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?

[POI]

No, they can’t be all lumped together as one if you want to rationally come to a historical conclusion.

Yes, like one could just as easily reject a historical claim if it happened to come from the canonized 'big book of history'. Luckily, we have no such 'authoritative' book.

Multiple attestation matters.

Sure this matters. But this is not what we have. In THIS case, we need eyewitnesses to 'attest' to such a claim. And we do not have any 'attestations' of this claim. Remember, this is deemed the greatest story ever told.

attestation - the action of being a witness to or formally certifying something.

Sure, you have 'formal certification', because these 'attestations' were later deemed canon by the church, who already believes. But we have no verified eyewitnesses to a Jesus burial. Just secondhand claims....

We have it with the documents later collected together by Christians and called “The Gospels”. Whether these sources are by eyewitnesses or has a chain of custody through accurate oral traditions and previous written sources, we can use these documents as part of the case for the burial of Jesus in a tomb being historical.

No eyewitnesses wrote these accounts (and/or) also oral tradition is doing some very heavy lifting here.

And I didn’t exclude the things you pointed out, I’ve already addressed them. I’m not going to just repeat my responses every time you repeat your points.

I can repeat these points to demonstrate we do not have these points. It matters not of the 'reason(s)' you gave of why we do not have them. If we do not have these points to examine, then such a historical claim carries less weight in credibility.

Why would the burial in a tomb need to be hasty, though?

That it your word, not mine. I gave the reason(s), for which you seem not to have a problem with...

So why would they invent women being the first witnesses when the people they were appealing to would not accept the testimony of women?

To the bold, you just answered your own question. Such "polemics" would not ask these "women" if they saw an "empty tomb", since women's testimony, (for or against the claim), were irrelevant.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the thing. The only thing so far. Witness attestation only helps the case if they don't contradict each other. The Resurrections contradict severely.

Oral tradition is best left alone. Witness attestation should be witness at least at second or third hand.It should not be 'Oral tradition' which is as likely to be tall tales as not.

But the Thing is that the women at the empty tomb is common to all four gospels. And why the women when the disciples would be more obvious? I originally accepted the empty tomb was true, but everything after that was contradictory. So one could suggest a scenario that didn't suit Christianity, like the women find out later that the disciples took the body back to Galilee.

But now I even doubt that the empty tomb is true. Sorry if I've posted this before - several times - but suppose the postulated spirit resurrection has to become a solid body resurrection to carry weight? The tomb being empty has to be produced as the evidence. So who saw it? Well, while Mary Magdalene (Like Joseph of Arimathea) seem known persons (but so is Bar - Timaeus, but none but Mark mention his name, so it suggests he invented it) the deposition has the women watching the body go into the tomb like it's being set up for the body to be gone. It's a bother, too that the writers don't know why the women went there anyway. True, the anointing with spices could be the synoptic version and Matthew leaves it out because he is worried about claiming the women prepared spices on the Sabbath. John gives no reason at all. There is the bother of it suddenly striking the women that they wouldn't be able to get inside, while they should have arranged for a couple of helpers to do that. But this is passed off because it's open anyway. But it's like the disciples can't be involved in the empty tomb at all.

The original is the women finding the tomb open and empty. Probably they run, though Matthew and Luke and also John add a different story to the running away. But What's a red flag is the angel parked there to explain everything. John has no angel.

So empty tomb invented or true, everything after that is invented. You can bet on it.

[The Tanager]

Yes, like one could just as easily reject a historical claim if it happened to come from the canonized 'big book of history'. Luckily, we have no such 'authoritative' book.

If a historian were to collect all historical sources into one ’big book of history,’ you’d reject all claims within those sources? You reject all claims within modern primary source readers? Probably every historical source, at least pieces of it, has found its way into a reader somewhere.

Sure this matters. But this is not what we have. In THIS case, we need eyewitnesses to 'attest' to such a claim. And we do not have any 'attestations' of this claim. Remember, this is deemed the greatest story ever told.

attestation - the action of being a witness to or formally certifying something.

Sure, you have 'formal certification', because these 'attestations' were later deemed canon by the church, who already believes. But we have no verified eyewitnesses to a Jesus burial. Just secondhand claims....

What would convince you that these are accounts by eyewitnesses?

I can repeat these points to demonstrate we do not have these points. It matters not of the 'reason(s)' you gave of why we do not have them. If we do not have these points to examine, then such a historical claim carries less weight in credibility.

The reasons I gave were against why lacking these points doesn’t lessen the credibility.

That it your word, not mine. I gave the reason(s), for which you seem not to have a problem with...

Are you saying the burial isn’t depicted in these accounts as hasty? Or are you saying you’ve given reasons why it needed to be hasty?

To the bold, you just answered your own question. Such "polemics" would not ask these "women" if they saw an "empty tomb", since women's testimony, (for or against the claim), were irrelevant.

So then why would the gospel writers invent the story of women going to the empty tomb? Via the criterion of embarrassment, this lends credibility to the historical nature of that visit. It most likely happened and that’s why the oral and written tradition has it in there.

The next question becomes: why do you think they went there? And why, if it was for some other reason, did the gospel writers invent a hasty burial scenario as the reason to get them there instead of what really happened?

[POI]

If a historian were to collect all historical sources into one ’big book of history,’ you’d reject all claims within those sources? You reject all claims within modern primary source readers? Probably every historical source, at least pieces of it, has found its way into a reader somewhere.

You missed my point. In 'history', we do not have 4 anonymous and secondhand claims, which were later voted on by 'the church', deemed 'authoritative', and made into doctrine. As stated, many responses ago, the Bible is not 'history'. However, in regard to the claims related to and/or about a Jesus, this is really all we have unfortunately.

What would convince you that these are accounts by eyewitnesses?

I would need to know who wrote the 4 Gospels, which we don't. I would then also need to know where they obtained their source information, which we don't. The sources would need to also be deposed, which they weren't. Why so much? Because the claim(s) about a 'single Jesus burial' go against what a Roman crucifixion was, and what a Roman ordered crucifixion was used for. You can say this/that/other, which is fine. But we don't have these things, which leads me to believe it did not happen at all. I do not believe the claim(s), as I go with what was most likely to have happened to Roman ordered crucified victims in this era. Most were not given descent burials, probably even in times of 'piece'. The rule for crucifixion is deterrence and/or denial of a burial, the exception is the Bible's claim.

The reasons I gave were against why lacking these points doesn’t lessen the credibility.

Yes it does. No verified witnesses, no tomb, and no relics, lessens the credibility of the claim. Sorry.

Are you saying the burial isn’t depicted in these accounts as hasty? Or are you saying you’ve given reasons why it needed to be hasty?

I'm saying exactly what I have been saying. The "singular burial narrative" makes for a harder polemic. It's just too easy to state "the body never left" if it was later thrown in a mass grave, and unrecognizable.

So then why would the gospel writers invent the story of women going to the empty tomb?

Because 'witnesses' needed to be there to see that the body was missing to start the religion.

Via the criterion of embarrassment, this lends credibility to the historical nature of that visit. It most likely happened and that’s why the oral and written tradition has it in there.

It does no such thing. Supernatural events are not what most likely happened. It's more likely BS, for the many reasons already given. Mark 16:8 also ends where the women told no one. If they really told no one, then how would the writer(s) know what these women saw? And Mark 16:9-20 is an obvious later/additional "embellishment."

The next question becomes: why do you think they went there? And why, if it was for some other reason, did the gospel writers invent a hasty burial scenario as the reason to get them there instead of what really happened?

Well, this question would be "hasty", being that no women went there, because Jesus was likely never placed into a singular tomb, guarded by whoever, to begin with...

[Goose]

I disagree. In regard to a Roman crucifixion claim, what is more-so probably true?

a) allowed a proper burial
b) not allowed a proper burial

a) is the exception, b) is the rule. You opt for the exception, where-as I opt for the rule.

I disagree... The rule was still denial of burial.

The rule for crucifixion is deterrence and/or denial of a burial, the exception is the Bible's claim.

POI, on a number of occasions you’ve made this claim that the Roman rule for crucifixion was denial of burial. You’ve even gone so far as to either underline or bold the word rule each time. Where are you getting this rule? Where is the evidence that is so strong that it allows you to make this claim so absolutely that it applies even during times of peace in Palestine?

[POI]

I disagree. In regard to a Roman crucifixion claim, what is more-so probably true?

a) allowed a proper burial
b) not allowed a proper burial

a) is the exception, b) is the rule. You opt for the exception, where-as I opt for the rule.

I disagree... The rule was still denial of burial.

The rule for crucifixion is deterrence and/or denial of a burial, the exception is the Bible's claim.

POI, on a number of occasions you’ve made this claim that the Roman rule for crucifixion was denial of burial. You’ve even gone so far as to either underline or bold the word rule each time. Where are you getting this rule? Where is the evidence that is so strong that it allows you to make this claim so absolutely that it applies even during times of peace in Palestine?

I'm going to highlight, in red, the part(s) you quoted above. Please re-read these red highlights carefully.

Between the two options during this era, what was more likely to become of a dead carcass after a Roman ordered crucifixion?

a) descent burial
b) not a descent burial

I was under the impression that rotting on the meat stick was the default, and descent burials the same day of one's death pronouncement was the exception. Am I wrong? Is it actually the other way around? Further, I already acknowledge there could be exception(s) to the rule? However, if we have no eyewitnesses to anyone taking Jesus off the cross, and/or no eyewitnesses to a tomb burial, and/or no formal deposition from these supposed guards, and/or no relics surrounding this seemingly important Jesus figure, then the claim from the Gospel(s) holds less weight.

[The Tanager]

You missed my point. In 'history', we do not have 4 anonymous and secondhand claims, which were later voted on by 'the church', deemed 'authoritative', and made into doctrine. As stated, many responses ago, the Bible is not 'history'. However, in regard to the claims related to and/or about a Jesus, this is really all we have unfortunately.

Perhaps I’m still missing your point. Surely it’s not discounting them simply because of the worldview of the ones that collected them together. Please clarify what your point is.

I would need to know who wrote the 4 Gospels, which we don't. I would then also need to know where they obtained their source information, which we don't. The sources would need to also be deposed, which they weren't.

We are talking about the burial in a tomb claim. We can reasonably date that to within seven years, without certainty over who later wrote that claim down in the gospels, without names and depositions of the original Christians making this claim (although it’s more than reasonable to historically conclude the earliest disciples were the sources). That is not enough time for an initial burial claim in a mass grave to be overtaken in the mind of everyone who knew what happened at most seven years ago to allow this claim to become the only tradition passed down, even by non-Christians speaking against the Christian movement, which was a thing at that time.

Why so much? Because the claim(s) about a 'single Jesus burial' go against what a Roman crucifixion was, and what a Roman ordered crucifixion was used for. You can say this/that/other, which is fine. But we don't have these things, which leads me to believe it did not happen at all. I do not believe the claim(s), as I go with what was most likely to have happened to Roman ordered crucified victims in this era. Most were not given descent burials, probably even in times of 'piece'. The rule for crucifixion is deterrence and/or denial of a burial, the exception is the Bible's claim.

I’ve questioned your ‘because’ every time you’ve said it. I’ve pointed to non-Christian sources that speak against your ‘because’. You simply restate it without (1) showing how my understanding of those texts is wrong or (2) pointing to other texts that say otherwise.

Yes it does. No verified witnesses, no tomb, and no relics, lessens the credibility of the claim. Sorry.

Does me responding in like move this discussion forward? Let’s see. No it doesn’t. Your idea of what counts as “verified” is unreasonable and that they didn’t venerate the tomb or relics, which we would expect them not to since these were vacated and pointless due to the supposed resurrection, doesn’t lessen the credibility of the claim. Sorry. Nope, the discussion didn’t move forward; we just repeated what we’ve already given support for.

I'm saying exactly what I have been saying. The "singular burial narrative" makes for a harder polemic. It's just too easy to state "the body never left" if it was later thrown in a mass grave, and unrecognizable.

Because 'witnesses' needed to be there to see that the body was missing to start the religion.

But we were talking about the burial being hasty. Assuming the above, the singular burial narrative needn’t be a hasty one. It would be more embarrassing to invent the women having to come back to finish/start the job of preparing the body. It is also more embarrassing to have women come at all. The gospel writers, if inventing this all up, wouldn’t need a hasty burial and wouldn’t choose women as the ‘witnesses’ needing to be there.

It does no such thing. Supernatural events are not what most likely happened. It's more likely BS, for the many reasons already given.

Women visiting a tomb where their crucified rabbi was laid is not a supernatural event. The gospel writers wouldn’t invent women and don’t need to invent a hasty “singular burial narrative,” a “singular burial narrative” would be fine. Both of these are more embarrassing inventions. Those are most likely left in because that is how they happened, using the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Mark 16:8 also ends where the women told no one. If they really told no one, then how would the writer(s) know what these women saw? And Mark 16:9-20 is an obvious later/additional "embellishment."

I'm not sure how this affects the burial in a tomb claim, but I agree that the original Mark probably ended at 16:8. I think that’s the point Mark is making to his intended audience who was facing persecution. What are they going to do with the message? Not tell anyone or, as they well knew had to have happened, follow the women's example of eventually telling people about it.

[POI]

Such a claim, from ancient antiquity, would need two additional components. Otherwise, it is merely a claim alone. We do not have these two. And thus, we have little more than faith:

1) verified eyewitnesses, via attestation(s) from unbiased source location(s)
2) physical findings

You missed my point. In 'history', we do not have 4 anonymous and secondhand claims, which were later voted on by 'the church', deemed 'authoritative', and made into doctrine. As stated, many responses ago, the Bible is not 'history'. However, in regard to the claims related to and/or about a Jesus, this is really all we have unfortunately.

Perhaps I’m still missing your point.

Perhaps, but I cannot explain it any better or clearer.

We are talking about the burial in a tomb claim. We can reasonably date that to within seven years, without certainty over who later wrote that claim down in the gospels, without names and depositions of the original Christians making this claim (although it’s more than reasonable to historically conclude the earliest disciples were the sources). That is not enough time for an initial burial claim in a mass grave to be overtaken in the mind of everyone who knew what happened at most seven years ago to allow this claim to become the only tradition passed down, even by non-Christians speaking against the Christian movement, which was a thing at that time.

I believe you may be starting from a false premise. You assume the earliest Gospel accounts, in which we have (many many many decades later), are faithfully synonymous with the ones we do not have for comparison. In other words, you assume they are trustworthy until proven otherwise, I'm the opposite. Which one of us has the better starting point?

I’ve pointed to non-Christian sources that speak against your ‘because’. You simply restate it without (1) showing how my understanding of those texts is wrong or (2) pointing to other texts that say otherwise.

Sure you have, but your "speaking against" merely demonstrates an exception to the rule. The rule for Roman ordered crucifixions was deterrence and burial denial, right? The rule, even during peace was not post crucifixion descent burials and the like, right?

Why should the Bible reader think that Jesus was an actual exception -- (especially since he was likely sentenced with treason/sedition/blasphemy), when all we have are account(s) from the claim in question -- (i.e.) the Gospels? Outside the Bible's claim(s), we have nothing else to affirm this claim -- (like the 'guards' testimonial, an identified tomb location, or any relics from the site in question)?

Your idea of what counts as “verified” is unreasonable and that they didn’t venerate the tomb or relics, which we would expect them not to since these were vacated and pointless due to the supposed resurrection, doesn’t lessen the credibility of the claim.

But this is not my problem. It's yours. Even if we completely agree evidence would be missing, via the guard's deposition, a tomb location, and relics .... If all we are left with is the Gospel(s) claim(s), why should I trust what the Gospel(s) claim surrounding the Jesus trial/execution/burial?

But we were talking about the burial being hasty.

No, you are arguing with yourself about it being 'hasty'.

It is also more embarrassing to have women come at all. The gospel writers, if inventing this all up, wouldn’t need a hasty burial and wouldn’t choose women as the ‘witnesses’ needing to be there.

So you are going on record to state that because the storyline proves more 'hasty', it was less likely made up? I would instead argue the writers might have thought a 'single tomb burial' was more necessary to establish he was actually missing.

Women visiting a tomb where their crucified rabbi was laid is not a supernatural event.

Women visiting an unidentified and unaccounted for "empty tomb" is a supernatural event.

a) The gospel writers wouldn’t invent women and b) don’t need to invent a hasty “singular burial narrative,” a “singular burial narrative” would be fine. c) Both of these are more embarrassing inventions. Those are most likely left in because that is how they happened, using the historical criterion of embarrassment.

a) Gospel writers did not invent anything?
b) Do we seem to agree that the Bible writers would rather insist that Jesus be buried in a single tomb?
c) As stated prior, when we do not know what the original Gospels claim, as the earliest complete copies are many many many decades later, we have no idea what the originals said. By the time the Gospels became a thing, they could then say whatever they wanted them to say with no way of comparing them against the originals. If you do not agree, then please simply produce the earliest burial account we have, and how far that dates away from when this first original was written.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #228]

You are just repeating what you’ve already said. I won’t repeat my responses. We agree the gospel writers would be more interested in a burial in a tomb, but for different reasons. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine on this matter.

[POI]

We agree the gospel writers would be more interested in a burial in a tomb, but for different reasons.

I see this response as a pretty big break through. Please observe (again) part of my OP debate question in ilalics:

Why MUST He have been 1) placed into a tomb, which was 2) guarded by Roman soldiers?

1) By the Gospel writers placing Jesus in a singular tomb, no question/debate arises regarding his dead carcass actually missing.
2) Roman or not, these unnamed "guard(s)" cannot later be questioned, because we do not even know who they were in the first place. The apologist can very easily argue these "guard(s)" would not fess up (and/or) formally record a burial event (and/or) missing body anyways.

From the jump, we seem to agree that a reported burial event is pretty pivotal to the Jesus narrative. Your argument, which I acknowledge, is that is it not necessary to fabricate such events - that it would be <hasty> to add these extra 'embellishments' -- (like a single tomb burial). I instead argue these details about a (single tomb burial), make the case more convincing and 'necessary'. It's a reason your first argument for Jesus's resurrection begins with "what about the empty tomb?"

In the pages of ancient antiquity, we must assess each claim brought forth to us.... A) Is/are this/these claim(s) most reasonable? B) What exactly is/are the claim(s)? C) What is the source for this/these claim(s)? D) Does this claim require verified/deposed eyewitness accounts? E) Does this claim necessitate physical evidence?

A) It is still more reasonable, even in times of peace, that Roman ordered crucifixions did not end with single tomb burials.
B) Jesus would have been tried/convicted of (sedition/blasphemy/treason) anyways, which would also have more-so landed hm on a long-term meat stick anyways.
C) Unknown, except that we know these source(s) are bias and are also likely later written to convince/convert unbelievers.
D) Yes, and we do not have them.
E) Yes, and again we do not have any.

For anyone who has followed along, I appreciate your time as well as The Tanager's. With all claims from ancient antiquity, it depends on the claim and what we actually have to observe the claim. (i.e.)

If the claim was simply about some exceptions being made for single Jewish burials, (post Roman ordered crucifixions), that's different. And we may even be able to substantiate such a claim, in part, with physical findings. However, if the claim was how a particular individual died, with no verified/deposed witnesses and also no physical findings for his/her specific death, all we are instead left with is the unvetted claim(s) themselves from the Gospel(s) in question.

In this case, we have a very specific claim, and not instead that some exception(s) were made for crucified Jews in times of peace. The question then becomes, what is to make the Bible reader believe an exception was then made for Jesus? I guess this is where The Tanager and I part ways?

If anyone wants to jump in, feel free.

But in the end, it more-so cuts to the heart of whether or not the Gospels are trustworthy.? I myself think not.