, and I have stood up against this as well.

From the rest of what you say, I will focus upon one paragraph, but I believe what I have to say will cover the whole.
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?
The first thing I will point out here is, these authors simply cannot win. I mean if, and when they report the same exact thing, this is evidence against the reports, and we must assume they would have copied each other. However, if, and when there are discrepancies in the stories, this is evidence against the reports. However, the fact of the matter would be, when one is interviewing witnesses what you would expect is, some things being reported in the same way, while other things are reported differently. Allow me to give an example.

I have a friend whom I have not seen or spoken to in years because he has moved some 1100 miles away. It just so happens he has just had a book published and when my wife heard about it, she straight away ordered it, and we received it in the mail just this week. One of the chapters is dedicated to a story he tells which would have involved me. Of course, this event occurred many years ago but as I read his version of the events, I do not recall the events in the same exact way. As an example, at one point he has me standing over his right shoulder. In fact, the title of the chapter is, "Over the Shoulder". However, as I recall, I was not standing over his shoulder at all. I am almost positive; I was standing just to his left facing his left shoulder. He goes on to refer to a girl who was sitting on the sidewalk as he describes, "Indian style". However, as I recall, she was indeed sitting on the sidewalk, but her legs were straight out in front of her with her arms behind to prop herself up. At the end of the chapter, he puts words in my mouth I do not recall. However, even though we do not recall the events in the same exact way, the main event he was describing was completely true, and accurate. In other words, if one were to come and interview me to ask if this event he describes actually occurred, I would have to say it did in fact occur.

I will also go on to point out, you certainly seem to demonstrate one who clearly understands something very significant occurred some 2000 years ago, and there are enough facts, and evidence involved to demonstrate this, that you understand you must, and have to give some sort of alternative. It seems your alternative explanation would be, these events were made up. Well, you are certainly entitled to hold such an opinion, but I am not thinking many of the scholars would hold such an opinion. Why? Well, because such an explanation would not hold up under the evidence we have. Allow me to share with you a quote I submitted to another member. This is a quote from Bart Ehrman who is one of the most outspoken critical scholars.
Ehrman wrote:„Many Christians don't want to hear this, but the reality is that there are lots of other explanations for what happened to Jesus that are more probable than the explanation that he was raised from the dead. None of these explanations is very probable, but they are more probable, just looking at the matter historically, than the explanation of the resurrection. … Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition, miracles are the least probable of occurrences.“
Now, do you happen to see where he says, "none of these (alternative) explanations is very probable"? Here, we have a critical scholar who is admitting, "NONE of these (alternative) explanations are VERY probable". Why? Well, because he understands as a scholar, "none of these (alternative) explanations" will hold up against the evidence we have. But maybe, he has not thought of the idea that these things could have been made up? In the end we can see that Ehrman is simply left with the probabilities, because no other explanation of the facts, and evidence we have would hold up to these facts, and evidence. The fact of the matter would be that Ehrman would be correct in that the miraculous explanation would be the least probable, because if the miraculous ever occurs it would be rare. So, where does that leave us?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #72

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I have every sympathy with people who get persuaded that the Bible and Christianity is true. I find it difficult to believe that people can read the Bible and say 'Wow! That just has to be true!' and I could credit more that they get talked into it by clever apologetics. Remember - they may have a masters' degree in something or other but does that mean they know and understand better than someone who has done a lot of debate on this particular matter?

I'd want to sit down with anyone who is convinced that the Bible is reliable as a record of what happened and put the other side, and unless they'd been totally brainwashed into Faith, I'd expect them to at least accept that some of it is not credible. I'll repeat that, while I'm convinced that the Nativity and Resurrection stories are fabricated - on demonstrable evidence, I am also convinced that Jesus was a real person and was crucified, though I am aware there are problems about that.

In my post above I have set out my stall. That to me is good and sound reasons to doubt the resurrection accounts and therefore, I'd say, the resurrection -c laim itself. I await your rebuttals. I have seen a few. One was arguing that the references to resurrections in Paul validated the ones in the Gospels. They are not the same . Another poster suggested that Matthew could be reconciled with Luke thus:

The Marys ran from the tomb and split up. One (presumably Jesus' mother) ran into Jesus and Mary Magdalene (as in John she hasn't seen Jesus) didn't see him.

Cleophas hears Mary say that the tomb was open and saw angels, but She didn't see Jesus. Cleophas leaves before Jesus' old mum comes panting up and says 'I just saw Jesus!'. I suppose after the disciples and Mary go to look at the empty tomb, as Many still thinks that Jesus is dead.

Of course the Bible says it was the two women, not one, on separate paths. Quite apart from the point that the crucifixion had to be on the mount of Olives and the only route was from there to Bethany, and that's just the one path - they could not split up.

So, nice try, but that one didn't work, and none of them do.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #73

Post by alexxcJRO »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 6:00 pm
brunumb wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:57 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:29 am 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?
I for example was a very convinced Christian(Penticostal). Feeling the Holy Ghost and all. Praying every day. Sharing of Holy Communion. Hearing people speaking in tongues.
Now I genuinely believe Yahweh-Jesus is non-existent.
Looking back it all feels so silly.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #74

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Thank you. Just as on my former Board, I felt the need for a thread where conversion and deconversion -stories could be told. These are very revealing about the mechanics of conversion and deconversion

I have seen quite a few, and it seems as though believers are talked into Faith either indoctrinated as kids, or persuaded as adults by the very persuasive apologetics packages and we have all seen how clever they are in making as Aristophanes put it "... the worse cause appear the better".

I won't go off on the complicated and fascinating alternate -science (cult -think) (1) method of fiddled data and philosophy, misrepresented science and history and downright lies if necessary that is used in what is the opposite of critical thinking - finding out the truth because it matters, whereas theist/cult - think habitually adapts the facts/data to prop up the belief already held And of course they think the 'skeptic' side does that too, and perhaps that happens, but enough are concerned with being honest with themselves that they do it right and even the biased skeptics use the best arguments, not the worst.

But I digress (as the future ruler of earth says ;) and would like to see a thread of conversion/deconversion stories. Believers make a big deal of their conversion but so often they are not very impressive. I have seen a lot where hatred of Communism was the mover for conversion. In another case (the good bad example of Lee Strobel's wretched film) it claimed that as a skeptic, he was persuaded by the evidence of the empty tomb.

See :D I knew we'd get back to topic

But he only gave one side of the argument. How, as a skeptic, could he not know the skeptic arguments? This has to be a lie, and however he came to be a Christian, impartial consideration of the pros and cons was not It, or at least not haw he presented it.

And he's not the only one. "I used to be an atheist, like you, until...." is endemic as a propaganda - shot. And so often it is a grab -bag of theist propaganda rubbish that would not convince and skeptic with two brain cells to bang together.. So many times (apologetics videos) they claimed to be converted atheists - but they had forgotten (or never heard) any atheist arguments.

I'd guess (if I was forces to make a bet with a Walther at my head) this is just an apologetics ploy and is just a lie. I use Rachel Slick and how quickly she deconverrted as soon as she came up against some doubts and questions, and many a deconversion story says the same, though often it took a long time and could be painful Changing a deep mindset or worldview can be tough. Too tough for some to do. But they did and the problem of evil was one of the major doubts, and trying to make the Bible stack up was another.

I have also mentioned my old pal, a Theist opponent from several Forums ago who turned up deconverted on my last one. It happened twice (as far as I recall) one sweet lady who was a total believer in Jesus and ended up an atheist, and another who started a special thread to apologise for being such a pain as a theist. :D We told him he didn't need to but his attitude was 'I started this thread specially to apologise and but God, I'm going to!!!"

So aside this digression (on a subject that fascinates me as much as the puzzle of the gospels (or puzzles, rather) I'd say the empty tomb is considered one of the best points for the Christian apologists. I think it is now answerable though it is an answer, not a debunk. But it is not always understood by the Theist side that the mere existence of an equally good alternative to 'Jesus got up and walked) means 'no reason to believe the Bible'. Their mindset of keeping Their faith with even a remote possible explanation is not what makes a convincing argument for the onlooker - assuming we have any.

That of course is what the Theist side dearly wants - to shut the atheist up, or shut them down, either would do. The job of the atheist is not to find out the apologetics - we won that one over 4 decades ago, but the problem is getting the message out. There are so many who want to make sure we don't.

Cue...the video I recently saw on Assyria's siege of Tyre, presented like a history talk but just tending to go with the Bible version. Not the only one that did that. But finding out that it was absolutely an evangelical job. I can't recall seeing anyone who said that maybe the Bible should go rather with the Assyrian account. It would make a lot more sense. But there is no voice doing that, because nobody is funding us. (2)

Christian Evangelism is funded by its' own earnings, no taxes and I would bet oil dollars too, as Creationist -driven science skepticism suits their agenda. Well, that's enough for now "go away now" as the critical drinker says.

(1) never mind the whole sickening realisation that all this crazy stuff, alternative science, science denial, conspiracy theories and whacky cults is largely an export from America. like Fundamentalist evangelism. Sorry, but it is. And it goes back a long, way, It is :P evolutionary, from not having a State church to keep finge groups in order, through the revival of the civil war, the Scopes trial and science -denial, the Red scare and McCarthyism (wher religion became politicized) and through to the rise of Creationism and the Internet the Tea Party which was the basis of the present Republican partly as it (mostly) now is.

(2) Historians aren't there to debunk the Bible and would rather avoid doing so. And I did do a thread on 'agnostics'. The curious phenomenon af the non -believer who is anti -atheist for political reasons. But that thread got no takers.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #75

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Erratu. Brain blank there I means siege of Jerusalem, not siege of Tyre". But I did look at a few vids of modenr 'Sour' (old Tyre) to find out where the ruins were and what date. There are many on or near the beach and even underwater. But the modern town is just built a bit back from the beach. The modern town covers the whole of old Tyre. It was, to put it plainly, rebuilt, and very soon after the conquest by Alexander, too.

The vids were touristy (which is fine) but I only got hints that the majority of ruins are Roman date. The Necropolis is on the north part of the silted up causeway, so must be a lot later than 'Biblical' Tyre, and outside the rebuilt city anyway.

In short the claim that Tyre was never rebuilt and the modern 'Sour' is 'somewhere else' is simply false.

Again another 'puzzle' - do they not know these claims are false or do they know and they don't care? Well it's both. They don't know and they don't care. The evidence is only arguments they can use to silence Bible critics because the only 'Evidence' they need is Faith. You may take that one to the races and bet your house on it. Evidence, true, fiddled or false, only exists to prop the Faith up. If one apologetic fails, try something else. Like if I show that ruined Tyre was covered by rebuilt Tyre, they'll argue 'well, it is a different city'. One could thus argue that Rome was destroyed and never rebuilt as we now have a different city built on top and called Rome.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3268
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1047 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #76

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:36 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]
All that happened was yet another religion started and not even a new religion because it it was just a Paganized version of Judaism just as Islam was a revised Judaism and just as Buddhism was a revised Hinduism.
There always seem to be those who want to compare Christianity to these other religions as if this would have a thing in the world to do with it in the least. I mean, what is the argument here? Is it, there must and has to be religions that are false, and therefore all religions must be false? The real question would be, what are these religions based upon? Are they based upon historical facts, and evidence? Or, are they based upon what one claims God wants us to know?
In no way do the remarkable appearances of these creeds mean that they are true or that the tales told about their founders, saints or prophets are true,
I am certainly not suggesting this would be the case.
if they were even real people.
You are well on your way to intellectual suicide, and if we cannot agree on these sorts of things then there really is no need in attempting to have any sort of discussion.
That said, the only argument that matters is whether the resurrection narrative is true or not because if not, the whole basis of Christianity collapses whether Jesus was lugged out of the tomb and taken back to Galilee on a stretcher or whether he was dumped in a ditch and left there.
We certainly agree here which sort of demonstrates what I have said above. Christianity stands or falls upon an historical event. I am not thinking this would be the case as far as the other religions you refer to. Because you see, in the end Christianity is not based upon the teachings of Jesus, and how we should follow his teachings in order to please God. Rather, it is built upon an historical event, and we are to let go of our chase after morality and grab ahold of what has been accomplished on our behalf.
It doesn't matter what else happened to Jesus but just whether there is fair reason to doubt the Resurrection narrative, and I say there is.
Well, I have never suggested you would not have a reason for doubt. However, even if you have some sort of reason for doubt, this would not negate the fact there would be reasons to believe the claims. I mean this happens all the time. Folks look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions. I have no problem with this, but there seem to be others who have a problem with those who come to a different conclusion than they do.
And only faith based denial can ignore it.
And here comes the "faith" card again, which is thrown out when folks have nothing left. When there are facts, evidence, and reasons to base a belief upon, no faith would be required.
When you get the chance, would you mind addressing post #42? Thank you!
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #77

Post by Diagoras »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
You are certainly correct in stating that this is your problem.

Substitute 'atheism' for 'Christianity' in that sentence, for example, and see how you feel about it. Would you be glad to welcome into the fold someone who had 'seen the light' and converted, or would you remain sceptical about their claims of 'now believing'?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #78

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Diagoras wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 3:47 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
You are certainly correct in stating that this is your problem.

Substitute 'atheism' for 'Christianity' in that sentence, for example, and see how you feel about it. Would you be glad to welcome into the fold someone who had 'seen the light' and converted, or would you remain sceptical about their claims of 'now believing'?
:D (apologies but I often am impelled to respond to posts that make me smile). And I could say 'cue', here. As I can see it coming.

"An atheist who admits they were wrong and converts to Christianity is just seeing the truth. But a Christian who becomes an atheist was never a Real Christian in the first place." (ChINO - Christian in Name only). Because (and this is what I have come to on evidence father than having been a believers once, as I never was) Belief/Faith seems to be a conviction that they are mentally in contact with God (who is often Jesus, too) and I won't go into Faith in being right no matter how good the evidence against is, because they have the Truth from God, nor go into that this God in the head is the personal Ego inflated to Cosmic level, but the conviction is there, that their 'Interpretation' not only of the Bible, but science, is true on Faith because God is giving it to them. To paraphrase Ken Ham, no evidence can ever convince the Faithful that she or he is wrong because they 'have Faith', and Faith is (I will swear) belief of divine truth being downloaded into their skulls (1). The point being that they cannot believe that anyone could ever be persuaded that their Faith was incorrect. Thus it logically follows ;) that they could not have REALLY had Faith at all.

This isn't just a tactical ploy, but they really think that no Real Christian could ever lose Faith. This is wrong of course, as many former Christians get niggled at the idea that they were in any way less Faithful when they believed. But then we know what Faith is worth with hard evidence. A theist axiom: "God hates the same people you do". And when a Believer changes their mind about dogma, God changes His mind, too. No doubt they believe that it was God corrected some wrong Interpretation, but I got no feedback on that as I never had any response when I asked. We will have seen a few examples of questions that get (repeatedly)ignored and the Believer changes the subject.

Of course that's nothing to do with the tomb, but Faith - based thinking (as distinct from rational) is fascinating, and is the key to understanding how they argue.

(1)If reality contradicts Faith, reality itself is wrong.'If the Bible said 2+2 = 5, I'd never doubt that, but try to find a way of explaining how that could be true" (or something like that).

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #79

Post by Realworldjack »

Diagoras wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 3:47 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
You are certainly correct in stating that this is your problem.

Substitute 'atheism' for 'Christianity' in that sentence, for example, and see how you feel about it. Would you be glad to welcome into the fold someone who had 'seen the light' and converted, or would you remain sceptical about their claims of 'now believing'?

Okay, I understand that I am way behind as far as my responses are concerned. However, as I told another member, I broke a promise to myself that I would not get involved in more than one thread at a time. With this being the case, I have dedicated the time I have to the original thread I was involved in, having to ignore this thread, and I certainly regret this, and apologize. This goes on to further demonstrate that I can no longer get involved in more than one thread, no matter how tempting this may be. I will also acknowledge that I am responding out of turn on this thread, because it would be a fact that I have others to respond to which would have been way earlier than this post. However, since I have dedicated myself to the original thread I was involved in, on top of the fact that I have just posted a very long response on that thread, which took up a lot of my time, I decided to take on this post, since it was very short, and would take up a lot less time. I would also have to confess; this would be a post I am more than eager to respond to. With all this being out of the way, let us do indeed "Substitute 'atheism' for 'Christianity' in that sentence" in order to determine, "how I may feel about it"?
Rather, my problem comes in with those who claim they were convinced ATHEISM was true for decades of their life, who now want to tell us they had no good reasons to believe ATHEISM was true, as if this would be a reason to doubt ATHEISM.
The question posed to this substitution was,
Would you be glad to welcome into the fold someone who had 'seen the light' and converted, or would you remain sceptical about their claims of 'now believing'?
First, I would have to say that I am not "skeptical" at all that those who were once convinced Christianity was true, have now come to a different conclusion. In other words, I am not in any way "skeptical about their claims of "now NOT believing"? Rather, I am convinced they no longer believe in what they were once convinced of. What I am "skeptical' of, is that the thinking has changed in any way. In other words, if there are those who claim to have been convinced Christianity was indeed true, and they go on to freely admit they were convinced Christianity was true, without a whole lot of thinking involved, since they were simply taking the word of others, then this only demonstrates to us the mind has changed. It does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed. Said differently, they could in fact still be simply taking the word of others, and I am convinced this can be demonstrated when there are those who simply regurgitate what the scholars have to say, when they can in no way defend the scholarly opinion, any more than they could have defended what they were convinced of, when they were a Christian.

Therefore, while I may, "be glad to welcome into the fold someone" who was once an atheist who now claims to be convinced Christianity is true, I cannot for the life of me imagine myself, allowing such a one to say, "I was a convinced atheist for decades of my life, but I really had no reason to be a convinced atheist, and the fact that I was a convinced atheist for no good reason, would be a reason for others to doubt atheism".

So yeah, this argument does not work on either side of the equation.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #80

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Ok. No need to apologise for a delayed response. There's only a point in posting when you have something to say.

And what you say I can at least give you some credit for. - the thinking in belief and disbelief; conversion and deconversion could be the same. Could be in the case of the non - believer who was talked into it by carefully doctored 'evidence'. The argument there is not how they came to their new belief, but the validity of the argument that convinced evidence them. I suppose even Lee Strobel (whom I slammed for not having even looked at the counter - case) might simply not have seen any counter case. And now it's too late, as Faith has made him oblivious to the arguments against the Nativities and the empty tomb, which are the arguments I have seen regularly debated. Apart from the two donkeys and (for some reason) Jesus saying the Law 'shall not pass' (1)

I get it that convinced Theists and atheists alike may tend to be dismissive of evidence they don't like. Which is why (apart from the Method of setting bias aside and considering the arguments of the other side) it's a good idea to aim the argument at a (possible) open -minded reader and make the best case one can.

So having settled (I hope) the matter of bias, we return to the empty tomb and what I now say, which is that - given that it is the one thing all four agree on (other than the Faith - Claim that Jesus got up and walked) in all the resurrections, which makes it basic and formative to the stories, if not actually true, I can point to some plot - flaws that show that the empty tomb, too, was fabricated as well as the rest of the resurrection. Really because the women had to go and look at the tomb for no good reason and, could not have expected to get inside anyway. Thus, we have a reason why we have women involved at all. They were the only ones who could possibly have had a reason to go there. Though John's reason - just to look at the rock door....hang on... yes...in John they just go to look at the tomb (as the 'anointing' had already been done) and, weak reason though it is for them to do this before they'd even had their coffee, it avoids the problem of them suddenly realising that they won't be able to get inside...but never mind, Plot dictates that Somebody has conveniently moved the stone.

(1) which I think is a poor atheist apologetic, like 'miracles don't happen' and 'one or two angels'. We need to up our game.

Post Reply