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?

[TRANSPONDER]

I fully agree that relics after the event are required and frankly, fakes, despite C S Lewis' counter to the sneer about enough bits of True Cross to make three of them that in fact the true cross relics would make just the one. This is evidently a loose claim and even if a fair guess, doesn't alter the point that preserving chips of the actual cross long after the event when the actual tomb site was forgotten is just improbable. I must repeat that the two popular sepulchres (that there is the famous one and the lesser 'garden tomb' should make people wonder, but the faithful don't) cannot be correct.

But that there was a proper tomb and a fair burial, while not provable is not unfeasible in the way the resurrections are because of contradictions (proving that there was no original story) or impossible because it makes no sense, like the Blasphemy charge, which is meaningless in Jewish terms.

It is possible that, as I've argued, reasonable that a burial even of a crucified victim could be done, or so I'd argue. On the other hand, while the circumstances of the women and who they were can't be explained other than a memory of who was actually there at the crucifixion at least, the empty tomb story does show signs of a plot- creation. So I'm by no means discounting that the descriptive screenplay, like the raising of Lazarus and (more obviously) John's blind man healed, was invented around a simple claim (1), the women found the tomb empty', true or not.

What matters more is that, if it's all made up detail, then none of it matters. But IF we credited the broad common details of the crucifixion at least, it supports the 'swoon' theory that theist apologists are so eager to dismiss rather than the 'rose from the dead' theory. The problem has always been that Believers want to force a preferred conclusion, and that conclusion does not at all follow from the details, even if those details had some true basis.

Which incidentally, also applies to the Shroud. Even if true, it points to a speedy removal of the body, not a resurrection, despite attempts from the first to pass off the image as caused by some magical radiation - effect.

(1) I suspect that what we have are two elaborations of a simple, unsupported, Christian miracle claim - 'Jesus healed a blind man'. The original synoptic version placed him outside Jericho, and John had him in Jerusalem.

[The Nice Centurion]

1) The many Splints that make Three Crosses are from Jesus AND from the two criminals right and left from him.
2) Jesus healed 2 people from blindness. None can be so blind not to see that.

3) But strangely enough another point is, to my knowing, never pointed out. Not by Carrier, Ehrman, Habermas, W.L. Craig . . .

OK, Jesus raised on the "third day" and therefore his body and brain decomposed,, say, 48 hours.Not exactly a scare for Rick Grimes, but still how could his brain work and was his decomposition the reason that the tombgirls, the emmausgang and THOMAS FAILED TO RECOGNICE HIM FIRST?
FOR THIS REASONING SOUNDS EXTREMELY LOGICAL AS CAUASE FOR THE NONRECOGNITION.

OR DID his body magically redecompose?
ANYONE HERE HAS ANY IDEAS FOR THIS?

[TRANSPONDER]

1) The many Splints that make Three Crosses are from Jesus AND from the two criminals right and left from him.
2) Jesus healed 2 people from blindness. None can be so blind not to see that.

3) But strangely enough another point is, to my knowing, never pointed out. Not by Carrier, Ehrman, Habermas, W.L. Craig . . .

OK, Jesus raised on the "third day" and therefore his body and brain decomposed,, say, 48 hours.Not exactly a scare for Rick Grimes, but still how could his brain work and was his decomposition the reason that the tombgirls, the emmausgang and THOMAS FAILED TO RECOGNICE HIM FIRST?
FOR THIS REASONING SOUNDS EXTREMELY LOGICAL AS CAUASE FOR THE NONRECOGNITION.

OR DID his body magically redecompose?
ANYONE HERE HAS ANY IDEAS FOR THIS?

Time to put my theist hat on.

There are three responses, three of increasing invalidity, desperation and insolence.

1) Jesus actually resurrected a lot earlier and was alive and already gone long before the women went to the tomb.

(2) God did a miracle

3) there must be some explanation. The Bible says it happened, and we must have Faith.