Steven Carr

There is no evidence of an empty tomb story until Mark's Gospel.

Paul wanted to be rescued 'from his body of death' (Romans 7:24)

If shown the corpse of Jesus, he would have said that Jesus had been rescued from his body.

'You do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed...' writes Paul.

The corpse would have been the discarded case of the seed from which the resurrected Jesus 'germinated' (to continue Paul's analogy)

Hex

Wait ... You're telling me that there is no firmament?

I'd better cancel that ladder expedition to the Himalayas ... :Cheeky:

gracebkr

There is evidence of an empty tomb in the minds of the people and the way they acted which can only be explained through certain events. We know this because the Romans were irritated with the movement Jesus was leading. They were annoyed with Him and decided to squash the leader who Jews were saying performed miracles and was 'The Son of God'. The crucified Him to mock the Jews putting King of the Jews over his head. If the Romans wanted this fella and his ideas to be gone, as they had in the past of others who claimed to be the Messiah, wouldn't they have squashed the idea he rose from the dead by revealing where ever His body was?

- BTW It was not unheard of in that time to let 'criminals' be properly buried.

Steven Carr

There was no empty tomb in the minds of the early converts to Jesus-worship in Corinth who had no idea that God was supposed to resurrect corpses.

Even the early converts in Thessalonika were worried about what would happen to some of their brethren, who were now dead and were corpses.

The Romans didn't seem to care less about Christianity.

Even Acts says that you could be the follower of somebody killed for insurrection (at its simplest), claim that the person was still alive and the Roman officials wouldn't care.

gracebkr

be back to continue. Kids outta school

RareBird

You can't have one without the other. Nay? That's pretty short-sighted to say that there's a resurection from the dead--and that's the end of the story. If there's a resurection from the dead, the only two choices are going back to being dead or still being alive. Most everyone who believes in resurection ends that question by assuming a physical ascension so to take the resurection to an acceptable place. If asension is not the case, then resurection is not the case. That's not too hard now, is it?

Larsguy47

Obviously this is rather confusing. Jesus is the archangel, Michael. His life was transferred to Mary somehow so that he was born a man. When he was killed, he was raised a spirit again. But spirits and MATERIALIZE a body. When they do, they are no longer spirit. It's like they have the concentrated energy of a tiny speck that could fit on the head of a pin, but when they materialize, they introduce all this space between the energy and the elements and then the energy is expressed in terms of the physical. Scientists tell us that there is as much relative space between the nucleus of an atom and the electrons around it as there would be in the solar system between the earth and and the sun. So it's much, much, much bigger, but much less dense. So when Jesus is in the flesh he ceasts being an angel. He is either one at one time or the other.

After 40 days of being resurrected, he ascended to heaven and his right to materialize in that body was removed from him, as that body and its right to rematerialize and have children, etc. was given up in exchange for Adam's children, etc. The whole idea of his being born as a human.

LG47

gracebkr

I am really confused about what you are trying to say. I hope This is what you are looking for within the New Testament.
John 20:2

'So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

John 19:42
"Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

John 20:1
"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance."

Matthew 27:57-60
57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus.

58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.



Matthew 28:2-5

2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.

3And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.

4The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

muTron the homeless

Not to gang up on you but...according to Acts the followers of Jesus waited 50 days before going public didn't they? After over 7 weeks of time wouldn't producing a body be kind of moot? I think it's Robert Price contra Craig who pointed out that modern forensics would not have been available back in the day in question, so even if a body could have been produced what would be gained after 7 weeks of decomposition? After 7 weeks how could they prove a body was or was not Jesus?

gracebkr

The debate is resurrection, basically that Jesus was not found when the women went to clean Him before he was buried appropriately. Then what happened to make people believe He reappeared and was resurrected, I don't see where His ascension is even relevant yet. First we have to get through the basics of the first debate, we can't jump all around. People are going to have to concede the argument then move on to the next step. Jumping to the end is not methodical. We have to have consensus of the basics first.