Huon

So, we should understand that "he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" is a fact, not a miracle ?

rhutchin

That may be, but it seems that his paragraph following those facts suffers for the same reason.

rhutchin

Does Paul have to specifically mention that Jesus was buried "in a tomb." Does anything prevent Paul assuming a basic foundation of knowledge (perhaps gained from his preaching) covering such things?

rhutchin

Why not take it as both fact and miracle?

Johnny Skeptic

What method do you recommend?

Why are ancient documents needed for religion? What is wrong with deism?

How do you define the word "fact"? What is an example of a fact that is already in evidence, and an example of a fact that is not already in evidence? Is the global flood a fact already in evidence, or a fact not already in evidence? How do you propose that people evaluate the claim that a global flood occured?

Are you proposing that the methods for evaluating supernatural claims and and non-supernatural claims should be the same?

Do you agree with me that Christians should not use the empty tomb argument to try to reasonably prove that Jesus rose from the dead? If Jesus had not made any personal appearances after he rose from the dead, obviously, almost no one would have made an issue out of the empty tomb. The Resurrection implies an empty burial place of some kind. An empty burial place does not imply that Jesus rose from the dead.

rhutchin

I recommend using ancient documents as one means to do so.

rhutchin

Ancient documents help us to understand what people believed. What advantage does deism convey on people?

Given that Jesus was in the tomb, it does support the argument that Jesus was dead, if only temporarily.

That seems obvious.

The empty burial tomb tells us that Jesus was dead making the resurrection pretty impressive.

show_no_mercy

The point being that you have no grounds for assuming that Paul was talking about burial in a tomb, unless you appeal to "traditions" and "basic foundational knowledge" which we have no way of demonstrating that his Corinthian church knew about.

You assume that Paul is talking about burial in a tomb. This assumption is unjustified based on the data (Paul's letters) at hand.

Juststeve

The critical portion of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is apologetic in nature. He is offering evidence in support of his claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Had he known of an empty tomb he would have likely mentioned it. That he didn’t is some evidence for the proposition that Paul knew nothing of an empty tomb.

I know of no evidence prior to the Gospel of Mark that anyone knew about an empty tomb.

Steve

Johnny Skeptic

The Resurrection implies an empty tomb, but an emtpy tomb does not imply the Resurrection. It "first" took Jesus making personal appearances in order for the emtpy tomb to be an issue at all. If Jesus had not made any personal appearances, almost no one would have believed that he had risen from the dead. Since the empty tomb did not even convince Peter and Mary Magdalene that Jesus had rise from the dead, the empty tomb would not have convinced critics that Jesus rose from the dead.

Valid empty tomb arguments can only be made "after" valid arguments are made that Jesus made personal appearances after he rose from the dead.

A living Jesus would have been much better evidence than an empty tomb. If one of your dead relative's grave was found empty, would you conclude that he rose from the dead? Of course not. On the other hand, if his grave was empty, and you saw someone who claimed to be him, and looked exactly like him, and answered all of your questions about past events that you shared with him, you would probably conclude that your relative had risen from the dead.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb?