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?

[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?

I'm open to being shown rational reasons that I am wrong in anything I've said. You seem to be thinking that "sacrificing one's life" and "living" are logically contradictory. But why?

Why is dying and then resurrecting logically contradictory? Dying and not dying is contradictory. Dying and not resurrecting, but still being living would be contradictory. But not dying and resurrecting.

Think about it, 'death'/'life' opposites of the same coin. When people die, they are dead. When they don't die, they are not dead. We can be fooled at times, but at the end of the day the dead don't rise again. Dying and resurrecting is a meaningless phrase. There is no recorded, verified confirmation of anyone dying and not remaining dead. NONE. There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #327]

If your interpretations of those passages are correct, then it looks like I'd be a "Pseudo-Christian." So then the question becomes whether your interpretations are correct. And that comes down to the rational support you offer for them. I'm willing to listen to your reasoning concerning any of those passages.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #331]

Think about it, 'death'/'life' opposites of the same coin. When people die, they are dead. When they don't die, they are not dead. We can be fooled at times, but at the end of the day the dead don't rise again. Dying and resurrecting is a meaningless phrase. There is no recorded, verified confirmation of anyone dying and not remaining dead. NONE. There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology.

If "dying and resurrecting" was a meaningless phrase, then you wouldn't be able to say what you said next; you'd just say something like "what does that mean, the concept doesn't even make sense?" You obviously see the phrase has meaning. What you say also isn't about the phrase being a logical contradiction, because you aren't pointing out a contradiction in the terms.

Instead, you are turning to inductive evidence, but that is clearly not a good defeater when someone claims there is "new' evidence to consider that would overturn that inductively reasoned conclusion. If we thought all swans were white and had never seen evidence to the contrary, but were confronted with someone saying "I've got evidence of a black swan", we would not be rational to point to the previous inductive evidence as a way to dismiss their conclusion. We would look at the evidence and, if we found it wanting, explain why.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #327]

If your interpretations of those passages are correct, then it looks like I'd be a "Pseudo-Christian." So then the question becomes whether your interpretations are correct. And that comes down to the rational support you offer for them. I'm willing to listen to your reasoning concerning any of those passages.

^^^ The Tanager,

At least you admit that you are a "Pseudo-Christian" that is defined as a "Fake Christian" because you don't follow Jesus' LITERAL WORDS within your Jewish Bible! Therefore, to substantiate that you are not going to Jesus' 1400 square mile heaven upon your demise, is this passage: JESUS SAID: Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46). ..... GET IT? Yeah, you do.


When you are a Pseudo-Christian, "you basically are slapping Jesus in the face", whereas you don't have to follow his direct LITERAL words, as shown in the following passages in my post number 327 to you, where you are to murder homosexuals, and where you are to beat children:

1. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. ....... who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things ARE DESERVING OF DEATH, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:26-27, 32)

2. "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. THOU SHALT BEAT HIM WITH A ROD, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

^ The Tanager, my interpretations have to be correct, because as shown in the words of Jesus in the two passages above are literal! Therefore, do you want to call Jesus' inspired words above as LIES which is BLASPHEME? Yes or no?





.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #331]

Think about it, 'death'/'life' opposites of the same coin. When people die, they are dead. When they don't die, they are not dead. We can be fooled at times, but at the end of the day the dead don't rise again. Dying and resurrecting is a meaningless phrase. There is no recorded, verified confirmation of anyone dying and not remaining dead. NONE. There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology.

If "dying and resurrecting" was a meaningless phrase, then you wouldn't be able to say what you said next; you'd just say something like "what does that mean, the concept doesn't even make sense?" You obviously see the phrase has meaning. What you say also isn't about the phrase being a logical contradiction, because you aren't pointing out a contradiction in the terms.

It has meaning in the religious mythical realms that are meaningless in practical reality. I know what the gullible think "resurrection" means and I was speaking to that, obviously as I as much as said so. "There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology."

Instead, you are turning to inductive evidence, but that is clearly not a good defeater when someone claims there is "new' evidence to consider that would overturn that inductively reasoned conclusion. If we thought all swans were white and had never seen evidence to the contrary, but were confronted with someone saying "I've got evidence of a black swan", we would not be rational to point to the previous inductive evidence as a way to dismiss their conclusion. We would look at the evidence and, if we found it wanting, explain why.

First, Swans exist in reality, analogy failed.

Second, Just because you imagine evidence doesn't make it a "new" type equal to actual evidence that must be accepted.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #334]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

1. How does deserving of death literally mean you go and murder them?

2. Since takkennu (beat in the translation you used), has a range of literal meanings, including where a bruise does not occur, your interpretation does not have to be correct; you still must give the evidence and reasoning that your interpretation is correct.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #335]

It has meaning in the religious mythical realms that are meaningless in practical reality. I know what the gullible think "resurrection" means and I was speaking to that, obviously as I as much as said so. "There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology."

So, in other words, your claim is that we can know a resurrection cant have happened, like I said. Then the question becomes if your reasoning for that conclusion is rational or not.

First, Swans exist in reality, analogy failed.

I don't see why swans existing in reality or not is relevant, as analogies don't have to work that way, but black swans (as far as humans knew at the time) didn't exist until new evidence was found and someone in that scenario saying "but all the previous evidence showed us all swans were white, so we can dismiss the claim without considering the new evidence" would be clearly irrational. Therefore, it is a perfect analogy because you are saying resurrections, as far as we know at this time, don't happen, but I'm saying there is "new" evidence to overturn that previously rational belief. So, when you argue that all the previous evidence lead to their being no reason to believe in resurrections means you can dismiss any additional evidence, you are arguing irrationally.

Second, Just because you imagine evidence doesn't make it a "new" type equal to actual evidence that must be accepted.

I didnt claim that because there is new evidence, that means it should be accepted as true. I only said it means that previous inductive evidence isnt enough to reject the new evidence.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #335]

It has meaning in the religious mythical realms that are meaningless in practical reality. I know what the gullible think "resurrection" means and I was speaking to that, obviously as I as much as said so. "There are claims in some religious mythologies, and even terminology for imagined possibilities in some peoples minds, but until it is a demonstratable fact people have and can "resurrect", that word remains a word like "sin"; regulated to fantasy and mythology."

So, in other words, your claim is that we can know a resurrection cant have happened, like I said. Then the question becomes if your reasoning for that conclusion is rational or not.

My reasoning is solid, your special pleading is embarrassing. I'm not making a claim, you are. You're claiming resurrection as fact, I'm requesting evidence of the conclusive empirical sort, to consider such an extraordinary claim. To date, none exists.

First, Swans exist in reality, analogy failed.

I don't see why swans existing in reality or not is relevant, as analogies don't have to work that way, but black swans (as far as humans knew at the time) didn't exist until new evidence was found and someone in that scenario saying "but all the previous evidence showed us all swans were white, so we can dismiss the claim without considering the new evidence" would be clearly irrational. Therefore, it is a perfect analogy because you are saying resurrections, as far as we know at this time, don't happen, but I'm saying there is "new" evidence to overturn that previously rational belief. So, when you argue that all the previous evidence lead to their being no reason to believe in resurrections means you can dismiss any additional evidence, you are arguing irrationally.

Second, Just because you imagine evidence doesn't make it a "new" type equal to actual evidence that must be accepted.

I didnt claim that because there is new evidence, that means it should be accepted as true. I only said it means that previous inductive evidence isnt enough to reject the new evidence.

The fact swans exists makes your analogy fail before getting it even off the ground. Because the evidence wasn't a "new" type, it was found in reality, nature where all evidence of what we know to be true is always found about our universe.

And yet it remains hidden. This, new evidence. However you're choosing to define it.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #334]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

1. How does deserving of death literally mean you go and murder them?

2. Since takkennu (beat in the translation you used), has a range of literal meanings, including where a bruise does not occur, your interpretation does not have to be correct; you still must give the evidence and reasoning that your interpretation is correct.

^^^ The Tanager,

Hmmmm, you seem to be grasping for those proverbial straws that are not even there to begin with.

1. When you stated that when your brutal serial killer God Jesus said in Romans 1:26-27, 32 that Gay Men and "Slurpies" are deserving death, he is talking to his Jewish followers to perform this deadly act upon them, in the same vein as when your Jewish God tells you to follow the Ten Commandments, and to observe the Sabbath, and other commands by him! 2+2=4.

Seriously, how do you feel in the 21st Century about your God saying that homosexuals are to be put to death, where Romans 1:32 is relating to this passage for a sure death towards homosexuals and "Slurpies" as shown below:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

EXPLAIN:



2. "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. THOU SHALT BEAT HIM WITH A ROD, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

I don't care in how many "literal meanings" that the term BEATEST has as you proffered, because when a "ROD" is used in said BEATINGS, it will more so than not leave a BRUISE! Therefore AGAIN, there is no "interpretation" needed in this LITERAL Proverbs verse that is self-explanatory.



3. The Tanager, you said that you thank me for my thoughts upon the topic at hand, BUT, you didn't mention that I have easily shown you to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of HELL upon your demise as you admitted that you are a pseudo-christian that does't follow your Gods true words, especially when God tells you this: Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

Remember, your Jesus as god didn't create HELL and not plan on using it in your ungodly behalf as shown above!
God said: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)


+++ Therefore, I can tell you how to not be headed for Hell upon your demise if you are interested! Yes or no? +++



.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Carnivalfaces in post #338]

My reasoning is solid, your special pleading is embarrassing. I'm not making a claim, you are. You're claiming resurrection as fact, I'm requesting evidence of the conclusive empirical sort, to consider such an extraordinary claim. To date, none exists.

In this thread I had not claimed the resurrection was a fact. I addressed POIs claim that resurrection was impossible and then you joined that discussion and, therefore, took that claim as your own, that I was asking you to support.

The fact swans exists makes your analogy fail before getting it even off the ground. Because the evidence wasn't a "new" type, it was found in reality, nature where all evidence of what we know to be true is always found about our universe.

You misunderstand my point. I didnt say the evidence for black swans was a new type of evidence, but simply new evidence that overturns the previous conclusion. To fall back on but all the previous evidence didnt point to black swans existing is irrational.

And yet it remains hidden. This, new evidence. However you're choosing to define it.

Because we werent asking that question, we were critiquing a claim that resurrections are impossible because of all the previous evidence that rationally led to believing resurrections dont happen.

Im fine with moving on to offering that support. If you have good reasons to reject that support, then you are rational in maintaining that a resurrection has never happened, but not because dead things stay dead, which just begs the question or because all the other evidence leads to dead things stay dead.

Ill stop here to hear your thoughts and then share the new evidence (which is of the same type we always use, historical data, philosophical reasoning, etc.) if you would like to have that discussion.