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?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[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.

^^^ The Tanager.

Regarding your response shown above, I am truly sorry that you cannot comprehend the simple proposition that for a true sacrifice for Jesus to forgive the sins of his Jewish creation, that when he died for 2 1/2 days, and then arose in not remaining dead, is not a real sacrifice whatsoever because he was alive AGAIN! What part of REMAINING DEAD for a true sacrifice don't you understand?!.... GET IT .... LOL!


1. The purpose of Isaac in murdering his son as a BURNT OFFERING SACRIFICE to appease Jesus as god, that afterwards, he would have remained DEAD!

2. In Exodus 22:29, what part of the verse saying "...the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me" don't you understand? What does your Satanic Apologetic Books say about this verse?

3. Leviticus 27:29 it seemingly a sacrifice to Jesus as god, where it states that anyone or anything "devoted to destruction" or "banned" by God or a vow cannot be redeemed, must be put to death.

4. In Numbers 31, even though the "WOMEN CHILDREN" were not sacrifices to the serial killer Jesus as god, I have to mention this passage in showing how deplorable and sickening the Christian Jewish Bible truly is, where the aforementioned children were kept alive for the army to do whatever they wanted with them! Do the simple math!

5. REREAD JUDGES 11:29-40 regarding Jephthah's vow and his tragic fulfillment. After the serial killer Jesus as god empowers him to lead the Israelites against the Ammonites, Jephthah vows to SACRIFICE as a burnt offering whatever comes out of his house to meet him upon his return from battle if he is victorious. His daughter is the first to greet him, and he feels bound by his vow to SACRIFICE her. After his daughter mourns her fate, she accepts her father's vow and is offered as a BURNT OFFERING SACRIFICE to the Jewish God Jesus! There is NO DEBATABLE ACCOUNT in Jephthah having to SACRIFICE his daughter whatsoever, and whether condoned by Jesus as god or not, the vow's SACRIFICE has to be done, period!!!



The Tanager, I want you to tell your friends that Jesus didn't remain dead for a true sacrifice like soldiers in WW2, because of his resurrection where subsequently he remained alive, BUT, the skewed thinking of the pseudo-christian, to believe in their primitive and barbaric Bronze and Iron Age Christianity to begin with, is still to believe that he died for their sins anyway even when being alive! .... ROFLOL!!!





.

[The Tanager]

[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.

Now support premise 2.

[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.

Now support premise 2.

I already did. I provided a link. Can you disprove it's content?

[1DoubtingThomas]

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?

^^^ The Tanager,

In return to your statement above, and "if the serial killer Jesus as god existed," then he is a very weak god to allow himself to be murdered in the first place! Duh!

Do you think that the god Zeus, that can throw lightening bolts, and is the king of all gods, including the pseudo-christian Jewish god Jesus, would allow himself to be killed, NOT!

Jesus is a wussy god concept, where the muscular god Zeus reigns supreme over all of the Bronze and Iron Age gods, praise Zeus!


THE TANAGER, ARE YOU A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN, AND IF SO, WHAT DIVISION OF CHRISTIANITY DO YOU BELONG TOO?




.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #311]

Regarding your response shown above, I am truly sorry that you cannot comprehend the simple proposition that for a true sacrifice for Jesus to forgive the sins of his Jewish creation, that when he died for 2 1/2 days, and then arose in not remaining dead, is not a real sacrifice whatsoever because he was alive AGAIN! What part of REMAINING DEAD for a true sacrifice don't you understand?!.... GET IT .... LOL!

The part I need help seeing is that one must remain dead for a true sacrifice to have occurred. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. And there is nothing in the definitions of the terms themselves that logically require that.

1. As to your case, God never intended for Abraham to actually sacrifice Isaac as should be clear when Abraham goes to do so and the angel stops him.

2. Being given to God (Exod 22) could mean something other than killing them (which the entire context of the Hebrew scriptures and culture bear out since they were historically against human sacrifice), so unless you point to where this text or another text tells the Israelites to give them to YHWH by killing them, you are reading into the text your own conclusion.

3. The "put to death" in Lev 27:29, contextually, is about the one who financially redeems a child that they had already dedicated to God's service (which is obviously not about killing them because then they couldn't be redeemed), that the redeemer should be put to death, not the one already dedicated to service.

4. Irrelevant to whether one must remain dead to be a sacrifice for the sins of the people.

5. Even if your understanding of Jephthah's story is true, it is irrelevant to whether one must remain dead to be a sacrifice for the sins of the people.


Once we've heard all you have to say here, then I'll engage your thoughts on how a dying God is weak.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #313]

I agree with that link. It doesn't address the question we are, though. If you think otherwise, pull out the part that proves premise 2.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #313]

I agree with that link. It doesn't address the question we are, though. If you think otherwise, pull out the part that proves premise 2.

Honestly Tanager, I cannot believe we are actually having this conversation right now. Depending on how one interprets the Biblical claim, Jesus's dead carcass would be somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2 of the decomposition process. Do you agree? Assuming you do, as indicated above, seems you are trying to wiggle out of this exchange, based upon some technicality -- as the word 'irreversible' is not technically found in either link. But referring to basic logic, we know once a human corpse enters into a specific stage of decomposition, it can no longer go backwards, or, be undone. Case/point:

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.ne ... 0destroyed.

First paragraph: "Though decomposition cannot be reversed, it can be delayed"

Therefore, P2) is sound, as the decomposition process is irreversible, and can instead only be slowed down through other means. Which means you are back to 'wishful thinking' being equal to 'basic logic'.

If the claims of the tooth fairy are true, then tooth fairy hell exists and consists of all occupants of tooth fairy hell having no teeth, with only corn on the cob to eat.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #315]



The Tanager,

Before I continue to address your questionable knowledge upon the term "Sacrifice" relative to Jesus coming back to life, can you tell me if you are a true Christian, or a pseudo-christian, or not, and if so, what division of the Faith do you follow?

Additionally, are you a female or a male?

I am a male and an Atheist.

Thanking you in advance.



.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #315]

That's a cop out. Come on, stop lying to yourself. No one sacrificed their life if they live. Geez, you fear fairytale land hell that much?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #317]

What I'm trying to get you to realize is that you are assuming the truth of naturalism throughout your posts. Do you believe assumptions make a premise true or an argument sound? If not, then please give an argument for the truth of naturalism. Pointing to articles that don't do this, but assume it's truth is not sound arguing.

I'm also trying to get you to realize that the opposite of 'impossible' is 'possible'. One only needs to offer a logical possibility, an "if", to refute someone who says X is impossible. If you disagree, then please give an argument to back that up.