dog-on

OAO, what would you say is more likely:

1. The empty tomb story is historical

or

2. The empty tomb story is allegorical

Considering just these two possibilities for the moment and regardless of the actual truth of either claim, explain how number 1 is more likely than number 2, rationally.

aa5874

But, an empty proves nothing about the resurrection.

Once it was claimed that Jesus was buried THREE DAYS before his body was found missing, then the empty tomb is only PROOF that the body of Jesus is missing.

It is just most absurd and illogical to even suggest that a person who was known to have died and was buried is now alive because their dead body is missing. Even the living is believed to have DIED when they cannot be found.

And it is not true that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" since WE KNOW all things deemed to be non-existing have NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

Or, if "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" then nothing can be deemed to non-existing.

Absence of evidence is therefore one of the primary factors in considering the non-existence of an entity under scrutiny.

Now, this is the truth "the absence of evidence is not ALWAYS the evidence of absence.

And you cannot prove an entity existed because of absence of evidence.

Or absence of evidence CANNOT BE evidence of existence.

The empty tomb is just evidence absence, evidence of a missing body.

Johnny Skeptic

No, since the Bible is the claimant, to show that the tomb story is true, one must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the story is more likely true than false. You are trying to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. You might as well say that the procedure in court trials should changed to "defendants must show beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not guilty." No, the opposite is the case, that "plaintiffs must show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants are guilty."

How can what you said be true since deists could say "to show the possibility that deism is fabricated, one must show that it is more likely fabricated than not"?

You ought to know that evaluating what happened thousands of years ago can be quite difficult for historians. There are so many unknown variables and possibilities about the empty tomb that it is not possible beyond a reasonable doubt to determine what happened, but it is possible beyond a reasonable doubt to determine what did not happen. What probably did not happen is that an entire group of women forgot that a tomb would not be open, and that "the very same group of women" forgot that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, in spite of the fact that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. That is virtually impossible. That is simply too much improbable forgetting. Raising a man from the dead is an incredible thing, and if a man who raised a man from the dead said that he was going to be raised from the dead too, no one is going to forget that, especially an entire group of people. It is important to note that even if the women did not believe that Jesus would rise from the dead, it is very probable that they would not have forgotten that he claimed that he would rise from the dead, certainly not the entire group. If a man raises a person from the dead, it does not take much faith to believe that he would be raised from the dead too.

You said that since women were considered to be unreliable witnesses, a fabricated story would have claimed that men discovered the emtpy tomb, which implies that if the stories were made up, they would have said that men discovered the empty tomb, but why? The word "fabricated" means "lies". Are you not aware that many religious texts are result of innocent but inaccurate revelants, not lies? The texts say that Paul had a vision. Maybe he did, but if so, so what? People of many worldviews have visions. Even atheists can have visions, but when they do, they do not believe that a God gave them the vision. Christianity might have started with visions, otherwise, innocent but inaccurate revelations. The stories about the empty tomb might have been innocent but inaccurate revelations.

If the stories about the tomb were deliberate lies, why would the writer necessarily have claimed that women discovered the tomb? That assumes that the testimonies of men would have been considered much more reliable. Generally, they would have, but not regarding a claim that a man rose from the dead. According to Matthew, even a personal appearance by Jesus himself was not enough to convince all of the disciples that he had risen from the dead. The discovery of the empty tomb was so improbable in the opinions of almost everyone that it wouldn't have made much difference whether the tomb was discovered by women or men.

On its own, the issue of the women is not enough. You must also provide credible historical evidence that the body was put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb. You have not done that. You also have not discredited the possibilities that the body was stolen or moved, and that the writers mistakenly got the location of the tomb wrong. Who saw the body put in the tomb. Who did they tell. What archaeologist evidence exists today? What literary evidence exists today?

The belief that Jesus was specifically put in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea must be accepted entirely by faith since there is not sufficient historical evidence that that was the case. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, there is not sufficient historical evidence regarding where and how he was buried. I am sure that even many Christians will agree with that.

If a God inspired the Bible, he deliberately created lots of needless doubt and confusion, frequently even among his own followers. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed colonization, slavery, and the subjugation. Clearly, what people believe is primarily or solely determined by the secular factors of chance and circumstance. The Bible writers certainly did not do the world any favors with its unclear writings about slavery and many other issues.

Zaphod

How can there be evidence that there was no empty tomb, when there is no evidence that there was any tomb at all?:constern01:

And the fact that there is no venerated tomb to be found is evidence of its absence.

Which is not surprising, for contrary to your assertion above, there is no evidence that any central assertion of Christianity is true.

Your argument is absurd.

Zaphod

And a finer demonstration of the irrationality of Christian faith will be harder to find than Jesus' tomb, empty or not!:devil1:

Simplyme

I think you mean, "as a matter of opinion" not as a matter of fact. But it is understandable.

OAO

The likelihood can't be evaluated apart from one's background beliefs.

Suppose I am convicted of Christianity on grounds apart from historical evidence. Then what we have are at least two independent sources (most scholars consider John to have an independent source from the Synoptics), perhaps more, about an empty tomb with irrelevant material, presented in multiple forms. The tradition is likely early, and the texts themselves come about within two generations of Easter event. So, given that I'm already disposed to accept Christianity, it is more likely that the tomb story is valid.

I actually think that atheists should accept the tomb story, just claim that the event was purposefully misleading. The apostles, say, were so inspired by Jesus' message that they stole the body and claimed to have experiences of a risen Christ; with these claims, other disciples, wanting to fit in or out of an emotional reaction, claimed to see the risen Christ too, including Paul of Tarsus. This is, if one is already disposed to be an atheist, more likely than a literal resurrection.

So my point is this: Christians don't accept Christianity because of the historical evidence, they accept it on other grounds. Given that they have their beliefs already, they have a different starting place to interpret the evidence.

Actually, I'd say its vice-versa. Tombs of holy men and prophets were venerated at the timb; such tombs contained the body of the person being venerated. But if there is no body, there is no reason for veneration. So the absence of veneration is good evidence for the empty tomb, not vice-versa.

gdeering

Sir, I commend you, one one of the most brilliant pieces of circular logic I have ever read. I pass by the former World Trade Center nearly every day. There is no one buried there, yet I do not think it will be forgotten. Veneration is too strong a word perhaps, but it is more than a secular site for many people so memorial is too weak a word.

It defies the logic and history of 2000 (1600 for mountainman) years of Catholicism and the attendant tourist trade to accept that any important historical place would be unknown whether it related to a saint or to the anointed one. Naturally this only hold true if there was such a place to remember.

Gregg

aa5874

So you want atheists to lie about Jesus. You want atheists to make up stories about your Jesus so that he would be accepted as a figure of history and to make people believe the resurrection occurred.

You don't care about the facts, you only want people to believe your Jesus was raised from the dead no matter what.

There is no credible corroborative sources of antiquity that demonstrate that Jesus did even exist as the offspring of the Holy Ghost or human and was raised from the dead.


Once you believe Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost then you don't need any evidence to maintain your beliefs. In your case evidence is irrelevant, belief is all that matters.

Johnny Skeptic

An empty tomb is not evidence unless you can provide reasonable evidence that a body was put in it in the first place, and that it was not stolen or moved. You have not done that.