Johnny Skeptic

Suffice it to say that the four eyewitnesses that the New Testament mentions who saw Jesus put in Joseph's tomb, Joseph, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, is not sufficient evidence where Jesus was buried. I would sure like to know what extra-Biblical historical evidence there is where Jesus was buried.

In my opinion, the issues of WHERE Jesus was buried, and WHO saw him buried, are much more important than the issue that the tomb was EMPTY. It does little good to cite a specific empty tomb as evidence if you cannot reasonably prove that the body was in a specific tomb in the first place. If some people actually saw an empty tomb, unless they also saw the body put in the tomb, how could they be reasonably certain that the body was ever in the tomb?

scott gray

there is a fascinating debate between william craig and bert erhman about the historicity of jesus' resurrection here:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments...surrdebate.htm

what i find most interesting is the idea of what constitutes historical method: high corroboration, low collaboration, and documents written close to the event. you decide if the evidence presented is rigorous enough in these criteria.

where jesus was buried and whether he rose again is historically interesting, but is not where the important meaning lies (except to st. paul!) for many christians. even non-believers can the see the metaphorical value in the resurrection story as one of the ways we experience conversion: one dies to an old idea, or worldview, spends time in the tomb(thinking!), and rises to a new understanding.

it's historicity is interesting, but not that important. it's the meaning that matters.

peace,

scott

Johnny Skeptic

I agree with you, but my chief intended audience is fundamentalist Christians, and most them care a lot about the empty tomb, and frequentlyu use it in debates.

Regarding the Resurrection, I consider it to be a trivial issue even if it is true. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead, would Christians worship him? Of course not. All that the Resurrection has to do with on its own is power, nothing more. In order to be of any value in debates, it would have to be incorporated with reasonable proof regarding what Jesus said, and what he did other than rising from the dead.

scott gray

it would be interesting to see what historical evidence outside of the christian and hebrew scriptures a christian might offer, in support of the historical methodology described in the date, would it not? in the debate, craig did not offer much, and he's an expert. most christians, unless dedicated scholars, can only rely on scriptural evidence, and it is collaborative (each book is written form the last one), and not near the date of the event (gospels dated 70-130 CE). not rigorous at all.

i've always felt that christians were in the 'meaning' business, not the 'truth' business. there is rich meaning in the texts, the traditions, the social justice responses, none of which is based on the truths they believe it to be.

but the meaning is important. christians would do well to uncouple their 'meanings' from their 'truths.'

jeremyp

That's not true actually. At least one Christian never used the empty tomb argument and that Christian was Saint Paul. In fact, he had to rely on the fallacy of adverse consequences:

"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain."

1 Corinthians 15:12-15 NRSV

Toby Beau

The empty tomb and appearances simply drip with mythology. I just finished a little essay where I found and summarized the 8 different accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances and showed how none can be true if the others are false. I'm not a historian, so I'm not sure how much one could peel away to find any historical significance or fact. But I'm sure it's little or nothing.
Here's the link. It's all original work so I'd appreciate if you asked me if you feel like copying it or something. Thanks!
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfvpb73w_89chngzj

samurai

[QUOTE=stuart shepherd;4714098]You need to think that

1. the stone was sealed by Romans. If the stone was opened by those nefarious men, the Roman guards will never guard it anymore! But they did gurad the sepulchre, meaning that the body was still there and the seal was not broken.

2. that the disciples/apostles of Jesus Christ on that time (after burial) were very freightened


3.

Toby Beau

WOW! Holy Shit! I never noticed that before! I've been keeping my eye out for logical fallacies in the bible. This is TEXT BOOK fallacy of adverse consequences. Thanks for posting that!

aa5874

The 'stolen body' theory makes no sense, the authors of the NT and the early church fathers claimed and must have been satisfied that Jesus raised himself from the dead.

But in any event, if Jesus was seen alive after he was arrrested, it should be obvious that he never died.

aa5874

There is no need to prove anything, it just has to be accepted as legendary tales. I accepted stories of Apollo, Vesta, Hercules, and Christ as legendary tales without any proof .