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?

[1213]

...
But slice it where you like, it is First day of Passover (lamb killed in the Temple by Sadducees and day or preparation, according to Mark and Luke, but Matthew omits that seeing a problem) and the evening of the Seder starting at twilight which is Friday, because Jesus is arrested and tried the morning of the same day which (according to John) is the day of preparation and John says they still had to eat the Passover.
...

That week there were two Shabbat days and so also two preparation days. And the week went like this:
Tuesday 13: Preparations for the Passover seder. No Biblical information that the lamb Jesus and his disciples ate was killed by Sadducees.
Wednesday 14: Eating the Passover Seder, in the beginning of the day at about 21:00. After that Jesus was captured in the garden and trial was in the morning. Death of Jesus about 15:00 and burial before the beginning of Thursday.
Thursday 15: Shabbat day.
Friday 16: Preparation day for weekly Shabbat.
Saturday 17: Weekly Shabbat.
Sunday 18: First day of the week, empty tomb found.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
But slice it where you like, it is First day of Passover (lamb killed in the Temple by Sadducees and day or preparation, according to Mark and Luke, but Matthew omits that seeing a problem) and the evening of the Seder starting at twilight which is Friday, because Jesus is arrested and tried the morning of the same day which (according to John) is the day of preparation and John says they still had to eat the Passover.
...

That week there were two Shabbat days and so also two preparation days. And the week went like this:
Tuesday 13: Preparations for the Passover seder. No Biblical information that the lamb Jesus and his disciples ate was killed by Sadducees.
Wednesday 14: Eating the Passover Seder, in the beginning of the day at about 21:00. After that Jesus was captured in the garden and trial was in the morning. Death of Jesus about 15:00 and burial before the beginning of Thursday.
Thursday 15: Shabbat day.
Friday 16: Preparation day for weekly Shabbat.
Saturday 17: Weekly Shabbat.
Sunday 18: First day of the week, empty tomb found.

To repeat the point nI made in another post
In spite of the evidence in Mark and Luke that the the only Seder anyone could eat was when the lambs were killed in the Temple (nowhere else in Judea) was before the last supper and couldn't be a preparation day on the Friday - unless Mark and Luke are wrong, you insist on restating the claim. One could say you ignored this but restating what has been debunked is denial of evidence in my book.

[1213]

...
In spite of the evidence in Mark and Luke that the the only Seder anyone could eat was when the lambs were killed in the Temple (nowhere else in Judea) was before the last supper and couldn't be a preparation day on the Friday ...

Where do you get the idea that it would have been Friday? And why do you think lamb could not have been prepared in anywhere else than in the temple?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
In spite of the evidence in Mark and Luke that the the only Seder anyone could eat was when the lambs were killed in the Temple (nowhere else in Judea) was before the last supper and couldn't be a preparation day on the Friday ...

Where do you get the idea that it would have been Friday? And why do you think lamb could not have been prepared in anywhere else than in the temple?

By counting back from Sunday 'First day of the week' in Jewish reckoning

Wednesday Lambs killed in the temple Thursday last supper. thus disciples' Seder as the lambs were killed the precious day
Friday starts at evening. Jesus arrested. Trial in the morning where John says the Priests had yet to eat the Passover. Thus whether the passover Seder fell on the Sabbath or later, they hadn't eaten the Passover nor started killing the lambs in the temple
Saturday sabbath Sunday (first day of the week) starts at evening. Empty tomb discovered at daylight.

This is clear and I am sure that sacrificing lambs in Jesus' time could only be in the temple. I'll check.

Quora
The Temple in Jerusalem
The Temple in Jerusalem was the place where animal sacrifices should be offered in the right way. Apart from providing the place for the offering of sacrifices, the main role of the Jewish Temple was to shelter the Law of Moses.

It is hardly ever asked as of course the Temple was the only place for Jewish sacrifice. Certainly is one was in Jerusalem it was untjinkable to sacrifice lambs anywhere else - or anywhen else other than before the next day Passover Seder meal. I see no way around it, even with JW's argument that the Passover (for priests) could be eaten anytime during the week, if Mark is right, the lambs must have been sacrificed and the Seder eaten on the Thursday and John must be wrong that Friday the priests hadn't eaten the passover and the lambs been killed.

[1213]

...
Wednesday Lambs killed in the temple Thursday last supper. thus disciples' Seder as the lambs were killed the precious day
Friday starts at evening. Jesus arrested. Trial in the morning where John says the Priests had yet to eat the Passover. Thus whether the passover Seder fell on the Sabbath or later, they hadn't eaten the Passover nor started killing the lambs in the temple
Saturday sabbath Sunday (first day of the week) starts at evening. Empty tomb discovered at daylight.

This is clear and I am sure that sacrificing lambs in Jesus' time could only be in the temple. I'll check.

Quora
The Temple in Jerusalem
The Temple in Jerusalem was the place where animal sacrifices should be offered in the right way. Apart from providing the place for the offering of sacrifices, the main role of the Jewish Temple was to shelter the Law of Moses.

It is hardly ever asked as of course the Temple was the only place for Jewish sacrifice. Certainly is one was in Jerusalem it was untjinkable to sacrifice lambs anywhere else - or anywhen else other than before the next day Passover Seder meal. I see no way around it, even with JW's argument that the Passover (for priests) could be eaten anytime during the week, if Mark is right, the lambs must have been sacrificed and the Seder eaten on the Thursday and John must be wrong that Friday the priests hadn't eaten the passover and the lambs been killed.

Sorry, I think you are wrong and there is no scriptures supporting what you claim.

Why do you think Passover seder is same as sacrifice lamb? Where do you get the idea that John is speaking of Friday, when there is no word Friday in his text? And please show the scripture that says priest had yet to eat the Passover, i didn't find it.

[TRANSPONDER]

So, what was your point, other than giving a link to that near worthless apologetics site?

Apart from the apparent contradiction on the days the Seder was eaten, which seems valid because the Synoptic placing of the sacrifice of lambs the day before the Last Supper makes that the preparation for the Priests, too, so they should have eaten the Seder on the evening before Jesus was arrested, making John wrong when he days that at the trial they hadn't eaten it.

Which means they can't both be right, apart from that, as I say, there is a real contradiction doubt that their stories are reliable and also two interpretations of the story - the Last supper is the sacrificial feast for Jesus in the synoptics, but John wants the crucifixion to be the sacrificial act while the lambs are killed in the temple. Or so I'd suggest.

But I'd also suggest as regards the topic, that the empty tomb, though common to all four gospels is not and original true report, but an original Christian claim of an empty tomb in hopes to add some evidence to the claim of a spiritual resurrection, which is implies by the I Cor. list being equated with a belated vision of Paul of the risen Jesus which one can reasonably see as in his head - like the visions of the disciples, the 500 and once and finally James, or so he said.

Thus suspicion of an invented empty tomb flags up problems with the story, even though the women seems reliable, the story is awkward about why they went to the tomb and why it only struck them at the last minute that they wouldn't be able to get in.

It's a story that looks concocted with plot - holes, the more one thinks about it. That's all. And of course it isn't the only problem with the gospels There are many more and bigger ones.

[fredonly]

Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

An empty tomb is not necessary for there to have been a resurrection. Jesus body could have been consumed by vultures and maggots, but still have reappeared in his exhalted form afterwards

The empty tomb is embraced by apologists because it's considered evidence for a resurrection. The problem is that we don't actually know there was an empty tomb. All we have is a narrative, by "Mark", that came to be embraced by 1st century Christians. There's no multiple independent attestation (Matthew & Luke copied from Mark; John was influenced by the traditions).

[TRANSPONDER]

Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

An empty tomb is not necessary for there to have been a resurrection. Jesus body could have been consumed by vultures and maggots, but still have reappeared in his exhalted form afterwards

The empty tomb is embraced by apologists because it's considered evidence for a resurrection. The problem is that we don't actually know there was an empty tomb. All we have is a narrative, by "Mark", that came to be embraced by 1st century Christians. There's no multiple independent attestation (Matthew & Luke copied from Mark; John was influenced by the traditions).

I think that's right. The Empty tomb is agreed by all 4 (about the only part of the resurrection that is) but an empty tomb is just an empty tomb. The two tombs shown as the actual one are certainly not - in Jesus time all new tombs were on the mount of Olives. So the Gospel writers just pointed to some empty tomb and claimed that proves Jesus was in it and must have magically resurrected. Put like that, it sounds ridiculous.

On the other hand, we have this strong common tradition of Mary Magdalene and probably Jesus' mother going to the tomb, as well as a tradition of Joseph of Arimathea. But as everything after that is contradiction, I at least argue that there was no common story of a risen Jesus - they had to make different stories up. This makes the empty tomb just that and a dubious conclusion based on a claim of an empty tomb.

The common pointing to I Corinthians doesn't help because the account is not the same as the gospels. It actually debunks the Gospels and hits at a series of visions in the minds of the various groups of believers. In short, the apologetics used for the resurrection are worthless - especially 'The disciples would not die for a lie', because the claims they died for anything other than living too long is based on nothing but church martyrdom stories.

[fredonly]

Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

An empty tomb is not necessary for there to have been a resurrection. Jesus body could have been consumed by vultures and maggots, but still have reappeared in his exhalted form afterwards

The empty tomb is embraced by apologists because it's considered evidence for a resurrection. The problem is that we don't actually know there was an empty tomb. All we have is a narrative, by "Mark", that came to be embraced by 1st century Christians. There's no multiple independent attestation (Matthew & Luke copied from Mark; John was influenced by the traditions).

I think that's right. The Empty tomb is agreed by all 4 (about the only part of the resurrection that is) but an empty tomb is just an empty tomb. The two tombs shown as the actual one are certainly not - in Jesus time all new tombs were on the mount of Olives. So the Gospel writers just pointed to some empty tomb and claimed that proves Jesus was in it and must have magically resurrected. Put like that, it sounds ridiculous.

On the other hand, we have this strong common tradition of Mary Magdalene and probably Jesus' mother going to the tomb, as well as a tradition of Joseph of Arimathea.

The traditions all seem to originate with Mark's Gospel, written around 40 years after Jesus' death by a Greek speaker outside of Palestine. Matthew & Luke (writing at least a decade later) used Mark as a source, so their agreeing doesn't constitute additional evidence. John was written even later, and shows evidence of being influence by the earlier Gospels, so it also can't be regarded as independent of Mark.

The purpose of Roman crucifixion was to humiliate the criminal and make a public example, by leaving the bodies to rot for many days, eaten as carrion. If anything remained, it would be tossed in a mass grave. An honorable burial on the day of death would be a historical anomaly. Of course, anything is possible, but it's unlikely. Given the historical context, and the lack of independence of the Gospel accounts, there's little reason to believe the empty tomb story.

Why would Mark invent such a story? Because he believed Jesus was bodily resurrected, and the narrative conveys that belief. BTW, it's questionable whether Aramathea existed. There are no historical references to it outside the Gospels, nor is there archeological evidence. "Aramathea" roughly translates to "good disciple town" - lending more reason to think it was made up.

[TRANSPONDER]

Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

An empty tomb is not necessary for there to have been a resurrection. Jesus body could have been consumed by vultures and maggots, but still have reappeared in his exhalted form afterwards

The empty tomb is embraced by apologists because it's considered evidence for a resurrection. The problem is that we don't actually know there was an empty tomb. All we have is a narrative, by "Mark", that came to be embraced by 1st century Christians. There's no multiple independent attestation (Matthew & Luke copied from Mark; John was influenced by the traditions).

I think that's right. The Empty tomb is agreed by all 4 (about the only part of the resurrection that is) but an empty tomb is just an empty tomb. The two tombs shown as the actual one are certainly not - in Jesus time all new tombs were on the mount of Olives. So the Gospel writers just pointed to some empty tomb and claimed that proves Jesus was in it and must have magically resurrected. Put like that, it sounds ridiculous.

On the other hand, we have this strong common tradition of Mary Magdalene and probably Jesus' mother going to the tomb, as well as a tradition of Joseph of Arimathea.

The traditions all seem to originate with Mark's Gospel, written around 40 years after Jesus' death by a Greek speaker outside of Palestine. Matthew & Luke (writing at least a decade later) used Mark as a source, so their agreeing doesn't constitute additional evidence. John was written even later, and shows evidence of being influence by the earlier Gospels, so it also can't be regarded as independent of Mark.

The purpose of Roman crucifixion was to humiliate the criminal and make a public example, by leaving the bodies to rot for many days, eaten as carrion. If anything remained, it would be tossed in a mass grave. An honorable burial on the day of death would be a historical anomaly. Of course, anything is possible, but it's unlikely. Given the historical context, and the lack of independence of the Gospel accounts, there's little reason to believe the empty tomb story.

Why would Mark invent such a story? Because he believed Jesus was bodily resurrected, and the narrative conveys that belief. BTW, it's questionable whether Aramathea existed. There are no historical references to it outside the Gospels, nor is there archeological evidence. "Aramathea" roughly translates to "good disciple town" - lending more reason to think it was made up.

I'm aware of expert consensus, but I can't help but say that Mark is not the original copied by the others. It can't be. There is an original that Luke used plus common material with Matthew and not with Mark, and Mark had additional material with Matthew, not found in Luke. But Mark also has additions of his own which ought to be in Matthew and Luke if they copied him, but they are not.

So the Original written by a Greek must I think be later than the Jewish war. Though the original Messianic and even resurrection - belief could be far earlier going back to the disciples.

I see Matthew and Luke as relatively late as they introduce solutions to the problem of sinlessness not only of Jesus, but his mother, and the whole business of turning Jesus into God. John may be earlier but not too early as Jesus is already godlike, but he isn't yet born in Bethlehem.

My point is that I reckon the Gospel story went through various iterations. First the Jewish messiah whose spirit was thought to have risen to heaven and would return, whatever happened to the body. That at least is reliable from Paul. But his Greek churches turned Jesus into a god, to match the other religions and their demi - divinities.

After the Jewish war, the first gospel appeared, building in the war as a punishment for the Jews not believing Jesus and blaming them for what was a Roman punishment for rebellion. Then I propose a double gospel appeared with the two feedings of the thousands, or it was a separate document which might explain how Mark gets confused about which direction Bethsaida was (he places the lonely place at Capernaum when it was really at Bethsaida). That was when i realised that Matthew and Luke didn't copy that or make that mistake, just as surely as they didn't copy Matthew and turn two donkeys into one.

Point is, that , take or leave the validity of the empty tomb, the gospel Mark copied had no resurrection but the angel explaining everything. Matthew and Luke had to invent it all, and that is why they contradict.