Johnny Skeptic

Isn't the most important issue WHO saw the body buried, not WHERE it was buried? If you have credible eyewitnesses to any event, regardless of where the event happened, the eyewitnesses who saw the event can corroborate where the event occured. So, who saw the body buried? The texts say that Joseph, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary saw the body buried. That is obviously not sufficient evidence where the body was buried. I am not aware of any credible extra-Biblical evidence regarding who saw the body buried, and yet many scholars, including some skeptic scholars, claim that the body was buried in a specific place, although they do not always agree on the specific place. Now how in the world can some scholars credibly claim that the body was buried in a specific place without having accompanying evidence WHO saw the body buried in a specific place? If 1,000 people see an empty tomb, and they did not see a body put in the tomb in the first place, what good is their testimony that the tomb is empty?
Am I missing something here?

driver8

Credibility would seem to be a problem.

Take Mark 16:

First clue: lines 3 and 4 stand out to me as a literary device. Who asked who? Who recanted this encounter? Why would it matter to relate this detail other than to build drama for the unfolding scene? I guess I'm supposed to be impressed that jesus moved the stone, but I expect more from a god than this.

Second clue: lines 5 and 6 also appear to be a literary device. Is the white robe supposed to evoke mysticism? Its as though the scene needs an authoritative narrator in order to validate the observation that no one is there. Without him, there's no story, but he doesn't tell us who he is or where he got his knowledge. He's simply a device to enable.

Third clue: If, as line 8 states, the women said nothing about this, who observed and recorded this supposed incident? How do we know they "trembled?" Its these types of visual devices and emotional aids that tell me I'm reading literature, and specifically fiction.

Fourth clue: lines 7 and 8 contradict each other. If the white-robed fellow says where jesus can be found "just as he told you," why are they "bewildered" at this message?

All the gospel resurrection accounts are written as literature, and they all lead to a moral imperative to spread the gospel. How then can any of these accounts be taken at face value when they appear simply as a recruiting tool? (The same can be said of other supposed gospel miracles. They all smell of fabrication not just because of their contents but because of their style and/or their witness.) In these circumstances, I don't know why you would expect there ever was a tomb. If it had existed, I would expect it would be the ONE artifact relating to jesus that was maintained through tradition, and I would expect to be able to buy a t-shirt at the site saying I had visited jesus' tomb. Its understandable that there is such a spotty record regarding all other aspects of the story, but this one is hard to swallow.

John Kesler

Would you post a link to this newspaper article, please?

darstec

I just read a newly published book by one of the discoverers. Jesus' ossuary was said to have had some remnants when first found which disappeared during the ossuaries' loss and rediscovery. Another of the boxes were said to have bones and that one disappeared permanently. [Just like all the UFO aliens' physical evidence.]