Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 05-18-2010, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In my post #16, I said "the title of this thread is 'If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?' That assumes for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances. My intention in starting this thread was not to question the Resurrection, but to show that the empty tomb argument is useless for Christians to use."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you seem not to understand that I am saying that the empty tomb is an issue once you assume Jesus made post-resurrection appearances.

Jesus could NOT be in the tomb at the same time he was making appearances.

Or if the body of Jesus WAS still in the tomb then it was not Jesus who was making post-resurrection appearances.

The empty tomb must be an issue.

Not the way that Christians use it. Only a "particular" tomb would be useful to Christians. The empty tomb would not be an issue if a person thought that when they saw Jesus, they might have seen a hallucination, and could have checked out the tomb for verification. That is because Christians cannot reasonably prove that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that the body was not stolen or moved.

The same argument applies to the Christian claim that if the body was still in the tomb, critics could have produced the body.

If Jesus made appearances, that would imply an empty, unknown burial location, but since the burial location was unknown, it could not have been successfully used as additional evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously, a known burial location would be much better evidence than an unknown burial location. A known burial location, plus guards at the tomb, would make the hallucination argument less attractive if the burial location was found to be empty, and it would make the "if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body" argument much more attractive to Christians.

I believe that the story of the guards is the most important part of the events at the tomb, and the main reason why the empty tomb is a useless argument for Christians.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-18-2010, 11:45 PM

Message to brianscott1977: Please reply to my post #16.

Doug Shaver · 05-19-2010, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?

It was not an issue until modern-day apologists like Craig made it an issue.

So far as I'm aware, there is not a shred of evidence in any extant first- or second-century writing, other than Matthew's uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegation that "This story has been spread among the Jews until this day," that there ever any concern about whether there was any empty tomb that anybody could check to see whether there was a body still in it.

aa5874 · 05-19-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In my post #16, I said "the title of this thread is 'If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?' That assumes for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances. My intention in starting this thread was not to question the Resurrection, but to show that the empty tomb argument is useless for Christians to use."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you seem not to understand that I am saying that the empty tomb is an issue once you assume Jesus made post-resurrection appearances.

Jesus could NOT be in the tomb at the same time he was making appearances.

Or if the body of Jesus WAS still in the tomb then it was not Jesus who was making post-resurrection appearances.

The empty tomb must be an issue.

Not the way that Christians use it. Only a "particular" tomb would be useful to Christians. The empty tomb would not be an issue if a person thought that when they saw Jesus, they might have seen a hallucination, and could have checked out the tomb for verification. That is because Christians cannot reasonably prove that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that the body was not stolen or moved.

But, you are in a quite contradictory position.

You are assuming Jesus made post-resurrection appearances and still want to claim or assume that the resurrection story as found in gMatthew is not credible.

Once you assume Jesus made post-ascension appearances then the tomb, wherever it was, must be empty.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-19-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you assume Jesus made post-ascension appearances then the tomb, wherever it was, must be empty.

That is correct, but that does not help Christians who claim that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body, and that if a man thought that he might have had a hallucination, he could have checked out the empty tomb.

The title of this thread is "If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?" What I meant was "If Jesus made personal appearances, that would not help Christians who claim that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body, and that if a man thought that he might have had a hallucination, he could have checked out the empty tomb."

I should have made that more clear in the opening post.

The empty tomb is a useless argument for Christians to use, and it calls into question the integrity of the Bible. How can William Lane Craig be right about the guards? Only Matthew mentions them. The only other source that Craig uses is the Gospel of Peter, which is not a good source, and Craig only says that it "may" be an independent source. In one of my previous posts, I showed that it is not an independent source.

The followers of Jesus were a very small, uninfluential group. Even N.T. Wright and James Holding admit that. Since they did not believe that Jesus would rise from the dead, they would not have gone around boasting that he would rise from the dead. Since virtually no one else would have paid any attention to a very small, uninfluential group of religious fanatics even if they had known about them, the posting of guards at the tomb would have been very unlikely.

There is not reasonable proof that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Even if there was, if guards were not posted at the tomb, the body could have been stolen or moved.

Some Christians claim that even if guards were not posted at the tomb, Jesus' enemies would have closely watched it, but virtually no one would have paid any attention to a very small, uninfluential group of religious fanatics even if they had known about them.

Simply stated, Jesus' followers did not believe that he would rise from the dead, and did not boast that he would rise from the dead. No one else believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. That means than only Jesus believed that he would rise from the dead. Now who in the world would have been concerned with the opinion of one man, who only had a very tiny, uninfluential group of followers, who everyone believed would die, and would not rise from the dead?

brianscott1977 · 05-20-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think most Christians would agree that the empty tomb in isolation, i.e., without the appearances of the risen Christ to his followers, is not a sufficient basis for an argument for the resurrection.

I do not care what Christian doctrine says. There was not a global flood. There were no Ten Plagues in Egypt. God did not give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compenastion for his failure to defeat Tyre. Jesus did not perform many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and many more miracles that were not recorded. If Jesus performed miracles, his exploits would have been unprecendented in human history, and he would have become the biggest celebrity in the entire Middle East. First century, non-Christian history does not confirm that Jesus performed miracles.

I did not say that Jesus’ identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb. I have argued in another thread at this forum, or in another thread at the Abrahamic Religions forum, that if Jesus rose from the dead, an empty tomb would not have been needed as evidence. It is many Christians who make a big deal out of the empty tomb, not me. The empty tomb is a useless argument for Christians to use. When Matthew wrote the story of the guards at the tomb, he needlessly caused a lot of debates in the future. The Crucifixion and Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances, if true, are all that is needed to reasonably prove that Jesus from from the dead. The story of the guards weakens the case for the Resurrection since it is so improbable. Even if the story of the guards is true, Matthew should not have written about them. Since Jesus' followers did not believe that he would rise from the dead, they would not have gone around boasting that he would rise from the dead. Virtually no one else would have paid any attention to a tiny, uninfluential group of religious fanatics even if they had been aware of them. Thus, it is very improbable that guards would have been posted at the tomb. If Jesus rose from the dead, only then would critics have tried to explain the empty tomb. If Jesus rose from the dead, his supporters would have had a difficult time reasonably proving where his body was buried, and that it had not been moved or stolen.

I said:

I said "'IF' his identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb.......," not "'THAT' his identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb. I did not intend to imply that if Jesus rose from the dead, an empty tomb would have still been needed as evidence that he had risen from the dead. I said that in order to address claims that some Christians make that the empty tomb adds credibility to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. For example, some Christians claim that if a person thought that they might have had a hallucination, they could have checked the empty tomb. That is not a good argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Jesus resurrection would have been disproven if his body was still in the tomb (so the disciples went to check), but I know of no reason to think that his identity could not have been proven without an empty tomb.

As I said, "some Christians claim that if a person thought that they might have had a hallucination, they could have checked the empty tomb. That is not a good argument."

Regarding "Jesus resurrection would have been disproven if his body was still in the tomb," that is not a good argument. First of all, there is not any credible evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Second of all, even if the body was buried in Joseph's tomb, it might have been stolen or moved.

The title of this thread is "If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?" That assumes for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances. My intention in starting this thread was not to question the Resurrection, but to show that the empty tomb argument is useless for Christians to use.

This post is a little scattered, so for the sake of brevity I will just respond to the issue at hand.

An empty tomb on its own does not a resurrection make.

The tomb is often used in Christian messages because of its powerful narrative nature that brings history and doctrine home on a personal level. In telling the story of the empty tomb a historical event, a theological belief, and an emotional understanding all meet in one.

Since for this thread you are granting that Jesus made personal appearances after his death, you are right that the empty tomb is not an issue. It is merely a means of explaining what happened in a way that makes sense to most people.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-20-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

An empty tomb on its own does not a resurrection make.

Right, nor does a resurrection on its own a particular empty tomb make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

The tomb is often used in Christian messages because of its powerful narrative nature that brings history and doctrine home on a personal level. In telling the story of the empty tomb a historical event, a theological belief, and an emotional understanding all meet in one.

Since for this thread you are granting that Jesus made personal appearances after his death, you are right that the empty tomb is not an issue. It is merely a means of explaining what happened in a way that makes sense to most people.

That is fine except when Christians use the empty tomb in order to try to make the events at the tomb and the resurrection of Jesus look more probable. Many Christians claim that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body. That is not a good argument. Many Christians claim that if a person thought that they had seen a hallucination, they could have checked out the empty tomb. That is not a good argument either.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-20-2010, 02:26 PM

Message to brianscott1977: Please make a post in my thread at http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?...56#post6387556.

Cege · 05-20-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

An empty tomb on its own does not a resurrection make.

Right, nor does a resurrection on its own a particular empty tomb make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

The tomb is often used in Christian messages because of its powerful narrative nature that brings history and doctrine home on a personal level. In telling the story of the empty tomb a historical event, a theological belief, and an emotional understanding all meet in one.

Since for this thread you are granting that Jesus made personal appearances after his death, you are right that the empty tomb is not an issue. It is merely a means of explaining what happened in a way that makes sense to most people.

That is fine except when Christians use the empty tomb in order to try to make the events at the tomb and the resurrection of Jesus look more probable. Many Christians claim that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body. That is not a good argument. Many Christians claim that if a person thought that they had seen a hallucination, they could have checked out the empty tomb. That is not a good argument either.

I think that Christians do use the events, as you state above, at the empty tomb to make the resurrection of Jesus look more probable. There is more described in the gospels than just an empty tomb. The stone is rolled back, there are one or more men in white clothing at the empty tomb with messages about resurrection, and there are the burial wrapping cloths left behind. Details are given in the gospels in attempt to make the resurrection more believeable.

I agree with you that the sightings of the resurrected Jesus were crucial to the story of resurrection and that the empty tomb alone would not have been convincing. Other resurrections described in the gospels (Lazarus, a couple of children, long-dead saints) relied on those once-dead people having been later seen alive, rather than just their empty tombs or empty death beds observed.

Both the stories surrounding the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances reported in the gospels, in Acts, and in Pauline letters seem necessary for some people to have believed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

brianscott1977 · 05-20-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

An empty tomb on its own does not a resurrection make.

Right, nor does a resurrection on its own a particular empty tomb make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

The tomb is often used in Christian messages because of its powerful narrative nature that brings history and doctrine home on a personal level. In telling the story of the empty tomb a historical event, a theological belief, and an emotional understanding all meet in one.

Since for this thread you are granting that Jesus made personal appearances after his death, you are right that the empty tomb is not an issue. It is merely a means of explaining what happened in a way that makes sense to most people.

That is fine except when Christians use the empty tomb in order to try to make the events at the tomb and the resurrection of Jesus look more probable. Many Christians claim that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, critics could have produced the body. That is not a good argument. Many Christians claim that if a person thought that they had seen a hallucination, they could have checked out the empty tomb. That is not a good argument either.

I think I understand the case you are making better, so let’s see if I can provide a more complete response:

If we assume that the disciples (for whatever reason) believe that Jesus rose from the dead so they went to the grave and found it empty. What could have happened?

1. They went to the wrong grave.
This suggests that the women (Mary Magdalene twice), Peter, John, and (I assume) later on the rest of the Apostles all went to the same wrong grave. So did the Pharisees if they wanted to dispute the resurrection. This doesn’t make much sense because eventually somebody would have gone to the right place.

2. Joseph of Arimathea moved the body.
Why would he do that? Why would he move Jesus’ body without telling Jesus closest followers, and why would he remain silent when people started to claim that Jesus rose from the dead?
Beyond this, when would he do it? Jesus was buried on Friday night and the women went to the tomb early Sunday morning. The only time in-between was Saturday, the Sabbath. A Jew like Joseph would never moved a buried body on the Sabbath. (I know that we are not told directly that he was Jewish, but the fact that he was a disciple of Jesus, was in Jerusalem during the Passover, had a tomb in Jerusalem, and had a distinctly Hebrew name all make a strong case for him being Jewish.)

3. Pilate or some Roman official moved the body.
Again, why? What reason could they have for doing this, and why would they remain silent when people claimed that Jesus rose from the dead?

4. Grave robbers.
Jesus was a crucified criminal who's body had not even been anointed, so he would have nothing of value on him. The grave robbers would have to have been after body parts. This did happen in the ancient world, but it was rare – most grave robbers wanted valuables.
This theory requires that these grave robbers who were after body parts went to this commentary of all commentaries, and of all the remains they chose to take the entire body of the one person who had disciples who believe that he had risen from the dead. At what point does an event become so unlikely that it take a divine act to beat the odds?

5. Something supernatural took place (like a resurrection).

And of course the first four options are dependent on the story of guards being false - a theory that thus far has only been supported with speculation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2010, 11:45 PM	#22
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to brianscott1977: Please reply to my post #16.

05-20-2010, 02:26 PM	#28
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to brianscott1977: Please make a post in my thread at http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?...56#post6387556.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.