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?

[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?

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.

Nah... Just head over to post #10.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

LOL. So, people who were crucified "were usually left on the cross for scavengers, or tossed into a mass grave, or even burnt".

Yeah, but those "people" obviously weren't Jesus Christ.

Reminds me of when Michael Jackson passed away, and how it was a big media hoopla about his death as the whole world mourned.

Someone said "Why is it that Michael Jackson's death gets so much press?? People die everyday, and none of those other people get this much press".

Response: Because none of those people are Michael Jackson.



Besides, Jesus deserved a more honorable burial than that, at least that is what the wealthy man who was plucked out of nowhere (Joseph of Arimethea) thought.

Second, you say that Jesus' burial in the tomb was a created scenario, which would make for a better story.

But obviously, "better" is subjective.

Because I can argue that the "better" story would be for Jesus to have been left on the cross, but when everyone visited the cross the next day (or however long), his body was no longer on the cross.

And wow everyone (a large crowd) stood around marveling at the empty cross, they heard a voice behind them say...

"Looking for someone???"

And when they looked behind them, they see Jesus standing there, juggling the three nails that were in his body with a big grin on his face.

How is that for "better"??

[brunumb]

Because I can argue that the "better" story would be for Jesus to have been left on the cross, but when everyone visited the cross the next day (or however long), his body was no longer on the cross.

And wow everyone (a large crowd) stood around marveling at the empty cross, they heard a voice behind them say...

"Looking for someone???"

And when they looked behind them, they see Jesus standing there, juggling the three nails that were in his body with a big grin on his face.

How is that for "better"??

See how easy that was, and just done to impress a skeptic. What if you needed to elevate a dead itinerant preacher in the eyes of a gullible public while trying to maintain some degree of credibility instead? Not that hard in an age of gods, superstition and magic tricks I reckon.

[TRANSPONDER]

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??

I'll deal with any halfway valid points here because Sorry, chum, most of your responses are meaningless. Including your accusations of skeptical bias (because atheists just want to sin ) ). I at one time credited the whole story, but then (like many a deconvert) examination showed that it did not stack up. Yes, I did already mention that any excuse can be made up. But the thing is, is it a credible option? Are you going to be able to persuade the ones who haven't bought into it? Though it's true that most people have been sold the selected combined narrative with the contradictions left out. It's my intent and mission to bring these to peoples' attention.

I often refer to Matthew saying the women ran into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples. Luke says specifically that they didn't see him. Some excuse this by saying women's testimony didn't count. Not so. it maybe needed two women to testify before they were credited, but we had two women. Also Cleophas credited them about the angel and doesn't just not mention their seeing Jesus but specifically says that they did not see him.

A poster here suggested that the women split up and one saw Jesus and the other didn't. A memorable apologetic. But I see no reason why they should split up and in fact on the way back from the Mount of Olives to Bethany (which is where the action must be, not in the city (1) there was only one route. Also Luke refers to 'them' which means at least two, even if we discount Luke's troupe of females and say it was just the Marys.

So, in the end the excuses won't wash, not to anyone whose mind is still open and who has this stuff pointed out, as usually it isn't.

What else you have?

Oh yes. I know there is a crucified heel in a sarcophagus (Google Johanan -crucifixion) and I believe there was a crucified man buried in a jar, which isn't exactly a state funeral but is a bit more than a mass grave or left in a ditch.

Yes, sure; if one could credit the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb wouldn't matter. It is because people aren't willing to credit the claim (even without knowing the contradictions that render it three made -up stories) the empty tomb becomes evidence that the skeptics can't explain away. Except that maybe I can. The women were needed to go there because nobody else had a reason to. And according to Theist Think - if you can't refute that 100% and get me to admit it, then it must be true.

And finally the old 'copied text' strawman. Yes, if the stories read word for word identical they'd be copied. But that wouldn't make the original untrue. And if they described the same thing in different ways, that would imply credible testimony. But they fail on two ...even three...of these counts: aside from evident fabrications (like Luke's penitent thief) the crucifixion accounts broadly agree. That just shows that all the resurrection is fabrication, because nothing agrees (2). John even debunks the angelic message.
On the other hand, the synoptics do show signs of copying some identical passages of text. That doesn't mean it is dismissed as copying, just that there was an original version. So that the "discrepancies prove it's true' argument is a dead duck .

(1) if you believe the crucifixion account, only from the mount of Olives could the soldiers overlook the Temple and see the rending of the veil - one of the things that convinced them that Jesus was...Son of God, Righteous or at least innocent, take your pick. Apart from which in Jesus' time burials were being moved to the mount of Olives as the area where the possibl;e sepulchres are located were suburbs and no new tomb could have been built there. So again, tomb, Garden and crucifixion is on the Mount of Olives and nothing of the story is in the city.

(2) "Jesus appeared in the solid body" is the claim, not the evidence for it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because I can argue that the "better" story would be for Jesus to have been left on the cross, but when everyone visited the cross the next day (or however long), his body was no longer on the cross.

And wow everyone (a large crowd) stood around marveling at the empty cross, they heard a voice behind them say...

"Looking for someone???"

And when they looked behind them, they see Jesus standing there, juggling the three nails that were in his body with a big grin on his face.

How is that for "better"??

See how easy that was, and just done to impress a skeptic. What if you needed to elevate a dead itinerant preacher in the eyes of a gullible public while trying to maintain some degree of credibility instead? Not that hard in an age of gods, superstition and magic tricks I reckon.

Yes. It's a point that has to be addressed - effectively the 'principle of embarrassment'. Why (if the story was being made up) have Jesus taken down at all?' Indeed if the story was being made up - why have Jesus crucified by Rome and have to juggle a lot more than nails to pass the blame onto the Jews?

Because the crucifixion has to be true, even if they have to fiddle the story to get Rome off the hook and make the Jews the ones to blame for an execution they didn't do. That's why I think the crucifixion is real but the blaming of the Jews is not, and the story to that effect falls apart - the blasphemy charge is nonsense; and John has no Sanhedrin trial anyway. It gets nowhere before Pilate and effectively rebellion is why Jesus is executed. You may have already seen how the Passover exchange nonsense looks (to me) like the insurrectionist Jesus Bar-abbas being 'exchanged' for the Jesus son of Abba. Only one other video poster has this theory but by God I like it.

Venom, wrote:

Take for example..

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

Garbage. It's just the same lie as the Nativities - they utterly and totally contradict but nobody knows that. They have been sold the well known unified Christmas tale and just leave out the contradictions. That is what this apologetics explanation does.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #12]

What a turn around. First you tried to convince us that it wasn't unusual for people to be buried, after it's pointed out to you that it was indeed unusual, you slipped straight into the next argument saying, of course it's unusual - Jesus was a very special case.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What a turn around. First you tried to convince us that it wasn't unusual for people to be buried, after it's pointed out to you that it was indeed unusual, you slipped straight into the next argument saying, of course it's unusual - Jesus was a very special case.

Yeah, what a turn around.

First of all, old friend...the keyword I used, is USUALLY.

Which means that, all things equal, those things usually happens...and the "use" of the word "usually" provided me a way out, so that I wasn't boxed into a corner with making a statement of absolute.

Second, when it was pointed out to me that the things which usually happens don't necessarily happen under those circumstances in this particular case (which I did not know), then I had to change course, under light of the new information that was brought to my attention.

Which, by the way, is the same thing you all and your beloved scientists do...and something you guys love to appreciate when THEY do it...but when anyone else does it, it is looked at as a negative, apparently.

Double standard.

Third, brunumb already conceded the reason why normal protocol (as it relates to this situation) was not adhered to....according to the narrative.

The problem with that is; a very subjective reason was given...and my response to that subjective hypothesis was what it was.

So, what we have here is a failed "GOTCHA" moment.

And btw, old friend...I don't think I've yet to intellectually spank you on subjects pertaining to the Resurrection.

So lets go ahead and add this one to the growing list

[We_Are_VENOM]

See how easy that was, and just done to impress a skeptic. What if you needed to elevate a dead itinerant preacher in the eyes of a gullible public while trying to maintain some degree of credibility instead? Not that hard in an age of gods, superstition and magic tricks I reckon.

Umm, first of all...in a nut shell, the story involves a person who allegedly rose from the dead. That in itself should be enough to impress anyone, regardless of the particular details.

And, as I never hesitate to point out...we can either believe, with Christianity..that..

1. A man allegedly rose from the dead after having once lived.

or

we can believe that..

2. Dead, inanimate matter either suddenly or gradually "came to life", and began to talk, think, and have sex (on atheism/naturalism).

#2, in my opinion, is worse than any superstition or magic trick that I ever heard of.

So I am rocking with #1.

[Bust Nak]

Which, by the way, is the same thing you all and your beloved scientists do...and something you guys love to appreciate when THEY do it...but when anyone else does it, it is looked at as a negative, apparently.

The negative part wasn't updating your position upon new information. It was your tune. You were so sure of your original point that you called us out on "skepticism beyond rational skepticism" and "overdose on critical." Then it turns out that it was you who overlooked some trivial "new information" you just sailed straight onto the "LOL of course Jesus was special," no less dismissive as the first post.

So lets go ahead and add this one to the growing list.

Speaking of growing list, it's getting close to the one year anniversary of you stating that you were going to start a thread to prove that a "complete lack of existence" is impossible. Have you lost interest completely?

[TRANSPONDER]

I get he point, I think - normally a crucifixion victim was dumped. Though as I pointed out that wasn't always the case. But Jusus' entombment was not this norm. Ok, so what's the conclusion? Jesus means something special to Joseph, just as Johanan (or some similar name) meant something to whoever put him in a sarcophgagus.