show_no_mercy

Of course. Someone trying to argue that the empty tomb implies the resurrection would be guilty of Affirming the Consequent.

Johnny Skeptic

Of course. In the first century A.D., very few people became Christians. If Jesus did not perform miracles, that is easily understandable since local people would have discredited claims that Jesus performed miracles.

Many ancient documents claim that supernatural events occured. Is it your position that the same methods should be used to evaluate supernatural claims and secular claims?

How do you propose that people evaluate the claim that a global flood occured?

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?

Paul does NOT mention the empty tomb, he does not even use the word "tomb".

How can you claim a passage that does NOT even mention the empty tomb as evidence for it ?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Yes!

If you want to claim he knew of the empty tomb, then YES he needs to mention it.

Otherwise you are just making it up as you want.


K.

Juststeve

If you credit the Gospel accounts Jesus was not buried at all. He was placed in a tomb which is not being buried. Being buried was the ultimate fate of most crucifixion victims, buried in a common grave after the body had hung on the cross as long as the Romans wanted.

Paul’s use of the word buried instead of entombed suggest that he was thinking of the regular burial, not an elaborate entombment in a rich mans tomb. That tale is unknown to Paul. Why? Perhaps because it was made up later.

Steve

Johnny Skeptic

Is it your position that the same methods should be used to evaluate supernatural claims and secular claims?

How do you propose that people evaluate the claim that a global flood occured?

Johnny Skeptic

When the Gospel writers made up the stories of the events at the tomb, they thought that an empty tomb would imply the Resurrection, but the reverse is true, meaning that the Resurrection implies an empty tomb. Even Peter and Mary Magdalene were not convinced by the empty tomb. The Roman government in Palestine, and the Pharisees would not have been convinced either.

The empty tomb is a useless argument for Christians without prior evidence that Jesus made some personal appearances after he rose from the dead. If Jesus made some personal appearances after he rose from the dead, an empty tomb would not have been needed.

Doug Shaver

By itself, it doesn't help at all. What helps them is the constant reassurances of apologists with PhDs, e.g. William Lane Craig, that the only reasonable explanation for the empty tomb is an actual resurrection.

Doug Shaver

None. If the facts are not in evidence, you can't use them, period.

Paul said that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. He didn't say one word about a tomb, empty or otherwise.

Doug Shaver

Yes, he does, if you're going to offer his testimony as evidence for early Christian belief in an empty tomb.

He could have assumed anything, but we have no record of his assumptions. The only record we have is what he wrote.