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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Kinda, I know what it means in English, yet I don't understand why highlighting that phrase helps your case...

Highlighting it helps my case because from jump street, I made the statement based on what should happen under normal circumstances.

If those normal circumstances are negated (which it was), then so is my original statement...which is fine, because all I have to do is reach into my bag of tricks, and VIOLA...back on target.

Kind of like the martial art of wing chun...where when your opponent blocks your strike, the block in itself is setting him up for another strike (from you)...so the block that he used in a attempt to NOT get hit, only sets him up for another hit.

Kind of the same kind of thing, here.

The narrative did not take a mocking/dismissive tone though, that was all you.

You really wasn't feeling that, huh?

Ok, I apologize for my mocking/dismissive tone...although it helped drive home my point in epic fashion.

No, I was just telling you I might not get round to reading it until Monday, you can stick to your original plan.

Then perhaps you should have just made a mental note of that, and KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Thank you. That's a good point. The answer is First to acknowledge that there is an apparent contradiction.

Take for instance the Genealogies. They are both supposed to be the ancestors of Jesus but they differ.

Now one can do denial ("No, they don't differ") which is ludicrous as they obviously do, so they are a contradiction, or one can make your point, which is valid in that there could be an explanation that resolves the contradiction. But is it:
(a) valid

(b) credible?

Now, the explanation is that one is the line through Joseph and the other through Mary, so both are legitimate lines of descent for Jesus through different parents. But that is invalid because both are plainly stated to end in Joseph. The apologist can then appeal to a possible explanation; the one through Mary (supposedly) was edited wrongly and it should have been 'Mary whose husband was Joseph' or some such. But how credible is that? If such a mistake could be made, what else is mistaken? What's more, if there is evidence that Luke and Matthew wrote different gospels in isolation and they do contradict, that the genealogies are just another contradiction is by far the more probable explanation, and the 'possible' one becomes less credible the more such contradictions are found.

The whole genealogies thing has been the subject of many debates/commentaries. The bottom line is, for the most part; no possible/plausible explanation given is going to be enough to satisfy those who are hell-bent on proving the Bible wrong.

So what it all comes down to, as in most cases; it is either you believe it, or you don't.

If it wasn't this "issue", it would be something else.

As I continue to stress; from the skeptic's point of view, the Bible isn't to be used for convincing, conviction, or persuading.

But instead, it is used for skepticism, criticism, and in some cases, down right ridicule.

That's why the Nativities are a touchstone precedent, because they cannot credibly be reconciled. I don't think even the far -fetched explanations work. The resurrections (and they are the doctrinal basis of Christianity) are 2nd in contradiction, and there is much else. The lack of a transfiguration in John has no plausible explanation that I've heard (1). Thus the contradictory deaths of Judas look more like real contradictions and the attempts to explain the contradictions away are very far fetched and improbable. It gets to the stage where the 'possible explanations' are no improbable that no reasonable person would credit them as likely and only Faith - based denial would credit them.
That rather than semantic dickering about the meaning of 'contradiction' is the real issue here.

(1) it was a different event - No, it is demonstrably between the loaves and fishes and the return by walking on the water. Events that should follow are the messianic declaration and Transfiguration, neither of which are in John. Another effort was 'Jesus told them to say nothing of it '- No, that was only until 'all was fulfilled' which means his death and resurrection, and that didn't stop the synoptics from writing it up.

This is all a case of how you view the glass; half empty, or half full.

I could argue that the differences or any supposed discrepancies would seem to indicate that believers weren't all coming together and joining forces in efforts get things to gel together..thus, the differences.

Most of these discrepancies are small little details that do not effect the Gospel...that, and also the fact that most of them can be reconciled, but usually, as mentioned prior, no answer is ever good enough for folks who want to systematically reject any/everything related to the accounts (or Christianity in general).

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. That's a good point. The answer is First to acknowledge that there is an apparent contradiction.

Take for instance the Genealogies. They are both supposed to be the ancestors of Jesus but they differ.

Now one can do denial ("No, they don't differ") which is ludicrous as they obviously do, so they are a contradiction, or one can make your point, which is valid in that there could be an explanation that resolves the contradiction. But is it:
(a) valid

(b) credible?

Now, the explanation is that one is the line through Joseph and the other through Mary, so both are legitimate lines of descent for Jesus through different parents. But that is invalid because both are plainly stated to end in Joseph. The apologist can then appeal to a possible explanation; the one through Mary (supposedly) was edited wrongly and it should have been 'Mary whose husband was Joseph' or some such. But how credible is that? If such a mistake could be made, what else is mistaken? What's more, if there is evidence that Luke and Matthew wrote different gospels in isolation and they do contradict, that the genealogies are just another contradiction is by far the more probable explanation, and the 'possible' one becomes less credible the more such contradictions are found.

The whole genealogies thing has been the subject of many debates/commentaries. The bottom line is, for the most part; no possible/plausible explanation given is going to be enough to satisfy those who are hell-bent on proving the Bible wrong.

So what it all comes down to, as in most cases; it is either you believe it, or you don't.

If it wasn't this "issue", it would be something else.

As I continue to stress; from the skeptic's point of view, the Bible isn't to be used for convincing, conviction, or persuading.

But instead, it is used for skepticism, criticism, and in some cases, down right ridicule.

That's why the Nativities are a touchstone precedent, because they cannot credibly be reconciled. I don't think even the far -fetched explanations work. The resurrections (and they are the doctrinal basis of Christianity) are 2nd in contradiction, and there is much else. The lack of a transfiguration in John has no plausible explanation that I've heard (1). Thus the contradictory deaths of Judas look more like real contradictions and the attempts to explain the contradictions away are very far fetched and improbable. It gets to the stage where the 'possible explanations' are no improbable that no reasonable person would credit them as likely and only Faith - based denial would credit them.
That rather than semantic dickering about the meaning of 'contradiction' is the real issue here.

(1) it was a different event - No, it is demonstrably between the loaves and fishes and the return by walking on the water. Events that should follow are the messianic declaration and Transfiguration, neither of which are in John. Another effort was 'Jesus told them to say nothing of it '- No, that was only until 'all was fulfilled' which means his death and resurrection, and that didn't stop the synoptics from writing it up.

This is all a case of how you view the glass; half empty, or half full.

I could argue that the differences or any supposed discrepancies would seem to indicate that believers weren't all coming together and joining forces in efforts get things to gel together..thus, the differences.

Most of these discrepancies are small little details that do not effect the Gospel...that, and also the fact that most of them can be reconciled, but usually, as mentioned prior, no answer is ever good enough for folks who want to systematically reject any/everything related to the accounts (or Christianity in general).

Your first argument is just playing the bias card. Those who see that there are real contradictions and not little thing (and the doctrines are irrelevant) will see that's just an excuse to dismiss real reasons to doubt the veracity of the Bible.

You can dismiss all that - your choice, but I'm confident that those who still open -minded (whatever my bias may or may not be) will nor go along with the Bias ploy or dismissing real reasons to doubt as 'little details'.

[Realworldjack]

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?

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?

Doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., are not required to consider any of these things, and are free to consider anything they wish.

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?

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, and yet 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.

Now, I don't care who you are, that would be an extraordinary tale. But hey! If that is the tale you would rather believe then I have no problem with that in the least. However, what one would rather believe would in no way negate the fact that there are good reasons to believe the reports we have contained in the NT.

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem with that argument is, it only works if you accept the story in the first place.

Christian scenario - after the execution, the disciples were cowing in the upper room in the city (as Luke implied, I believe) and only the women dared to go to the tomb (to do a proper burial anointing, never mind that this had already been done at Bethany by Mary and John says they just went to look at the tomb ..you see the problems already?) and finding the tomb empty, they rushed to tell the disciples, having either no idea where the body had gone or having been told by the angels where it had gone (see yet more problems?) and thereafter Jesus appears in person, either to Simon and not to the women at all (Luke) or to the Marys before they report to the disciples and no appearance to the disciples until they go to Galilee (Matthew) and only to Mary after they report to the disciples (John.. do you see even more problems?) and these stories (suitably woven together to eliminate the contradictions) is what is supposed to be the Truth the disciples would (traditionally) die for, though nobody really knows what happened to them.

Or there's my argument. That the original resurrection - claim had no substance at all. The crucifixion was true enough but Jesus stayed dead and nobody (after the Jewish war) had any idea where Jesus' tomb was (it was certainly not the tomb in the city, as that area had become a suburb and 'new' tombs were all on the mount of olives) nor cared. As Paul suggested, the fleshly Jesus no longer mattered but only the resurrected one. I can only hypothesise how the Christians of the 2nd c needed to claim that the body rose, not just the spirit, but originally all they had was a (claimed) empty tomb as proof that Jesus had walked. n order to prop up that claim, they had the women find it open and empty and they ran off and said nothing about it. Which is why nobody knew anything about an empty tomb. And that's all the ending there was and the claim that the ending got lost from Mark won't wash. It clearly IS the ending. The women said nothing and endings of scrolls or books don't get lost; the start does.

But that wouldn't do, so an angel was added to the story to explain everything. John doesn't have it so you can know it was added to fill plot holes. You see the problems with this claim of a reliable report of what happened?). Plainly even that wouldn't do, so in addition to the disciples going to Galilee as instructed, Matthew has Jesus appear to the women.
But Luke knew nothing of that. But he did know (from reading Paul's letters) that the disciples had stayed in Jerusalem, so he alters the angelic message (in the synoptic original) so they are NOT told to go to Galilee and Simon is the first to see Jesus (because Paul said so) but he cannot describe it because Paul doesn't (I reckon it was a vision, anyway) so he has Jesus appear to Cleophas to shift the story from Jerusalem so the appearance to Simon is over when they get back. Then Jesus walks in and afterwards is doing a 40 day exegesis before ascending (Luke and Acts) and there is no question of the disciples going to Galilee, nor opportunity to do so. You begin to see the problems?

It's clear that Luke and Matthew used a copy of the original synoptic gospel to adapt for their own needs and there is no way that Luke is based on Matthew, but John is even more clearly NOT based on the same story. No angelic message and wangling the appearance to Mary After Jesus had supposedly (according to Matthew) appeared to both Marys already and the angels do nothing but ask a stupid question, and then Jesus turns up in the evening.

Now I gather that the ending of John was added later. Perhaps, but It seems clear to me that John was working with some traditions which he worked into his gospel. Including the one about turning up in the evening and eating a piece of fish and the some disciples going to Galillee. It is a first effort to weave the contradictory elements together, including the draft of fish and Sinking Simon but in a quite different context. In any case, we find that Luke utterly contradicts the thing with Thomas as in Luke Jesus does not show his side and all 11 disciples (minus Judas) are there. Do you start to get the problems with saying this is all based on reliable eyewitness?

The disciples wouldn't die for this Lie. Never mind the cobbled -together add on (two attempts at that) to provide Mark with the solid body resurrection that was needed later on. But let's take another option - which I once nearly believed until I realised that the gospels were largely fabricated and invention.

I do believe that the crucifixion happened. All four agree on that at least and it had the principle of embarrassment (you don't invent a Roman crucifixion which you then have to explain away) and there is only credible bit of Extra -Biblical support for Jesus. Tacitus apparently says that Pilate executed Jesus. So suppose the resurrection accounts were true? Well, we have Pilate trying to let Jesus off and the Sanhedrin saying 'we'll tell Caesar if you do'. So when Arimathea turns up with a plan to save Jesus, he's happy to order his soldiers to co- operate. Jesus is given a drink on a stick and he promptly passes out. Arimathea slips him into the nearby tomb (on the mount of Olives for sure and that means near to Bethany). As soon as the coast is clear, the disciples 'steal the body'. Dead or alive. It's the tradition the Jews had which Matthew mentions and counters with his silly tale of a tomb guard.

I have doubts about this scenario, as there's a lot of plot -holes . BUT, IF one appeals to some sort of eyewitness story, this fits it better than a bodily resurrection,which only stands up if one begins with Faith in the gospel story and wangles it to fit selected elements together (as with the nativities) to make a coherent story and the less said about the women running into Mary or the disciples going to Galilee, the better. Never mind a New Incorruptible body with holes in for identification purposes. See the problems?

I know you won't want to hear this and will dismiss it and rely on Faith. But this is the fairest assessment I can make of the problem and (given an open mind) I believe people will see it and come to their own conclusions. Or just keep their options open

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

The problem with that argument is, it only works if you accept the story in the first place.

I can only go with the scenarios one gives me, and I was responding to the OP which gave us the scenario that Jesus may not have been buried in a tomb, but may have been left for the buzzards, buried in a common grave, etc. My point was these explanations do not eliminate the extraordinary.

I am not quite sure I follow your scenario exactly. However, it really does not matter, because it in no way eliminates the extraordinary. My whole point here is, either way you go, one is left with believing a most extraordinary tale. The events we are discussing are indeed the most significant events in the history of the world which have impacted the world in more ways than we can discuss here. Therefore, either the reports we have are indeed true, and Jesus was indeed resurrected, and it is indeed the most significant event in history. Or somehow, someway, all these events were orchestrated, and, or fabricated, and it is these sorts of things which go on to have the most significant impact in all of history.

In other words, there is no way to deny the fact that something extraordinary occurred some 2000 years ago which has had the most significant impact in all of history, to the point we have those who continue to debate these things, day, after day, week, after week, month, after month, year, after year, some 2000 years later. These events we are discussing, are not based upon what one claims to have heard from God, who wanted them to communicate these things to the world. Rather, the things we are discussing are based upon what is claimed to be historical events.

Those opposed clearly understand this to be the case, and there are facts, and evidence which they cannot deny, and therefore they are forced to deal with these facts, and evidence which cannot be denied, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence which they cannot deny. However, in the end we are still left with a most extraordinary tale, which goes on to have the most significant impact the world has ever known.

[TRANSPONDER]

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. 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, if they were even real people.

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. 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. Demonstrably. And only faith based denial can ignore it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

That's rather a lot of questions, I won't be addressing each one individually.

To even discuss the subject requires we consult at least the four gospel accounts, there is no other source for this information.

So the question seems to accept that Jesus did exist that this was in an area under Roman Rule and so on, therefore I interpret the OP as being about the veracity of specific claims in the NT but not all claims.

Therefore the answer to the OP is some of us regard the NT as a reliable, honest source of information from antiquity whereas others only accept certain claims.

This boils down to - what process does one follow to decide whether to accept or reject claims of historic truth.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

The problem with that argument is, it only works if you accept the story in the first place.

I can only go with the scenarios one gives me, and I was responding to the OP which gave us the scenario that Jesus may not have been buried in a tomb, but may have been left for the buzzards, buried in a common grave, etc. My point was these explanations do not eliminate the extraordinary.

I am not quite sure I follow your scenario exactly. However, it really does not matter, because it in no way eliminates the extraordinary. My whole point here is, either way you go, one is left with believing a most extraordinary tale. The events we are discussing are indeed the most significant events in the history of the world which have impacted the world in more ways than we can discuss here. Therefore, either the reports we have are indeed true, and Jesus was indeed resurrected, and it is indeed the most significant event in history. Or somehow, someway, all these events were orchestrated, and, or fabricated, and it is these sorts of things which go on to have the most significant impact in all of history.

In other words, there is no way to deny the fact that something extraordinary occurred some 2000 years ago which has had the most significant impact in all of history, to the point we have those who continue to debate these things, day, after day, week, after week, month, after month, year, after year, some 2000 years later. These events we are discussing, are not based upon what one claims to have heard from God, who wanted them to communicate these things to the world. Rather, the things we are discussing are based upon what is claimed to be historical events.

Those opposed clearly understand this to be the case, and there are facts, and evidence which they cannot deny, and therefore they are forced to deal with these facts, and evidence which cannot be denied, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence which they cannot deny. However, in the end we are still left with a most extraordinary tale, which goes on to have the most significant impact the world has ever known.

You would make a great Muslim! Have you heard the extraordinary details about Allah and his prophet?

I assure you, there is no way to eliminate the tale and I'm sure you will be convinced that this tale is the most significant event in our history. If not, you would somehow, someway have to believe all the events were orchestrated and or fabricated.

You would make a great Mormon! Have you heard the extraordinary details about Jehovah and his prophet Joseph Smith?

I assure you, there is no way.....
I trust you are not impressed with my line of reasoning.

On a side note, if the Bible is to be believed, something extraordinary did happen 2,000 years ago. And that would not be the son of a god being resurrected. Having saintly people dead for much longer being resurrected only to walk the streets would be an even more extraordinary feat.

Matthew 27:52-53
King James Version
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is much more extraordinary than a son of a god being reanimated, surely you agree!

[TRANSPONDER]

It is odd, is it not, that nobody else reported the tombs opening. Just as they did not report the tomb guard or indeed the women runing into Jesus himself. I'd say that, for any reasonable person, that would be reason to think that Matthew was making stuff up, just on those points alone, but those are far from the only points where Mathew gives himself away as a fabricator of material.