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?

[Difflugia]

Taking down a body immediately after death was not the typical Roman practice for crucifixion victims, even during times of peace.

This is apparently false. From "Capital Punishment and Burial in the Roman Empire" by Mark D. Smith, Chapter 21 of Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture, p. 429:

Virtually every historical narrative of execution followed by non-burial took place in a violent context. Conversely, over the course of two centuries, we do not have evidence of a single case of corpse abuse or exposure of executed bodies under peaceful circumstances, save for the few victims of the sack wending their way down the Tiber. Therefore, we can draw an important conclusion: non-burial of the victims of capital punishment is far more probable in a context of violence, and burial is far more probable in a context of peace.

[POI]

From post 279:

a) Were exceptions made for Jews only sometimes - (which means I get to completely ignore the observed bullet points near the top of post 279)? or...
b) Were these exceptions made for Jews at all times? - (which means I get to ignore your given terms of 'disdain' and 'fear' from post 270)?

I've also confirmed that Pilate would have felt under watch of Roman leadership and charged with keeping the peace in his area by allowing Jewish sensibilities at least during times like religious festivals when things would be more ripe for unrest. That is why Pilate would have been receptive in Jesus' case, not because he did whatever the Jews wanted at any time to keep the peace.

Then just crucify him afterwards.

So, your either/or above just doesn't follow.

You must have been responding before I updated/expanded my reply. See the updated options:

a) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and not immediately buried. - (a norm)
b) He was not hung on a "spit". - (an exception I could "feasibly" argue)
c) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and immediately buried. - (an exception you can "feasibly" argue)

We have actual evidence of Rome hanging Jews on a "spit" and then allowing Jews to take down and bury their bodies that night.

1) Would this had been the norm or the exception?
2) Who?

As to the Gospel of Nicodemus, that is probably 4th century (possibly with slightly earlier sources), and just builds upon the Gospel details with elaboration and legendary elements, so it should not be deemed as trustworthy support to the claim.

What does the authorization/canonization have to do with this?

I'm saying the 'Gospel' accounts are certainly not contemporary. I'm saying that not only were such 'Gospels' initially placed to paper decades later, after all expressed parties were long-gone, but that these deemed 'Gospels' were not even truly considered a 'thing' until 100's of years later. The beauty of ancient antiquity is there are likely a lot of later publications, rendering all sorts of fabricated/false claims, about all sorts of people and events. I don't think I'm saying anything ground-breaking here.

I don't know why you think it seems like that. All I've said there is that some falsehoods in a text are not good enough reasons to reject a different claim in that text. I also don't think a belief that the text is correct in all sorts of claims would be a good reason to accept a different claim in that text as true either. That kind of reasoning looks really bad to me, but if you want to defend it, you could change my mind.

I've already spoken to this, in that I'm hyper-focused on the claim of Jesus having a proper burial.

*****************************************************************

(Sidebar): I do not want to veer off here and ask how many "supernatural" claims must one endure? Or, how many inconsistent "natural" claims - (when comparing the 4 Gospels to one another) must a skeptical reader endure before one just decides to chuck the whole collection out entirely. But I digress.

viewtopic.php?t=42504

or

viewtopic.php?t=42564

or

viewtopic.php?t=42569

or

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42567

*****************************************************************

It's not just about sprinkling the body with a little oil or spices. Ancient societies took burials seriously and developed various elements to it and honored those. Joseph and Nicodemus used spices, so it's not like the women were like "we've got to do that last little bit that the guys just didn't have the extra 5 minutes to do." The author knows that his audience wouldn't be fooled (assuming for the sake of argument that it was how you say it was) by something so nonsensical and would have made something else up. Therefore, it makes the most sense that the women really did go to the tomb to anoint the body in some way, either to finish whatever part wasn't fully honored or that they thought wasn't fully honored.

To take one's surface understanding, without clear evidence that this absolutely would not have happened in a Jewish burial like in this scenario, that would make one's "opponent" to be a complete idiot, should give you great pause. "They were probably just idiots" seems like a horrible foundation to build one's conclusions on to me.

Since you cannot tell me how long this 'sprinkling' process actually takes, then I can logically reject your argument entirely. Further, the writings also go on to say other nonsensical things, such as saying Jesus's dead rotting body actually rose from the dead. But I digress. But sure, they had enough time to do all those other things but still had to come back. Got it.

[POI]

Taking down a body immediately after death was not the typical Roman practice for crucifixion victims, even during times of peace.

This is apparently false. From "Capital Punishment and Burial in the Roman Empire" by Mark D. Smith, Chapter 21 of Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture, p. 429:

Virtually every historical narrative of execution followed by non-burial took place in a violent context. Conversely, over the course of two centuries, we do not have evidence of a single case of corpse abuse or exposure of executed bodies under peaceful circumstances, save for the few victims of the sack wending their way down the Tiber. Therefore, we can draw an important conclusion: non-burial of the victims of capital punishment is far more probable in a context of violence, and burial is far more probable in a context of peace.

Which source(s) do we logically accept verses reject?

According to Bart Ehrman, most Greek and Roman sources indicate that the bodies of those who were crucified were typically left on the cross to decompose and be devoured by scavengers.

Also:

"it was highly unlikely Jesus received a proper burial and that it was more probable his body was left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. He bases this on the Roman practice of not typically allowing burials for those crucified, even during times of peace. Ehrman acknowledges some exceptions existed, but he contends that Jesus's case was likely not one of them."

My pushback here to Tanager is to acknowledge that exceptions may have existed, but why should we assume 'Jesus' was one of those exceptions? So far, according to Tanager, it's because the "Gospels" say so. And I bet you and I can agree the "Gospels" prove not to be the most reliable attestation(s) from ancient antiquity. I asked for any contemporary external source(s) related to "Joseph's" actions. And of course, there aren't any.

***********************

On a side note, out of curiosity, since you too do not buy the entire storyline, where <exactly> does the collection of claims fall apart for you? Is it:

a) Prior to the claim of a crucified apocalyptic Jewish preacher being respectfully buried?
b) Or after?

On another side note, my position does not rise and fall upon this claim alone. I raised this topic because it seems to be a necessary 'truth' for some believers. The Tanager may very well be included here?

Alternately for me, however, if it should turn out an exception was made for Jesus as well, we will never logically come to the impossible conclusion that a dead rotting body rose again.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #283]

a) Were exceptions made for Jews only sometimes - (which means I get to completely ignore the observed bullet points near the top of post 279)? or...
b) Were these exceptions made for Jews at all times? - (which means I get to ignore your given terms of 'disdain' and 'fear' from post 270)?

Weve looked at two routes to go down:

(b) the bodies were always asked for and taken down in times of peace at least during religious festivals if not on more occasions and

(a) this didnt always happen, so we have to see what makes the most sense in Jesus particular case given the evidence we have

Either way, Ive argued the most reasonable position is to accept Jesus body was taken down. Obviously, if you take path (b), you can ignore what path (a) claims and vice versa because they are two different options. You still have to deal with the reasons offered in one or the other (or both).

I've also confirmed that Pilate would have felt under watch of Roman leadership and charged with keeping the peace in his area by allowing Jewish sensibilities at least during times like religious festivals when things would be more ripe for unrest. That is why Pilate would have been receptive in Jesus' case, not because he did whatever the Jews wanted at any time to keep the peace.

Then just crucify him afterwards.

Why would Rome do that? It makes no sense. They arent going to wait to crucify him just so that they could keep him up on the spit because crucifixion as a method of the death penalty isnt just or mainly about that.

You must have been responding before I updated/expanded my reply. See the updated options:

a) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and not immediately buried. - (a norm)
b) He was not hung on a "spit". - (an exception I could "feasibly" argue)
c) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and immediately buried. - (an exception you can "feasibly" argue)

Yes, thank you for pointing out your addition. (a) may be (although difflugias source casts doubt on that) the norm outside of this kind of situation (religious festival, Jewish leader asking for body, time of peace) but within that situation its not the norm, so (a) is irrelevant. Then it comes down to whether (b) or (c) is more feasible; they arent equally feasible and Ive shared my thoughts on why.

I'm saying the 'Gospel' accounts are certainly not contemporary. I'm saying that not only were such 'Gospels' initially placed to paper decades later, after all expressed parties were long-gone, but that these deemed 'Gospels' were not even truly considered a 'thing' until 100's of years later. The beauty of ancient antiquity is there are likely a lot of later publications, rendering all sorts of fabricated/false claims, about all sorts of people and events. I don't think I'm saying anything ground-breaking here.

Yes, the texts were written decades later, but we still have good reasons to believe they accurately reflect what the earliest Christians immediately believed happened (all expressed parties were not long gone, oral tradition has been shown to pass on key info very well, we have things like criterion of embarrassment, etc., this became a thing across Christian communities soon after they were written, not centuries later when they got the stamp of being a Roman approved thing) without enough time for the legendary evolution you pointing to.

Since you cannot tell me how long this 'sprinkling' process actually takes, then I can logically reject your argument entirely. Further, the writings also go on to say other nonsensical things, such as saying Jesus's dead rotting body actually rose from the dead. But I digress. But sure, they had enough time to do all those other things but still had to come back. Got it.

Ive given general times and asked you to support your requirement of more specificity, but you are just brushing them aside rather than responding to them, so, while you can reject the argument, you arent doing so logically.

On another side note, my position does not rise and fall upon this claim alone. I raised this topic because it seems to be a necessary 'truth' for some believers. The Tanager may very well be included here?

Alternately for me, however, if it should turn out an exception was made for Jesus as well, we will never logically come to the impossible conclusion that a dead rotting body rose again.

If Jesus body wasnt crucified or buried, then it does seem to me that the resurrection should not be believed. We wouldnt be able to trust the sources we do have so while someone could try to say it was a physical resurrection from a mass grave or a spiritual resurrection, that just doesnt jive with what the earliest Christians were claiming and has no evidence behind it.

I agree that your position against the resurrection doesnt fall if my conclusions are right on this issue we are discussing. If you want to, we can turn to why you think a resurrection is an impossible (or even logically impossible?) conclusion.

[POI]

(b) the bodies were always asked for and taken down in times of peace at least during religious festivals if not on more occasions

Seems we agree that ancient Roman crucifixion victims were left on the cross to be exposed to the elements and scavengers as a deterrent, rather than being immediately taken down and buried. However, there is some evidence, that during Jewish festivals, Romans sometimes made some exceptions to this practice and allowed some bodies of crucified individuals to be taken down and buried before sunset, in keeping with Jewish burial customs. Why should anyone assume Jesus was one of these folks? Well, we seem to have an account of Joseph asking for Jesus's body, from the Gospel(s). Okay, since we are questioning the veracity of the Gospel(s) themselves, I then asked for any source(s) to corroborate this claim. Seems we agree there are none.

Either way, Ive argued the most reasonable position is to accept Jesus body was taken down. Obviously, if you take path (b), you can ignore what path (a) claims and vice versa because they are two different options. You still have to deal with the reasons offered in one or the other (or both).

No, we have to take the Bible's word for it, as this is where the claim comes from. And this is exactly what we are questioning.

Why would Rome do that? It makes no sense. They arent going to wait to crucify him just so that they could keep him up on the spit because crucifixion as a method of the death penalty isnt just or mainly about that.

This is where we, again, get into the meaning of the word deterrence. Simply waiting until after the festival would allow for the Romans to keep him on display, as a reminder of what happens to individuals who claim to be God. Keeping him on the cross, rotting, goes directly against some Jewish belief that bodies physically resurrect a couple of days later. Seems quite reasonable to leave him locked up for a short amount of time to let Jesus sweat the inevitable. And since we know Pilate was likely ruthless and heartless, it makes perfect sense. Pilate, being a leader, would know how to navigate 'law.'

it comes down to whether (b) or (c) is more feasible; they arent equally feasible and Ive shared my thoughts on why.

I already explained prior. Crucifixion, in ancient Rome, was not exclusively reserved for treason, nor was it always the punishment for treason. Hence, just like you, I too can argue for exceptions over norms. Maybe Jesus was not crucified at all? Remember, the only claim that he was crucified is from the Gospels, as we have no other contemporary sources for Jesus, and this is exactly what we skeptics are questioning.

Yes, the texts were written decades later, but we still have good reasons to believe they accurately reflect what the earliest Christians immediately believed happened

(all expressed parties were not long gone,

None of these writings were signed/corroborated by any verified witnesses. Unlike the Book of Mormon, where we have independent signed attestation(s) to the claim(s). The Book of Mormon offers more, and yet, I doubt you believe Joseph did what he claimed he did.

oral tradition has been shown to pass on key info very well,

If your argument here is that they all claimed that a dead rotting body rose again, which is the entire premise to believe this stuff, then hey, I guess you made some kind of a point? But I guess all generals and details, leading up to the necessary unified grand finale, don't matter at all.

we have things like criterion of embarrassment,

Stories are more personable/believable this way, if you get my drift. Just like how Joseph Smith self-sabotages his own character to later gain trust.

Ive given general times and asked you to support your requirement of more specificity, but you are just brushing them aside rather than responding to them, so, while you can reject the argument, you arent doing so logically.

Well, "Mark" has Jesus dead in the morning. Can the "burial process" be completed in one day, or not? Again, I find it odd they had enough time to wash, wrap, transport, roll a heavy stone away, bury, place a big and heavy stone in place, etc., but not the rest? Remember, the authors needed a reason for folks to come back to discover a missing body. What better way to do it, than to assign the witnessed claim to unverified witnesses, like anonymous 'guard(s)', women, in an undisclosed burial location. Weeeee! But yes, I'm sure the story is completely trustworthy, as told. Which means we should believe a dead rotting corpse rose.

If Jesus body wasnt crucified or buried, then it does seem to me that the resurrection should not be believed. We wouldnt be able to trust the sources we do have so while someone could try to say it was a physical resurrection from a mass grave or a spiritual resurrection, that just doesnt jive with what the earliest Christians were claiming and has no evidence behind it.

Kool. Even IF all these natural claims panned out, as told, a "rising dead rotting body" claim then checks out?

I agree that your position against the resurrection doesnt fall if my conclusions are right on this issue we are discussing. If you want to, we can turn to why you think a resurrection is an impossible (or even logically impossible?) conclusion.

I already provided links. Feel free to address any of them, however you see fit.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #285]

Seems we agree that ancient Roman crucifixion victims were left on the cross to be exposed to the elements and scavengers as a deterrent, rather than being immediately taken down and buried. However, there is some evidence, that during Jewish festivals, Romans sometimes made some exceptions to this practice and allowed some bodies of crucified individuals to be taken down and buried before sunset, in keeping with Jewish burial customs. Why should anyone assume Jesus was one of these folks? Well, we seem to have an account of Joseph asking for Jesus's body, from the Gospel(s).

I don't agree (because of sources like Difflugia brought up, I'm agnostic on this front), but it doesn't matter for our discussion here. Even if they were generally so, this Jesus case fits the possible exceptions perfectly, such as it being during the major Jewish festival and requested by a member of the Sanhedrin.

No, we have to take the Bible's word for it, as this is where the claim comes from. And this is exactly what we are questioning.

Please give support for this type of historical approach to any text, that textual claims can only be proved by things outside of the text itself and if we don't have that, then we should reject everything the text claims. Why that instead of using the criterion that actual historians use?

This is where we, again, get into the meaning of the word deterrence. Simply waiting until after the festival would allow for the Romans to keep him on display, as a reminder of what happens to individuals who claim to be God. Keeping him on the cross, rotting, goes directly against some Jewish belief that bodies physically resurrect a couple of days later. Seems quite reasonable to leave him locked up for a short amount of time to let Jesus sweat the inevitable. And since we know Pilate was likely ruthless and heartless, it makes perfect sense. Pilate, being a leader, would know how to navigate 'law.'

Please give support that the weight behind crucifixion requires keeping them on display and deal with the non-Christian evidence I've given that Rome still crucified individuals that were allowed to be taken down and buried.

Please give the source that some Jews believed bodies physically resurrect after a couple of days?

I already explained prior. Crucifixion, in ancient Rome, was not exclusively reserved for treason, nor was it always the punishment for treason. Hence, just like you, I too can argue for exceptions over norms. Maybe Jesus was not crucified at all? Remember, the only claim that he was crucified is from the Gospels, as we have no other contemporary sources for Jesus, and this is exactly what we skeptics are questioning.

The difference is that Im giving actual support like the criterion of embarrassment, while you are simply saying he could have been killed some other way.

Stories are more personable/believable this way, if you get my drift. Just like how Joseph Smith self-sabotages his own character to later gain trust.

It might help for you to flesh this out with an actual example, but as it stands, ancient Christians writing at a time of some level of Jewish persecution and distrust would not make of the Joseph of Arimathea story or the women going to anoint the body story and it would not make them more personable or believable, but less so.

None of these writings were signed/corroborated by any verified witnesses. Unlike the Book of Mormon, where we have independent signed attestation(s) to the claim(s). The Book of Mormon offers more, and yet, I doubt you believe Joseph did what he claimed he did.

You don't believe he did either, right? So doesn't that show that you don't think having signed/corroborated witnesses is a good criterion of historicity? If so, why fault the Bible for not having it? Hopefully, we reject Joseph Smith for rational reasons and not just because we aren't Mormons.

If your argument here is that they all claimed that a dead rotting body rose again, which is the entire premise to believe this stuff, then hey, I guess you made some kind of a point? But I guess all generals and details, leading up to the necessary unified grand finale, don't matter at all.

My argument was that we can trust that these texts, written decades later, don't change things from something like "Jesus was killed by some other means or not at all" or "Jesus was crucified but left there to hang and then buried in a mass grave" to Jesus was crucified and then allowed to be taken down at the request of a Sanhedrin member and buried and then visited by women later for a ridiculous reason no one would buy. What generals and details show I am wrong?

Well, "Mark" has Jesus dead in the morning. Can the "burial process" be completed in one day, or not? Again, I find it odd they had enough time to wash, wrap, transport, roll a heavy stone away, bury, place a big and heavy stone in place, etc., but not the rest? Remember, the authors needed a reason for folks to come back to discover a missing body. What better way to do it, than to assign the witnessed claim to unverified witnesses, like anonymous 'guard(s)', women, in an undisclosed burial location. Weeeee!

Of course it can be completed in one day, but thats not the issue. Its whether it could be completed in the short amount of time they would have had. Please share something other than "it seems odd" that the process takes more than you vaguely think it should and address why "they were probably just an idiot" is a rational reason to support one's beliefs or give some other support for thinking they would have made this story up against all the reasons I've shared as to why making this story up doesn't make sense for them.

But yes, I'm sure the story is completely trustworthy, as told. Which means we should believe a dead rotting corpse rose.

If one accepted, as I argue they should, that Jesus was crucified and buried, then I would hope they wouldn't use the horrible reasoning that since we can trust that, therefore the resurrection actually happened.

I agree that your position against the resurrection doesnt fall if my conclusions are right on this issue we are discussing. If you want to, we can turn to why you think a resurrection is an impossible (or even logically impossible?) conclusion.

I already provided links. Feel free to address any of them, however you see fit.

It would definitely be helpful if you made a summary of your argument(s), as I've only so much time, but if you wont, I may be able to look at those and share some thoughts at some future time.

[POI]

I don't agree (because of sources like Difflugia brought up, I'm agnostic on this front), but it doesn't matter for our discussion here. Even if they were generally so, this Jesus case fits the possible exceptions perfectly, such as it being during the major Jewish festival and requested by a member of the Sanhedrin.

The claim, regarding the request for Jesus's swift body removal, comes from the publication in question, the 'Gospels'. Your argument contends that avoidance to civil unrest was the goal during times of peace. Thus, here is a follow up question. If Joseph, or another, would not have specifically requested Jesus's body, do you think Jesus's dead body would still have been immediately pulled off of the spit? This is a (yes or no) question.

Please give support for this type of historical approach to any text, that textual claims can only be proved by things outside of the text itself and if we don't have that, then we should reject everything the text claims. Why that instead of using the criterion that actual historians use?

I don't have to in this forum. One of the forum moderators reminds believers that the Bible is not considered authoritative and/or trustworthy in this specific arena. If the claim is made from the Bible, with no support elsewhere, then it can be ignored.

Aside from this, being we are dealing with claims from ancient antiquity, I already know we're getting into very murky waters. This is why I just conceded, right up front, that a homeless preacher was born, preached, and was executed for treason. Maybe this happened, maybe it didn't? Heck, maybe this specific Jesus character really existed and maybe he didn't. We only have the Gospels to press here. But being we are now speaking about, what you would deem to be the most important figure in human history, I have to draw my line in the sand somewhere. Hence, I'll start with the position that Jesus's body was likely not immediately and respectfully really buried. If he wasn't, it then raises problems for Christians like yourself. If Jesus really was indeed buried, as the Gospels claim, then I may merely move on to another highly debated topic, which is, 'what really happened to the body'?

Please give support that the weight behind crucifixion requires keeping them on display and deal with the non-Christian evidence I've given that Rome still crucified individuals that were allowed to be taken down and buried.

But we already agreed crucifixions were for deterrence. -- "the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.". What better way to achieve this, than to leave the rotting body posted, as a reminder to others, through both visual and aromatic senses.

Google AI: did the ancient romans leave dead bodies on the cross?

Yes, the ancient Romans commonly left the bodies of those crucified on the cross to decompose or be consumed by scavengers. This was a deliberate part of the punishment, intended to humiliate and deter others. --- (Some of the rest of this AI response we are already in active discussion).

Please give the source that some Jews believed bodies physically resurrect after a couple of days?

You are taking what I state too literally here. What I mean here is that the Jewish belief is/was that bodily resurrections are physical. Which would mean the physical body must be missing.

The difference is that Im giving actual support like the criterion of embarrassment, while you are simply saying he could have been killed some other way.

The criterion is not always reliable, as authors might have had motivations for including seemingly embarrassing details.

ancient Christians writing at a time of some level of Jewish persecution and distrust would not make of the Joseph of Arimathea story or the women going to anoint the body story and it would not make them more personable or believable, but less so.

No number of seemingly embarrassing anecdotal claims can ever be injected into a collection of ancient claims -- to then ultimately reach some logical conclusion that a dead rotting body actually rose again. Hence, in the meantime, for funsies and personal enrichment, I'm exploring the holes in the given storyline.

You don't believe he did either, right? So doesn't that show that you don't think having signed/corroborated witnesses is a good criterion of historicity? If so, why fault the Bible for not having it? Hopefully, we reject Joseph Smith for rational reasons and not just because we aren't Mormons.

I don't believe Christianity because I know rotting dead bodies always remain rotting. Hence, for both funsies and personal enrichment, I'm investigating what likely really happened instead? Which is why I'm willing to explore scholarly debate ranging from ("Jesus not existing", all the way up to the debate of "a missing body").

What I'm saying, for Christians, is that they seem to have an inconsistent standard. Meaning, the Mormons have better evidence for their claims, being the document was signed and attested to by others, whereas the Gospels were not.

My argument was that we can trust that these texts, written decades later, don't change things from something like "Jesus was killed by some other means or not at all" or "Jesus was crucified but left there to hang and then buried in a mass grave" to Jesus was crucified and then allowed to be taken down at the request of a Sanhedrin member and buried and then visited by women later for a ridiculous reason no one would buy. What generals and details show I am wrong?

Why couldn't decades of unrestricted oral tradition allow for a Sanhedrin member to have later been added to the storyline somewhere along the way?

Remember, we know the Gospels were written decades later. And even from Gospel to Gospel, we see additions, subtractions, etc. Compare Mark to Luke, just for starters. This is exactly why I asked for any corroborating evidence to suggest that 'Joseph' requested Jesus's body. You already conceded we do not have anything worthy.

Of course it can be completed in one day, but thats not the issue. Its whether it could be completed in the short amount of time they would have had. Please share something other than "it seems odd" that the process takes more than you vaguely think it should and address why "they were probably just an idiot" is a rational reason to support one's beliefs or give some other support for thinking they would have made this story up against all the reasons I've shared as to why making this story up doesn't make sense for them.

You are downplaying/omitting everything I have said prior. Yet again, they had enough time for someone to request the dead body to be taken down, and enough time to wash the body, wrap the body, transport the body, roll a heavy stone away for the body, bury/entomb the body, place the big and heavy stone back in place for the body, etc., but not the rest? And since you have no idea how long a "sprinkling" takes, I can dismiss your baseless rebuttal.

Writers needed a reason for people to come back and discover the tomb empty. The reason is sus... Further, these "witnesses" were not vetted or deposed either.

If one accepted, as I argue they should, that Jesus was crucified and buried, then I would hope they wouldn't use the horrible reasoning that since we can trust that, therefore the resurrection actually happened.

I certainly hope so too.

It would definitely be helpful if you made a summary of your argument(s), as I've only so much time, but if you wont, I may be able to look at those and share some thoughts at some future time.

We can speculate, until the cows come home, as to what really happened. And sure, it can be entertaining to explore why some ancients made these claims. However, since dead rotting bodies don't rise, Paul's statement is confirmed. Meaning, since it is impossible for a dead rotting body to rise again, Christianity is false, and your faith is indeed all in vain.

[Difflugia]

Which source(s) do we logically accept verses reject?

According to Bart Ehrman, most Greek and Roman sources indicate that the bodies of those who were crucified were typically left on the cross to decompose and be devoured by scavengers.

Since both sources (Bart Ehrman and Mark Smith) are respected researchers and neither is an apologist or anything, in tihs case, I'm trusting the one that's researching the topic specifically. In this case, I'm guessing that Ehrman is repeating what is sort of accepted wisdom. If you think that's out of character, see his "before and after" positions on things like pseudonymity vs. forgery and how various forms of memory affect history. He changed his public views on both of these topics after his own research reversed what was also previously accepted wisdom.

I'm also guessing that many of the sources examined by Smith are, in fact, the "Greek and Roman sources" to which Ehrman appeals. It seems that execution in general and crucifixion in particular were such a common part of life under the Roman Empire that they were, somewhat ironically, rarely discussed. Most of the documentation we have refers to cases where the details of the execution are anomalous in some way. For example, Smith highlights some cases of crucified Jewish elders,

Philo, in the midst of his discussion of Flaccuss virulent persecution of Jews in Alexandria, including crucifixions of Jewish elders in the local arena, makes an intriguing comment:

I have known, when such a holiday was near, that some of the people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their family for burial, for they were thought worthy of receiving the customary rites.

Two observations from this text are in order. First, Philo appears to know about some cases in which the bodies of the crucified (or some of them) were not handed over to their family for proper burial (though he does not address how those bodies were handled). Second, he seems to have a strong sense of what he views as ordinary and proper Roman practice of crucifixion, where the bodies of some of the crucified were given to their families to provide them with the customary rites, including burial. That is, Philo suggests that Flaccus was an aberration, for Romans usually respected local Jewish customs, and apparently had some arrangements surrounding local or imperial holidays. Concerning the customary rites, Philo was probably referring at least in part to the standard Jewish practices of the washing and wrapping of the body, its inhumation outside of inhabited areas, and a prescribed period of mourning for the family. In addition, Jews had one overriding concern, rooted
in Deuteronomy 21.22-23:

When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not defile the land that the LORD your God is giving you for possession (NRSV).

In light of this command and its application among his contemporaries, Philo appeals to his own experience of Roman practice which allowed the bodies of the crucified (or at least some of the crucified, whatever that means) to be taken down on the same day, and buried in the proper Jewish manner.

My pushback here to Tanager is to acknowledge that exceptions may have existed, but why should we assume 'Jesus' was one of those exceptions?

Based on Smith, I'm inclined to think that returning Jesus' body for burial would more likely be the rule than the exception.

On a side note, out of curiosity, since you too do not buy the entire storyline, where <exactly> does the collection of claims fall apart for you?

Even if the crucifixion in fact happened, I think the Gospel stories are completely fictionalized accounts that were composed long after the fact with no access to original details. My only point in responding in the first place is that it seems that at least that detail of the story more-or-less matches Roman custom for the execution of noncitizens during peace time.

[POI]

Even if the crucifixion in fact happened, I think the Gospel stories are completely fictionalized accounts that were composed long after the fact with no access to original details.

What does this mean exactly?

[Difflugia]

What does this mean exactly?

It means that the crucifixion narrative is fiction. It may or may not be based on a true story.