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.

[POI]

In no particular order, below are points to consider, regarding major pushback to the Bible's claim that Jesus was actually placed/buried in a tomb after crucifixion:

1) Crucifixion is for deterrence. Hence, it makes little sense for Jesus to be taken down so soon after his death.
2) Contemporary writings about Pilate's demeanor/character defy the claims from the Bible. Meaning, it's doubtful he made a one-time exception to allow 'Joseph" to claim the body.
3) Treason/blasphemy/sedition were deemed some of the worst crimes one could be accused of against the Romans. Which is the reason he was crucified.
4) Why couldn't the body be anointed before it was entombed/buried? How much time does it really take?
5) In observed ancient Jewish tradition, didn't men anoint/spice the naked dead men bodies, while the women anointed/spiced the naked dead women bodies?
6) Was spicing even required? I do not believe there was a Commandment about it? Further, once the body is entombed, there would be no smell. So why then go to spice the body?
7) Who goes to 'wash' a body after it has been rotting for days? Eew!
8) Women come up to the tomb, the Roman guards roll the 'heavy stone door' aside, so the women can anoint the rotting/decomposed body? And this was allowed because it was a time of peace?

I'll stop here, but I'm sure there are many more points to consider.... As many would agree, without such a burial storyline, the claims from the NT are in deep doo doo....

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #264]

(1) Yet there is historical record of Rome allowing Jews to take down crucified men during times of peace to keep their burial practices.

(2) Pilate especially would want to keep the peace, as he had been under pressure due to his earlier (mis)handlings of unrest.

(3) The above is still true.

(4) Scholars tell us that anointings after burial, especially in hurried cases (like rushing to take a crucified criminal down) were in step with what was done.

(5) Generally, yes, but they had also come to anoint an already wrapped body, not perform the initial washing and burial.

(6) What they did definitely doesnt seem to have been condemned; I dont see why it would need to be required for them to do so. Yes, the body would have been expected to start smelling and the odor masked as they finished what they thought they needed to do to complete the burial process.

(7) Where does it say they went to wash his body?

(8) Yes, in times of peace, the Romans would allow the Jews their religious practices around burial.

[fredonly]

[Replying to POI in post #264]

(1) Yet there is historical record of Rome allowing Jews to take down crucified men during times of peace to keep their burial practices.

Identify this alleged record.

(2) Pilate especially would want to keep the peace, as he had been under pressure due to his earlier (mis)handlings of unrest.

No. All extra-Biblical sources depict Pilate as cruel and insensitive to the Jews. There's no basis to assume he'd allow a body to be removed from display. It defeats the purpose of crucifixion.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #264]

(1) Yet there is historical record of Rome allowing Jews to take down crucified men during times of peace to keep their burial practices.

(2) Pilate especially would want to keep the peace, as he had been under pressure due to his earlier (mis)handlings of unrest.

(3) The above is still true.

(4) Scholars tell us that anointings after burial, especially in hurried cases (like rushing to take a crucified criminal down) were in step with what was done.

(5) Generally, yes, but they had also come to anoint an already wrapped body, not perform the initial washing and burial.

(6) What they did definitely doesnt seem to have been condemned; I dont see why it would need to be required for them to do so. Yes, the body would have been expected to start smelling and the odor masked as they finished what they thought they needed to do to complete the burial process.

(7) Where does it say they went to wash his body?

(8) Yes, in times of peace, the Romans would allow the Jews their religious practices around burial.

1) Yet, the only claims that Jesus would have actually been one of these deemed rare exceptions is from the document(s) skeptics question, which is - (the 4 Gospels and the Gospel of Nicodemus). Kind of circular.... The norm is to leave the body on the spit for deterrence. The onus is on the believer to demonstrate that Jesus would be a rare exception.

2) Hmm? Pilate wrongfully convicting Jesus of treason caused no uproar. Pilate ordering Jesus's very disgraceful death caused no uproar. But disallowing Jesus to be immediately buried before nightfall, would somehow have caused a major Jewish uproar?

3) Makes no sense. See 2).

4) "Scholars" say. Well then... I stand corrected. Not! Further, you already conceded from our prior exchange that we do not know of the timeline. The Gospel writers simply needed a reason for the women to go back to the tomb.

5) It's debatable, but I'll let this one go for now...

6) You did not answer my question, Was this specific type of "burial process" required? Was there even a Commandment about performing this type of "burial process"? Further still, the body was already entombed, so the 'spicing' part makes no sense. Only if you open the tomb to unleash the stench. But tombs are meant to stay closed. Were these women anticipating a later open-the-tomb request for maybe yet another 'anointing'? And we already covered the rest of the process? (i.e.) How long does this take and how much time did they have after they were 'allowed' to pull him off the cross, with Pilate's apparent blessing to avoid an apparent stampede uproar? You already stated you do not know.

7) That's why I placed it in quotes. It was an overly generalized term. Meaning, who goes to an enclosed grave, days later, to finish 'burial processes' for what has to be one of the most god-awful fowl smelling things ever experienced, when it is not even "law"?

8) If Jewish tradition commanded this "burial process" be performed, Pilate would have already know about it. Otherwise, he would not have known to allow the Jews to have their 'customs.' It makes little sense to place Jesus behind a heavy stoned door, out yonder, immediately. If these Jewish practices were so well known and also honored at will, it makes more sense for the Romans to place Jesus's decomposing body in a temporary Roman-secured site - and release the body to 'Joseph' after the "process" was completed. If the Romans were really scared the body would be stollen, keep the body in Pilate's direct line of site for 3 days, and then release the fully anointed body to Joseph there-after for the burial out yonder.

[1213]

In no particular order, below are points to consider, regarding major pushback to the Bible's claim that Jesus was actually placed/buried in a tomb after crucifixion:

1) Crucifixion is for deterrence. Hence, it makes little sense for Jesus to be taken down so soon after his death.

Unless you don't want to upset the people and therefore allow them to follow their burial rules.

8) Women come up to the tomb, the Roman guards roll the 'heavy stone door' aside, so the women can anoint the rotting/decomposed body? And this was allowed because it was a time of peace?

By what the Bible tells, it was not Roman soldiers that rolled the stone. Obviously the soldiers were there to prevent it to happen.

[POI]

In no particular order, below are points to consider, regarding major pushback to the Bible's claim that Jesus was actually placed/buried in a tomb after crucifixion:

1) Crucifixion is for deterrence. Hence, it makes little sense for Jesus to be taken down so soon after his death.

Unless you don't want to upset the people and therefore allow them to follow their burial rules.

Sorry, but the given historicity of Pilate indicates he would not be too concerned. If Pilate was worrying about upsetting the Jews, then he likely would not have sentenced their leader to a 'false' crime of treason, and then executed him in the most humiliating way possible. Also, such 'burial rituals' was not written in Jewish 'law' as being mandatory.

By what the Bible tells, it was not Roman soldiers that rolled the stone. Obviously the soldiers were there to prevent it to happen.

Then why would the women even go there? And who was going to roll the big heavy stone aside? And why wouldn't Pilate just keep the body near him, in a secured local location for 3 days if he was so concerned of the body being stolen? Seems odd he would allow the body to leave his presence, only to be guarded by 2 soldiers in some remote location?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to fredonly in post #266]

[Replying to POI in post #267]

(1) Josephus, Jewish War 4.317 and the 6th century Digesta of Justinian 48.24.1 (this was a compilation of previous legal texts).

As to expecting non-Christians to write and save evidence of Jesus specifically being taken down, there is no reason to think there would be such interest. Thats too high of a standard. And its irrational bias to dismiss anything simply because it is written by Christians. What motivation would Christians have to make this up, when it wasnt a rare exception, but a regular exception in times of peace.

(2) Yes, Pilate was cruel and insensitive, but too much so for Romes liking at times. Philo records (Embassy to Gaius, 305, as well as Josephus) Tiberius reprimanding Pilate for bringing imperial shields into Jerusalem, orders him to take them down and put them up elsewhere. And Josephus (Anitiquities, 18) records that Vitellius sent Pilate to answer before Tiberius for violent actions against the Samaritans. So, there is plenty of basis to know that Pilate had to watch himself and try to keep the peace to maintain his political position.

On Pilate causing uproar, the most reliable story is that he was keeping the peace with Jewish leaders by crucifying Jesus (even Jewish sources show their view of Jesus as a blasphemer and worthy of death). And those Jewish leaders were adamant about burying their people, even if viewed as a criminal, not because they respected Jesus, but because they respected the land they felt leaving him unburied would defile. This is simply a continuation of Pilate keeping the peace with the Jewish leaders because it was easy to do so.

(3) I meant that the above was still true when we consider the reason Jesus was crucified. That it was treason (and blasphemy to the Jews) doesnt make Jesus being taken down any less believable.

(4) Yes scholars say. Are you unaware of the scholars in the field and what they say? Dunn, Allison, Evans, Blinzler, Raymond Brown, others citing from the Mishnah, Tosefta, archaeological evidence, etc.

As to the timeline, I shared how we have every reason to believe it would have been hurried and truncated prior to burial, just that we dont have the exact timespan. To expect an exact timespan or anything goes is irrational.

(5) If you thought you had good reasons against it, you wouldnt just "let it go." Jesus body would not have been naked if they were coming after the initial burial. This isn't debatable.

(6) I did answer it. I said it wasnt directly required or forbidden by a commandment in Torah. Torah commands a prompt burial. Later traditions arose that went beyond the narrow focus on the Torah. The further anointing with spices does make sense for hasty burials and to honor the dead and stave off decay as the ancient evidence Ive pointed to shows.

(7) Jewish people because that had become their tradition, built on the Torah telling them to take great care of their dead, in part, to not defile the land and so this included even the criminals.

(8) I doubt Pilate knew all the ins and the outs, if much beyond the things the Jewish leaders complained to him about. The tomb could be opened. It was a temporary tomb, where other bodies would have also eventually been buried there for about a year and the bones collected and put into ossuaries. Pilate would not have wanted to do the Jews religious rituals for them.