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]

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.

Well, it was Rome who ordered the crucifixion. As The Tanager pointed out, Roman crucifixions were for deterrence. And as I also pointed out, Roman crucifixions were also for burial denial/humiliation. If Jesus was ordered another type of execution by the Romans, then you have more of a case. But the entire point of this type of execution completely defies the Gospel claims of a same day single man burial and the need for any deterrence. The Gospel writers likely wanted him buried in a single tomb, so 'women' could soon easily report Jesus missing. This lends more credence to the appearances claim(s).

[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.

Well, it was Rome who ordered the crucifixion. As The Tanager pointed out, Roman crucifixions were for deterrence. And as I also pointed out, Roman crucifixions were also for burial denial/humiliation. If Jesus was ordered another type of execution by the Romans, then you have more of a case. But the entire point of this type of execution completely defies the Gospel claims of a same day single man burial and the need for any deterrence. The Gospel writers likely wanted him buried in a single tomb, so 'women' could soon easily report Jesus missing. This lends more credence to the appearances claim(s).

Yes. crucifixion was a specific humiliating death for rebellion and the like, beginning with Persia and going on with the Hasmoneans and Herodians, as well as Rome. I had a look but couldn't find anything helpful about whether burial was forbidden for traitors or rebels. I suspect once the body was taken down and discarded,they didn't care what happened to it. I doubt they would police relatives or friends who saw the victim as a martyred hero.
And I repeat that example of Johanan in a proper sepulchre is strong evidence, and why the gospels would claim something they knew couldn't happen bothers me too.

[POI]

** Patiently awaiting Christians to chime in... You and I merely do not trust the Bible, starting at a differing point

Yes. crucifixion was a specific humiliating death for rebellion and the like, beginning with Persia and going on with the Hasmoneans and Herodians, as well as Rome. I had a look but couldn't find anything helpful about whether burial was forbidden for traitors or rebels. I suspect once the body was taken down and discarded,they didn't care what happened to it. I doubt they would police relatives or friends who saw the victim as a martyred hero.

This was an area I debated with The Tanager. The timeline is very important here. The Gospels need him buried "lickity split" so he could soon be reported to be risen. The claim is that Jesus was taken off of the cross shortly after he died and was "washed and placed in a singular tomb" before the Sabbath. The claim The Tanager makes is that the women were going back (after the Sabbath) to also "anoint and spice the body," because they did not have enough time to finish the entire process before the Sabbath. Questions:

1) When exactly was Jesus taken off the cross? The Tanager does not know.
2) How long does it actually take to wash, anoint, spice, and bury a body? The Tanager does not know.
3) Then how do we know there was not enough time to complete the burial process before the Sabbath? Dunno... But let's trust the Gospel account(s).
4) Are individuals sentenced with treason/sedition allowed a proper burial by Romans, which are sometimes ordered to be crucified? The Tanager would argue no.
5) If a man was really claimed to have been 'the truth in everything', you do not think Pilate would have just sentenced him with treason/sedition? Pilate was not known for having much of a conscious about the ones he ordered to be executed.
6) How are we to trust 'Joseph' was granted permission to take down Jesus's "treason/sedition sentenced" body almost immediately after his death, being the Romans ordered his death by crucifixion, and not some other type of sentenced death? See questions 4 and 5, and also apply more common sense.

And I repeat that example of Johanan in a proper sepulchre is strong evidence, and why the gospels would claim something they knew couldn't happen bothers me too.

But again, when was his body taken down?

[TRANSPONDER]

Quickly. That at least is agreed by all four gospels. If one doesn't credit that one need not even discuss the matter.

So the body is taken down before a crucifixion is normally over (it can take days) and the approaching Sabbath is given as the reason. The body is then whipped into Arimathea's handy tomb double quick.

Whether it was covered by a cloth without washing (I really think we can discard Johns' pile of spices along with his body -bands) or Arimathea or the women or anybody else prepared the body for an hour or so, with one eye on the clock, is beside the point when it comes to whether Jesus was put in a tomb rather than dumped in a ditch and nobody would touch the body.

Accepted that being put in a tomb at least is credible, the timescale and possibility of a proper preparation is another matter and i can leave that to you and the Tanager. I'm just saying crucifixion does not rule out a proper tomb, even if the timescale rules out a proper burial.

Mind, it does raise questions about why (if that was why the women went to the tomb) that wasn't the reason given, and why they didn't arrange for assistance to open the tomb. It is why i see plot construction. That is, the reason why wasn't an existing true fact, it was something the story inventors hadn't worked out.

[POI]

Quickly. That at least is agreed by all four gospels. If one doesn't credit that one need not even discuss the matter.

So the body is taken down before a crucifixion is normally over (it can take days) and the approaching Sabbath is given as the reason. The body is then whipped into Arimathea's handy tomb double quick.

Whether it was covered by a cloth without washing (I really think we can discard Johns' pile of spices along with his body -bands) or Arimathea or the women or anybody else prepared the body for an hour or so, with one eye on the clock, is beside the point when it comes to whether Jesus was put in a tomb rather than dumped in a ditch and nobody would touch the body.

Accepted that being put in a tomb at least is credible, the timescale and possibility of a proper preparation is another matter and i can leave that to you and the Tanager. I'm just saying crucifixion does not rule out a proper tomb, even if the timescale rules out a proper burial.

Mind, it does raise questions about why (if that was why the women went to the tomb) that wasn't the reason given, and why they didn't arrange for assistance to open the tomb. It is why i see plot construction. That is, the reason why wasn't an existing true fact, it was something the story inventors hadn't worked out.

The overarching point here, is that if we cannot validate/trust the lesser claim(s), then what makes the larger ones still credible? (i.e.) that 'Jesus has risen'. Where does the Bible's accountability truly begin? If the details leading up to the 'resurrection' claim are full of holes, and/or make little sense, are we to still believe the later claims of "appearances"?

As others have argued, and I would agree, Jesus did not need to be buried in a single tomb. HOWEVER, all the series of claims, leading UP TO a 'resurrection' assert Jesus was tried, sentenced, executed, and buried in a specific type of way. If some/all of this does not follow, why STILL grant faith that he rose anyways?

[TRANSPONDER]

Quickly. That at least is agreed by all four gospels. If one doesn't credit that one need not even discuss the matter.

So the body is taken down before a crucifixion is normally over (it can take days) and the approaching Sabbath is given as the reason. The body is then whipped into Arimathea's handy tomb double quick.

Whether it was covered by a cloth without washing (I really think we can discard Johns' pile of spices along with his body -bands) or Arimathea or the women or anybody else prepared the body for an hour or so, with one eye on the clock, is beside the point when it comes to whether Jesus was put in a tomb rather than dumped in a ditch and nobody would touch the body.

Accepted that being put in a tomb at least is credible, the timescale and possibility of a proper preparation is another matter and i can leave that to you and the Tanager. I'm just saying crucifixion does not rule out a proper tomb, even if the timescale rules out a proper burial.

Mind, it does raise questions about why (if that was why the women went to the tomb) that wasn't the reason given, and why they didn't arrange for assistance to open the tomb. It is why i see plot construction. That is, the reason why wasn't an existing true fact, it was something the story inventors hadn't worked out.

The overarching point here, is that if we cannot validate/trust the lesser claim(s), then what makes the larger ones still credible? (i.e.) that 'Jesus has risen'. Where does the Bible's accountability truly begin? If the details leading up to the 'resurrection' claim are full of holes, and/or make little sense, are we to still believe the later claims of "appearances"?

As others have argued, and I would agree, Jesus did not need to be buried in a single tomb. HOWEVER, all the series of claims, leading UP TO a 'resurrection' assert Jesus was tried, sentenced, executed, and buried in a specific type of way. If some/all of this does not follow, why STILL grant faith that he rose anyways?

It's like this; right from the start, common story with all 4 gospels deserved more credibility than contradictory ones.

Thus I distinguish between the broad outlines of a crucifixion and the resurrections unified by nothing but the claim of resurrection. The crucifixion has the extra point (to me) that Christians would never have invented crucifixion by Rome, no less that they had to work hard to blame on someone else. On the other hand the resurrection show progression from an empty tomb and explanation to Jesus showing up in Matthew and an evening appearance in Luke and John. Thus one with some claim to coherence cannot be compared to one that has no coherence.

Thus the consideration of the burial in a tomb has to be considered seriously,including whether it is credible that a crucified body could be properly buried. The evidence of Johanan seems to suggest that it is possible and I argue that the story would not exist if it was impossible.

Now, the credibility of the arrest, trial and crucifixion is a different thread from 'The Tomb'. I do have questions about it (and Theories ) like...

Jesus protesteth too much that he is not at all like a dangerous robber.
The blasphemy charge makes no sense other than to Christians
I think Pilate thinking Jesus innocent is a Christian (Roman) device to excuse Rome from Jesus death. Pilate would have done for Jesus simply on the Temple fracas - which Pilate surely knew about.
The Passover release custom is not known and I think is a plot device to make the Jews choose Barabbas (the insurrectionist) and Christian Jesus (absolutely not an insurrectionist) is rejected by the Jews who thus lose the Jewish war, as the gospels predict.
Jesus is charged with a sedition claim and receives the punishment for rebels.

With the credible (to me) claim of Jesus bunged in the cave, so far as i'm concerned, the body can stay there or be carried to Galilee and the discussion is about why (if Jesus stayed dead) the disciples claimed he'd risen. and there's always the Shroud, too great discussions, but not the slam dunk evidence the Believers think it is.

[fredonly]

Imagine hearing a story about something that occurred to a well-known man in 1983, who is now deceased. No one knows the source of the story. Everyone who was around at the time is now deceased, and there's no record of any of them actually relating or confirming the events in the story. As far as we can tell, no one was even telling this story until last year, and there’s no evidence the events depicted in the story actually occurred, other than the story itself. But the events described in the story are so unusual and fascinating, that the story has captured the popular imagination so that everyone in the area has heard it, and many have repeated it.

Is it reasonable to assume the events in the story actually occurred?

[TRANSPONDER]

Imagine hearing a story about something that occurred to a well-known man in 1983, who is now deceased. No one knows the source of the story. Everyone who was around at the time is now deceased, and there's no record of any of them actually relating or confirming the events in the story. As far as we can tell, no one was even telling this story until last year, and there’s no evidence the events depicted in the story actually occurred, other than the story itself. But the events described in the story are so unusual and fascinating, that the story has captured the popular imagination so that everyone in the area has heard it, and many have repeated it.

Is it reasonable to assume the events in the story actually occurred?

We will probably query it. But we don't need hypotheticals. We have Joseph Smith; we have L. Ron Hubbard. We have reliable records of their lives. We even have records of their inventions, frauds, manipulations and false claims. And yet, they have founded successful and wealthy religions.

Now...which one shall I post.

Yep this one - I like the music.

[POI]

** Still waiting for Christians to chime in. .. I have a very hard time believing that observing Christians here do not have their opinion on the matter in this thread? We are only speaking about the 'greatest story ever told'.

It's like this; right from the start, common story with all 4 gospels deserved more credibility than contradictory ones.

Too me, all this could demonstrate is that they all derived from the same "source".

Thus I distinguish between the broad outlines of a crucifixion and the resurrections unified by nothing but the claim of resurrection. The crucifixion has the extra point (to me) that Christians would never have invented crucifixion by Rome, no less that they had to work hard to blame on someone else.

Your argument parallel's The Tanager's. (Paraphrased) "It must be taken more seriously since the story line would not need to be this hasty. It also means it's more earnest that the story tellers left in the reality of the details which are not needed. ". And as I pointed out to him, was that the Gospels were not yet a thing. The Gospel writers could write whatever they want. The Gospels were not a thing until centuries later. In this case, the Gospel writers could write 'believable' characteristics to make the story line more believable. The later Gospels are written, in part, to convert others. It's more convincing if it sounds relatable/believable. And yet, also unfalsifiable, as all the ones in question are long dead and could not later be deposed.

The evidence of Johanan seems to suggest that it is possible and I argue that the story would not exist if it was impossible.

Right, but when was Johanan taken off? I mean, did he rot for a while, to provide deterrence first, as crucifixions are intended? I would imagine so. Just like in much more recent times, when some middle eastern practices would hang their 'criminals' from cranes for a bit. They don't take them down immediately after they die from asphyxiation or spinal injury. But maybe are dropped from the crane a month later, after sufficient deterrence. A proper burial could still be had for this 'criminal'.

Now, the credibility of the arrest, trial and crucifixion is a different thread from 'The Tomb'. I do have questions about it (and Theories ) like...

Jesus protesteth too much that he is not at all like a dangerous robber.
The blasphemy charge makes no sense other than to Christians
The Passover release is not known and I think is a plot device to make the Jews choose Barabbas (the insurrectionist) and Christian Jesus (absolutely not an insurrectionist)
Jesus is charged with a sedition claim and receives the punishment for rebels.

With the credible (to me) claim of Jesus bunged in the cave, so far as i'm concerned, the body can stay there or be carried to Galilee and the discussion is about why (if Jesus stayed dead) the disciples claimed he's risen. and there's always the Shroud, too great discussions, but not the slam dunk evidence the Believers think it is.

Well, I think it still all relates/connects. When you read Mark, in regard to how Jesus was 'sentenced', 'executed', and how all the "post execution practices" go down, it all seems suspect. It all bleeds into each other. It's like when The Tanager asked me why the Gospel writers would mention 'women'? Well, there likely was no tomb, hence, to ask such a question is pointless. But the Gospel writers could still write whatever they wanted, as these writings were not considered canon until centuries later by the church. There would be no accountability or recourse to depose these claims regardless.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #248]
My point was that the only evidence is the story itself, and while it might pique you to look for more evidence, the story itself isn't enough to convince a rational person of its veracity. The subsequent retelling of the story, with embellishments, doesn't add credibility to it. It's acceptance by millions also doesn't constitute evidence - millions accept irrational conspiracy theories. The empty tomb story is very much like a conspiracy theory- it's accepted by those that find it appealing.