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?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #299]

I agree that those who gave their lives in World War II should be honored for their sacrifices, although I don't see the relevance to what we were talking about.

As to your claim that Jesus can't be the sacrifice for our sins because he didn't remain dead, I don't see how your post supports that, even assuming your takes on all of those passages are true.

First, your own definition of sacrifice does not include the necessity of something remaining dead.

Second, if you want to amend your definition to include that part, you need rational support for doing so.

Third, your examples seem irrelevant to your point. Isaac isn't killed and, therefore, doesn't remain dead after being killed. Exod 22 and Lev 29 don't talk about humans being killed at all (much less for the sins of the people), while the latter passage talks about financial substitution of the firstborn humans and the penalty for one who dedicates their child to service of the Lord and then tries to take that dedication back. Passages like Numbers 31, 2 Samuel 31, and 1 Kings 13 aren't about killing individuals as sacrifices to atone for the sins of the Israelites. I can understand questioning them on grounds of justice, but not in how you have used them. And Jephthah's sacrifice, even if it involves killing his daughter (which is debatable) and condoned by God (which isn't in the text), it is to fulfill a vow, not to forgive sins.

Thus, your conclusion doesn't seem to logically follow, even if one agreed with your premises.

[POI]

Why is it impossible for a dead body to not remain dead?

Here is exactly what I said in answering point 5): "Because dead rotting bodies remain rotting, we can safely eliminate this option for considering. It is not an option to consider. Hence, I'm wondering what really happened instead? Maybe we will never know?"

Rigor mortis and decomposition are two distinct, sequential post-mortem processes. Rigor mortis is the stiffening of the body due to muscle contraction after death, while decomposition is the breakdown of tissues by the body's own enzymes and bacteria. Rigor mortis typically appears within a few hours after death, peaks around 12 hours, and resolves within 36-48 hours as decomposition begins to break down the muscle tissue.

[The Tanager]

Here is exactly what I said in answering point 5): "Because dead rotting bodies remain rotting, we can safely eliminate this option for considering. It is not an option to consider. Hence, I'm wondering what really happened instead? Maybe we will never know?"

Rigor mortis and decomposition are two distinct, sequential post-mortem processes. Rigor mortis is the stiffening of the body due to muscle contraction after death, while decomposition is the breakdown of tissues by the body's own enzymes and bacteria. Rigor mortis typically appears within a few hours after death, peaks around 12 hours, and resolves within 36-48 hours as decomposition begins to break down the muscle tissue.

Yes and that is only describing your claim in a new way, not supporting that it is true. Why is it impossible for that process to reverse?

[POI]

Here is exactly what I said in answering point 5): "Because dead rotting bodies remain rotting, we can safely eliminate this option for considering. It is not an option to consider. Hence, I'm wondering what really happened instead? Maybe we will never know?"

Rigor mortis and decomposition are two distinct, sequential post-mortem processes. Rigor mortis is the stiffening of the body due to muscle contraction after death, while decomposition is the breakdown of tissues by the body's own enzymes and bacteria. Rigor mortis typically appears within a few hours after death, peaks around 12 hours, and resolves within 36-48 hours as decomposition begins to break down the muscle tissue.

Yes and that is only describing your claim in a new way, not supporting that it is true. Why is it impossible for that process to reverse?

Are you not already aware as to what happens to a body after it is dead? It experiences rigor mortis, and then experiences decomposition. Both would take place, as per the claim from the Bible.

[The Tanager]

Here is exactly what I said in answering point 5): "Because dead rotting bodies remain rotting, we can safely eliminate this option for considering. It is not an option to consider. Hence, I'm wondering what really happened instead? Maybe we will never know?"

Rigor mortis and decomposition are two distinct, sequential post-mortem processes. Rigor mortis is the stiffening of the body due to muscle contraction after death, while decomposition is the breakdown of tissues by the body's own enzymes and bacteria. Rigor mortis typically appears within a few hours after death, peaks around 12 hours, and resolves within 36-48 hours as decomposition begins to break down the muscle tissue.

Yes and that is only describing your claim in a new way, not supporting that it is true. Why is it impossible for that process to reverse?

Are you not already aware as to what happens to a body after it is dead? It experiences rigor mortis, and then experiences decomposition. Both would take place, as per the claim from the Bible.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm asking why it would be impossible for the process to be reversed, the body resurrected. If God existed, why couldn't God do that?

[POI]

Yes, I'm aware. I'm asking why it would be impossible for the process to be reversed, the body resurrected.

https://www.traumaservices.com/blog/sta ... 20entirely.

Body decomposition cannot be reversed. Decomposition is a natural and irreversible process that begins immediately after death. It involves the breakdown of the body's tissues by enzymes and bacteria into simpler organic matter.

If God existed, why couldn't God do that?

Now you are just question begging.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #306]

You made a very strong claim that a resurrection is impossible, not just that we don't have good reason to believe it has ever happened or something like that. To refute a claim that something is impossible only requires offering a possible scenario.

I think it's very obvious that if a God existed that created matter in the first place, that entity could resurrect that matter into living tissue again.

This isn't reason to think God exists and did such a thing, just that your claim that it is impossible is wrong.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #306]

You made a very strong claim that a resurrection is impossible, not just that we don't have good reason to believe it has ever happened or something like that. To refute a claim that something is impossible only requires offering a possible scenario.

Since the process of decomposition has been demonstrated to be irreversible, this means to claim otherwise would be impossible. Since you instead wish to open up the word "impossible' to mean something different than "not possible", then I guess virtually any claim could not be proven 'impossible.'

I think it's very obvious that if a God existed that created matter in the first place, that entity could resurrect that matter into living tissue again.

If -- ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a Merry Christmas.

This isn't reason to think God exists and did such a thing, just that your claim that it is impossible is wrong.

See above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #308]

Ifs and buts are all that is needed to refute a claim that something is impossible. This is basic logic.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #308]

Ifs and buts are all that is needed to refute a claim that something is actually impossible. This is basic logic.

Wishful thinking does not equal 'basic logic.' Sorry.

ir-re-vers-i-ble
/i(r)rvrsb()l/
adjective
not able to be undone or altered.

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

P1) All dead bodies decompose
P2) The process of decomposition is irreversible
P3) Therefore, it is not possible for any dead body's decomposition process to reverse

Commence with the fallacious reasoning accordingly.