Amaleq13

How is "tomb" implied? The assumptions of "buried" and "raised on the third day" don't suggest anything beyond a hole in the ground and actually don't even suggest that the location of the hole was known to anyone.

What evidence supports this assertion?

It is meaningless.

Even if we assume that Acts is true, the claim was made too late to make any "testimony" against the empty tomb worthless. According to Acts, the disciples waited over a month before beginning to preach their gospel. Nobody would consider a pile of rotting flesh and bones in somebody else's tomb evidence that Jesus had not risen from the dead.

Taking a more rational view, the claim dates no earlier than the Gospel attributed to Mark. If you can't provide credible evidence that a man has not risen from the dead a month after the death, you surely have no hope after several decades.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Exactly! Your affirmative claim is that the Apostles worshipped and died for what they personally witnessed to be to be a dead corpse. :wave:

Orthodox_Freethinker

That still begs the question of who in their right minds would worship a dead corpse. Taking the more rational view, the Pharisees did not dispute the resurrection because they knew the Apostles to be correct. :thumbs:

Amaleq13

This question does not appear to be relevant to what I wrote.

Why did you ignore my question about your assertion?

There is nothing rational about trying to change your claim. You are supposed to be defending this assertion:

bfniii

i have spoken with J.D. Crossan personally (although he may not remember it) on this very issue at a conference in which WLC took part. if you think J.D. Crossan is convinced of anything he says or writes, you're mistaken.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Actually, it kind of does. If Jesus was buried somewhere, even not in a tomb, but did not physically rise from the dead, why would the Apostles claim that they witnessed and touched the flesh of Christ and then die for this claim?

Ok, now it seems that you misunderstood. I did not change my claim at all. The Pharisees also knew for a fact that the tomb was empty, which is why they could provide no negative testimony against the empty tomb.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Then what is his point and what does he really believe?

Sauron

I have no affirmative claim.

You and the other christians who make claims about Christ are the ones making affirmative claims here.

Sauron

1. What is your evidence for no negative testimony?
2. What is your evidence that they cared enough to worry about this?
3. What is your evidence that they knew anything about the tomb at all?

Amaleq13

Please stick to one claim until you have supported your assertion or concede it cannot be supported. The physicality of the resurrection is a separate issue from your assertion about the empty tomb. As a reminder, this is the claim you are defending:
I have argued that, even accepting your givens, there is no implication of an empty tomb.

Another unsupported assertion that has been challenged is this:
Again, what evidence supports this assertion?

Yes, this returns you to your original assertion and my original response remains the same but you don't appear to understand it. I think I'll wait to try to explain this again until after you've supported your earlier assertions.