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?

[TRANSPONDER]

I may be repeating myself that I have no problem with a proper burial for a crucified person by persons with a particular interest

Jehohanan (Hebrew: יהוחנן, romanized: Yəhōḥānān) was a man put to death by crucifixion in the 1st century CE. His ossuary was found in 1968 when building contractors working in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, a Jewish neighborhood in northern East Jerusalem, accidentally uncovered a Jewish tomb.[1] The Jewish stone ossuary had the Hebrew inscription "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol" (Hebrew: ויהוחנן בן הגקול, romanized: Yehoḥanan ben Hagqol; the meaning of hgqwl is uncertain,[2] hence his name sometimes being given as Johanan ben Ha-galgula). (Wiki)

in addition to which, invented or nor the writers would hardly come up with a scenario that Greco -Roman readers would reject as not possible.

The claim of Jesus being popped into Arimatheas' tomb is open to argument, but not whether it was possible, so it seems to me. My line has been for some time that, if Jesus was put in the tomb and stayed there and the appearances in 1 Cor. were visionary (spiritual/imagined) then where the body was is immaterial.

If Jesus was put in the tomb and went missing, two explanations stand against 'Jesus walked out' - both being 'The disciples took the body' as Matthew reports the Jews told it, though one can't claim that was based on knowledge. Either Jesus was removed and taken for reburial in Galilee, or was taken out of the tomb alive because it was intended he should survive. And fanciful tale though that may sound, it makes sense of some of the odd features of the story.

Arimathea got involved right away going to Pilate.
If Pilate was convinced that Jesus did not deserve death but didn't want the Sanhedrin tattling to the emperor about him, he'd have his soldiers co -operate to drug Jesus with wine, get him down, sharpish, let Joseph lay him on a cloth draped over him (which explains the shroud better than an intended permanent burial) and let them come to get him out as soon as the coast was clear.

Given that aside from the women finding the tomb empty (and I see some signs of a clumsy story there) the gospels agree on little, thereafter, often contradicting seriously, the solid body appearances are not really credible, once you know the problems, unless one wants to believe.

Much as the believers would like it, the evidence does not make Jesus rising from areal death the most probable explanation. Sorry, Lane - Craig, Lee Strobel and the other believers.

[POI]

I may be repeating myself that I have no problem with a proper burial for a crucified person by persons with a particular interest

Jehohanan (Hebrew: יהוחנן, romanized: Yəhōḥānān) was a man put to death by crucifixion in the 1st century CE. His ossuary was found in 1968 when building contractors working in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, a Jewish neighborhood in northern East Jerusalem, accidentally uncovered a Jewish tomb.[1] The Jewish stone ossuary had the Hebrew inscription "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol" (Hebrew: ויהוחנן בן הגקול, romanized: Yehoḥanan ben Hagqol; the meaning of hgqwl is uncertain,[2] hence his name sometimes being given as Johanan ben Ha-galgula). (Wiki)

Sure, but Jesus was likely convicted of treason and/or sedition and/or blasphemy.

If Jesus was put in the tomb and went missing, two explanations stand against 'Jesus walked out' - both being 'The disciples took the body' as Matthew reports the Jews told it, though one can't claim that was based on knowledge. Either Jesus was removed and taken for reburial in Galilee, or was taken out of the tomb alive because it was intended he should survive. And fanciful tale though that may sound, it makes sense of some of the odd features of the story.

Arimathea got involved right away going to Pilate.
If Pilate was convinced that Jesus did not deserve death but didn't want the Sanhedrin tattling to the emperor about him, he'd have his soldiers co -operate to drug Jesus with wine, get him down, sharpish, let Joseph lay him on a cloth draped over him (which explains the shroud better than an intended permanent burial) and let them come to get him out as soon as the coast was clear.

Or maybe there was no tomb? Apply Occam's Razor.

Given that aside from the women finding the tomb empty (and I see some signs of a clumsy story there)

Agree...

the gospels agree on little, thereafter, often contradicting seriously, the solid body appearances are not really credible, once you know the problems, unless one wants to believe.

Much as the believers would like it, the evidence does not make Jesus rising from areal death the most probable explanation. Sorry, Lane - Craig, Lee Strobel and the other believers.

This is why the 'burial of Jesus' is so dang pivotal to the Jesus narrative. The Bible writers place him is a singular tomb, which is later discovered 'empty'. This "establishes' that there was once a verified body, and then there wasn't. This is one of the reasons Christians, like The Tanager, will argue for a 'resurrection'. They will first ask "what about the empty tomb'? They will lead with, what is likely, a false premise. There probably wasn't a burial in question, which is also likely why we have no evidence of such a burial, unlike your Wiki story.

As I just told The Tanager, I do not trust the Gospel writers. If they could invent zombies roaming a town, they certainly could also invent a "Jesus burial". Being we have no witnesses and/or physical evidence to a Jesus situation, like you do above in your 'Wiki' example, the odds are instead that Jesus was not buried as told.

[TRANSPONDER]

I may be repeating myself that I have no problem with a proper burial for a crucified person by persons with a particular interest

Jehohanan (Hebrew: יהוחנן, romanized: Yəhōḥānān) was a man put to death by crucifixion in the 1st century CE. His ossuary was found in 1968 when building contractors working in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, a Jewish neighborhood in northern East Jerusalem, accidentally uncovered a Jewish tomb.[1] The Jewish stone ossuary had the Hebrew inscription "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol" (Hebrew: ויהוחנן בן הגקול, romanized: Yehoḥanan ben Hagqol; the meaning of hgqwl is uncertain,[2] hence his name sometimes being given as Johanan ben Ha-galgula). (Wiki)

Sure, but Jesus was likely convicted of treason and/or sedition and/or blasphemy.

If Jesus was put in the tomb and went missing, two explanations stand against 'Jesus walked out' - both being 'The disciples took the body' as Matthew reports the Jews told it, though one can't claim that was based on knowledge. Either Jesus was removed and taken for reburial in Galilee, or was taken out of the tomb alive because it was intended he should survive. And fanciful tale though that may sound, it makes sense of some of the odd features of the story.

Arimathea got involved right away going to Pilate.
If Pilate was convinced that Jesus did not deserve death but didn't want the Sanhedrin tattling to the emperor about him, he'd have his soldiers co -operate to drug Jesus with wine, get him down, sharpish, let Joseph lay him on a cloth draped over him (which explains the shroud better than an intended permanent burial) and let them come to get him out as soon as the coast was clear.

Or maybe there was no tomb? Apply Occam's Razor.

Given that aside from the women finding the tomb empty (and I see some signs of a clumsy story there)

Agree...

the gospels agree on little, thereafter, often contradicting seriously, the solid body appearances are not really credible, once you know the problems, unless one wants to believe.

Much as the believers would like it, the evidence does not make Jesus rising from areal death the most probable explanation. Sorry, Lane - Craig, Lee Strobel and the other believers.

This is why the 'burial of Jesus' is so dang pivotal to the Jesus narrative. The Bible writers place him is a singular tomb, which is later discovered 'empty'. This "establishes' that there was once a verified body, and then there wasn't. This is one of the reasons Christians, like The Tanager, will argue for a 'resurrection'. They will first ask "what about the empty tomb'? They will lead with, what is likely, a false premise. There probably wasn't a burial in question, which is also likely why we have no evidence of such a burial, unlike your Wiki story.

As I just told The Tanager, I do not trust the Gospel writers. If they could invent zombies roaming a town, they certainly could also invent a "Jesus burial". Being we have no witnesses and/or physical evidence to a Jesus situation, like you do above in your 'Wiki' example, the odds are instead that Jesus was not buried as told.

The Blasphemy charge makes no sense other than from Christian thought. So I agree the gospel accounts are not to be trusted. I can'r really rule out the broad outlines of the crucifixion and burial, but everything after that, I have serious doubts.

The thing about crucifixion is it was a specific punishment for treason/rebellion/insurrection. Thus, if anyone crucified could get a proper burial, Jesus could, if family or companions were willing to do it. That's my position on it, anyway.

[POI]

-- The Blasphemy charge makes no sense other than from Christian thought.

-- The thing about crucifixion is it was a specific punishment for treason/rebellion/insurrection. Thus, if anyone crucified could get a proper burial, Jesus could, if family or companions were willing to do it. That's my position on it, anyway.

"Roman prosecution was based on the fact that Jesus refused to acknowledge the Roman Emperor as the supreme authority. Refusing to recognize that authority equaled refusing to recognize the authority of the Roman Senate."

I believe the argument, from The Tanager, was that Romans, in times of peace, would allow for the Jews to bury the executed -- (unless charged with treason). Well, this rules out Jesus. I doubt Jesus's dead carcass was allowed to be taken off the cross and placed in a singular tomb.

So I agree the gospel accounts are not to be trusted.

[TRANSPONDER]

-- The Blasphemy charge makes no sense other than from Christian thought.

-- The thing about crucifixion is it was a specific punishment for treason/rebellion/insurrection. Thus, if anyone crucified could get a proper burial, Jesus could, if family or companions were willing to do it. That's my position on it, anyway.

"Roman prosecution was based on the fact that Jesus refused to acknowledge the Roman Emperor as the supreme authority. Refusing to recognize that authority equaled refusing to recognize the authority of the Roman Senate."

I believe the argument, from The Tanager, was that Romans, in times of peace, would allow for the Jews to bury the executed -- (unless charged with treason). Well, this rules out Jesus. I doubt Jesus's dead carcass was allowed to be taken off the cross and placed in a singular tomb.

So I agree the gospel accounts are not to be trusted.

But I still have a problem with ALL crucifixion being punishment for rebellion. And the crucified Johanan being properly buried, it seems a Jew or anyone else crucified as a punishment for rebellion could be properly buried. Perhaps treason is not the same as rebellion (betrayal rather than an uprising) and perhaps specific to Roman citizens, could explain that ruling. I also find it hard to see writers of the time all going along with a story of burial after crucifixion if everyone would know it couldn't possibly happen.

There is the side argument that doesn't affect yours that in the scenario that Pilate was helping Joseph to save Jesus, Pilate did not believe the charge of treason anyway.

[fredonly]

But I still have a problem with ALL crucifixion being punishment for rebellion

It was documented law that crucifixion was the penalty for treason, sedition, and runaway slaves. Jesus was not a runaway slave, so it had to be for treason or sedition.

Regarding the possibility of burial: anything is possible, but the issue is: is it likely? Jehohanan's bones were found, but it doesn't imply he received a ln honorable, or same day, burial.

[TRANSPONDER]

But I still have a problem with ALL crucifixion being punishment for rebellion

It was documented law that crucifixion was the penalty for treason, sedition, and runaway slaves. Jesus was not a runaway slave, so it had to be for treason or sedition.

Regarding the possibility of burial: anything is possible, but the issue is: is it likely? Jehohanan's bones were found, but it doesn't imply he received a ln honorable, or same day, burial.

"Crucifixion: Unique Archaeological Evidence from Jerusalem ...
Vassilios Tzaferis, of the Israeli Department of Antiquities, discovered the bones of a crucified man in a stone ossuary hidden in a mortuary cave. The man's name, Yehohanan ben Hagkol, marked in Hebrew on the ossuary, suggests that he was crucified somewhere between 4 B.C. and 70 A.D."

The stone ossuary implies that a Jewish rebel could nevertheless get a proper burial, if someone though he deserved it. The Roman view of what traitors deserved is not the issue. Jews crucified for striving against Roman occupation were probably regarded as martyred heroes. I repeat that the gospels could not have hinged on a burial claim that everyone knew wasn't possible. It had to be credible.

I have my Doubts of course, but the impossibility of Jesus being put in a tomb is not to me a serious problem.

[POI]

I have my Doubts of course, but the impossibility of Jesus being put in a tomb is not to me a serious problem.

Maybe not for you, or some, but for many others, it poses a huge problem. Meaning, it even further exposes the untrustworthiness of the Gospel accounts. And this is before we get to the uber extra-ordinary claims in question, like the claims of the 'supernatural'.

[fredonly]

suggests that he was crucified somewhere between 4 B.C. and 70 A.D."

The stone ossuary implies that a Jewish rebel could nevertheless get a proper burial, if someone though he deserved it. The Roman view of what traitors deserved is not the issue. Jews crucified for striving against Roman occupation were probably regarded as martyred heroes.

The Roman view of what traitors deserved is EXACTLY the issue: Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority, and the apparent charge was treason. Martyred hero?! There's no evidence Jesus was striving against Roman occupation or was considered a hero by local Jews.

I repeat that the gospels could not have hinged on a burial claim that everyone knew wasn't possible. It had to be credible.

We now know what the Roman practices are because we have access to writings of the time. The vast majority of the population at the time were illiterate and unlikely to understand either the law or the common practices.

Here's an excerpt from Bart Ehrman's blog, in which he discusses Yehonanan:

Since this is the only crucified victim whose remains are known to survive, out of the many tens of thousands of people crucified in the ancient world, it cannot be used to establish a “practice” or a “pattern” of burial. One instance is not a pattern. It is an instance. Is it the exception or the rule? There’s simply no way to know. ..

...the excavator of the tomb indicated that it gave signs that the family connected with Yehohanan was aristocratic and well-placed. That was not the case with Jesus. We know that aristocrats sometimes carried clout that no one else did (Josephus himself, for example, who was at the very top of the aristocratic-elite-heap, was able to assert his considerable influence to have three associates of his taken down off their crosses because of his personal connection with the general Titus; no one else would have dared even try!). Did one of Yehohan’s relatives assert influence to retrieve his body?

Most significant of all: how long was Yehohanan on the cross after he died? WE HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW. Was he taken off the cross the afternoon of his death? There is no evidence. Was he left to the elements and scavengers for several days, as was the Roman practice? We have no evidence. So is his ankle bone evidence for bodies being taken from their crosses on the days of their deaths? No, it is no evidence. (Let me stress this connection: I DO think that Jesus’ remains were eventually buried. That is, the Romans did *something* with his corpse, presumably after a few days; possibly they dumped it in a common grave. So too Yehohanan’s relatives, as aristocrats, may have been allowed – after some days – to place his body in a tomb, from which they retrieved his skeleton a year later).

We do know that they did not overlook the practice in times of war. And we recognize the ideological reasons for the practice in the first place. Part of the punishment of crucifixion, in addition to the rather nasty fact itself of being tortured to death, was not to be allowed a decent burial. Anyone who crosses the power of Rome is faced with that power in the most brutal way possible. The person is rendered helpless on a cross to die a slow and excruciating death in full public view, and after death to be left to the elements and the scavenging animals. The Romans wanted to exercise that power in *particular* for enemies of the state. Rome punished these people severely and did not care if the locals found it offensive to their cultural or religious sensitivities. Jesus was condemned as an enemy of the state. Given all the balance of probabilities, one way or the other, … I think it is most likely that he did not receive a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea, or by anyone else, on the day of his death. He was probably left on his cross for days, in accordance with standard Roman practice.

(here's the link, but it's behind a paywall)

[TRANSPONDER]

I have my Doubts of course, but the impossibility of Jesus being put in a tomb is not to me a serious problem.

Maybe not for you, or some, but for many others, it poses a huge problem. Meaning, it even further exposes the untrustworthiness of the Gospel accounts. And this is before we get to the uber extra-ordinary claims in question, like the claims of the 'supernatural'.

Sure, but for reasons i gave the claim that a proper burial of a crucified victim could not happen is not one that bothers me. Though I'm open to other arguments. The claim that Rome would not allow traitors to be buried seems one that requires clarification.