The empty tomb

[Agnostic75]

What point do you mean that is pertinent to this thread? The title of this thread is "The empty tomb." As I have said before, "for purposes of this thread, my only interest is providing reasonable proof that it is probable that guards were not posted at the tomb."

When skeptics start threads about the global flood, the Ten Plagues in Egypt, and the empty tomb, all of which are questionable claims, they are not directly arguing against the resurrection of Jesus, they are indirectly arguing against the resurrection of Jesus. Once that it becomes evident that a religious book makes lots of false claims, other claims become suspect as well.

So it is your quest and venture to debunk Christian faith?

Yes, primarily because conservative Christians bullies frequently try to legistlate religion. If Muslims were to one day become the majority in the U.S., and legislated the Koran and other Muslim writings, many if not conservative Christians would protest, but why since Muslims would merely be the new bullies?

And you aim to do this by insisting that the tomb was empty? And

you expect Christians to refuse the gospels because of some claim ou make that no one was keeping watch? over the tomb? In spite of the gospel of Matthew?

Millions of people have given up Christianity because of the many false and questionable claims that are in the Bible, and/or because of philosophical and moral arguments against the Bible. Logically, the more false and questionable claims there are in a religious book, the less reliable it is. That is true regarding any religious book, not just the Bible. If guards were not posted at the tomb, there are not any good reasons to trust the accounts of the women's visits to the tomb, and many other accounts. If a person makes false claims, you are suspicious of them even when they might be telling the truth. Some people will never change no matter what, but many do. Some people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and that the earth is flat. Just because some of those people will never change their minds is not a good reason not to try to change their minds.

Are you suggesting that false claims in the Bible are not important, and do not matter?

There is also the group of people who are not Christians, and are shopping for a worldview. Since they have not already been seduced by Christianity, they are generally more willing to objectively evaluate evidence.

If you don't mind, since I started this thread, let's limit discussions to the guards. We can discuss the resurrection of Jesus in some other thread. If you wish, you can start a new topic regarding that issue. If you do, I use partly use the following arguments:


"The resurrection of a person would not by itself imply anything more than that a person rose from the dead. A valid case for Christianity would also have to include sufficient evidence that 1) Jesus performed miracles, that 2) Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, that 3) Jesus said that his shed blood and death would atone for the sins of mankind, and that 4) Jesus made some post-resurrection group appearances. What evidence do you have regarding those issues?"

I do not wish to discuss those issues with you in this thread. I just wanted to let you know that I will be happy to discuss those issues with you in some other thread. If you do not wish to debate the empty tomb, I do not have anything more to discuss with you in this thread.

If the only issue is faith, one worldview is as good as another, and there would be no need for Bible apologetics and debates about the Bible, and no need to discuss the global flood, and no need to debate whether or not men have landed on the moon, and no need to debate any other issue.

 

[Thief]

Yes, primarily because conservative Christians bullies frequently try to legistlate religion. If Muslims were to one day become the majority in the U.S., and legislated the Koran and other Muslim writings, many if not conservative Christians would protest, but why since Muslims would merely be the new bullies?



Millions of people have given up Christianity because of the many false and questionable claims that are in the Bible, and/or because of philosophical and moral arguments against the Bible. Logically, the more false and questionable claims there are in a religious book, the less reliable it is. That is true regarding any religious book, not just the Bible. If guards were not posted at the tomb, there are not any good reasons to trust the accounts of the women's visits to the tomb, and many other accounts. If a person makes false claims, you are suspicious of them even when they might be telling the truth. Some people will never change no matter what, but many do. Some people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and that the earth is flat. Just because some of those people will never change their minds is not a good reason not to try to change their minds.

Are you suggesting that false claims in the Bible are not important, and do not matter?

There is also the group of people who are not Christians, and are shopping for a worldview. Since they have not already been seduced by Christianity, they are generally more willing to objectively evaluate evidence.

If you don't mind, since I started this thread, let's limit discussions to the guards. We can discuss the resurrection of Jesus in some other thread. If you wish, you can start a new topic regarding that issue. If you do, I use partly use the following arguments:


"The resurrection of a person would not by itself imply anything more than that a person rose from the dead. A valid case for Christianity would also have to include sufficient evidence that 1) Jesus performed miracles, that 2) Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, that 3) Jesus said that his shed blood and death would atone for the sins of mankind, and that 4) Jesus made some post-resurrection group appearances. What evidence do you have regarding those issues?"

I do not wish to discuss those issues with you in this thread. I just wanted to let you know that I will be happy to discuss those issues with you in some other thread. If you do not wish to debate the empty tomb, I do not have anything more to discuss with you in this thread.

If the only issue is faith, one worldview is as good as another, and there would be no need for Bible apologetics and debates about the Bible, and no need to discuss the global flood, and no need to debate whether or not men have landed on the moon, and no need to debate any other issue.

Obviously...you're trying too hard....and in the face of faith.
(which requires no proof)

If you want to say the tomb is empty...'He is risen!'

If you only want to say there were no guards....
Then you are on futile quest and a time wasting argument.
Christians are not going to put away the gospel of Matthew.
Especially at the say so of a non-believer.

Now....if you had a different scheme on life after death....?

 

[Agnostic75]

Christians are not going to put away the gospel of Matthew.

Millions of former Christians have given up Christianity, and millions of people who were shopping for a worldview rejected Christianity for various reasons, including Bible errors, questionable Bible claims, philosophical arguments, and moral arguments.

Are you suggesting that false claims in the Bible are not important, and do not matter? It is quite obvious that a global flood did not occur, that the earth is old, that if a God exists, he has used evolution, and that the Ten Plagues in Egypt did not occur. Logically, the more false and questionable claims there are in a religious book, the less reliable it is. That is true regarding any religious book, not just the Bible. If guards were not posted at the tomb, there are not any good reasons to trust the accounts of the women's visits to the tomb, and many other accounts. If a person makes false claims, you are suspicious of them even when they might be telling the truth. Some people will never change no matter what, but many do. Some people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and that the earth is flat. Just because some of those people will never change their minds is not a good reason not to try to change their minds.

Obviously, you're trying too hard, and in the face of faith,
which requires no proof.

If faith requires no proof, one worldview is as good as another. If faith is all that matters, debates are a waste of time, in which case, why are you making posts at this forum? This is the General Religious Debates forum. Debates can only take place when both sides provide evidence other than faith. It is already a given that all religious people have faith. If ten people with different worldviews got together to have some discussions, and the only evidence that any of them had was faith, they would obviously be wasting their time, and the time of their audience.

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian apologetics

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views. Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Origen and Augustine of Hippo, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines.

Several biblical passages have historically motivated Christian apologetics.
The Book of Isaiah includes God's entreaty, "Come now, let us reason together" (1:18, ESV), and the First Epistle of Peter declares that Christians must always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you ... with gentleness and respect" (3:15). The Book of Acts contains a description of the apologetic example of Paul, who "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there" (17:17) as well as at the Areopagus (17:19ff). Each of these has been the motivation for Christians to undertake the discipline apologetics in order to present non-Christians with reasons to adopt the Christian faith or to strengthen the belief of current Christians.

Additionally, Psalm 19, which starts "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," Psalm 139:13-14, and Romans 1:19-23 have given impetus to the apologetic enterprise.......

Discussion websites, including this website, have been set in many parts of the world in order to provide people with a place to discuss and compare evidence relating to Christian apologetics and many other issues. These websites were not set up for the purpose of providing people whose only evidence is faith with a place to state what is already obvious to everyone. Everyone already knows that all religious people have faith. It is a waste of your time and other people's time for you to merely state that you have faith. You would not show up at a party in a blue dress and tell people that you were wearing a blue dress since it would be obvious to everyone that you were wearing a blue dress, but for some odd reason, you want to tell people at this forum that you have faith. If you are not interested in Bible apologetics, that is fine, but most people at this forum are, including me. I started this thread in order to discuss Christian apologetic arguments for the empty tomb. If you do not have any apologetic evidence for the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, there is nothing further for us to discuss. I can easily find other people who are interested in Bible apologetics, especially since I also debate at another well-known debate website under another name. Whenever I encounter evasive Christians, I have achieved my goal since evasiveness indicates weakness to the undecided crowd, the majority of whom are interested in Christian apologetics. I just took a look at some of the threads that you have started, and it is apparent that you main interest at this forum is preaching, not debating. You are wasting your time preaching since preaching is all over the place, including television, radio, CD's books, magazines, newspaper articles, and Internet articles. At the other website where I debate, preaching is not allowed since it interferes with apologetic debates that most people are interested in. Preaching immediately turns off lots of people, and that is good for skepticism.

 

[Thief]

Millions of former Christians have given up Christianity, and millions of people who were shopping for a worldview rejected Christianity for various reasons, including Bible errors, questionable Bible claims, philosophical arguments, and moral arguments.

Are you suggesting that false claims in the Bible are not important, and do not matter? It is quite obvious that a global flood did not occur, that the earth is old, that if a God exists, he has used evolution, and that the Ten Plagues in Egypt did not occur. Logically, the more false and questionable claims there are in a religious book, the less reliable it is. That is true regarding any religious book, not just the Bible. If guards were not posted at the tomb, there are not any good reasons to trust the accounts of the women's visits to the tomb, and many other accounts. If a person makes false claims, you are suspicious of them even when they might be telling the truth. Some people will never change no matter what, but many do. Some people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and that the earth is flat. Just because some of those people will never change their minds is not a good reason not to try to change their minds.



If faith requires no proof, one worldview is as good as another. If faith is all that matters, debates are a waste of time, in which case, why are you making posts at this forum? This is the General Religious Debates forum. Debates can only take place when both sides provide evidence other than faith. It is already a given that all religious people have faith. If ten people with different worldviews got together to have some discussions, and the only evidence that any of them had was faith, they would obviously be wasting their time, and the time of their audience.

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Discussion websites, including this website, have been set in many parts of the world in order to provide people with a place to discuss and compare evidence relating to Christian apologetics and many other issues. These websites were not set up for the purpose of providing people whose only evidence is faith with a place to state what is already obvious to everyone. Everyone already knows that all religious people have faith. It is a waste of your time and other people's time for you to merely state that you have faith. You would not show up at a party in a blue dress and tell people that you were wearing a blue dress since it would be obvious to everyone that you were wearing a blue dress, but for some odd reason, you want to tell people at this forum that you have faith. If you are not interested in Bible apologetics, that is fine, but most people at this forum are, including me. I started this thread in order to discuss Christian apologetic arguments for the empty tomb. If you do not have any apologetic evidence for the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, there is nothing further for us to discuss. I can easily find other people who are interested in Bible apologetics, especially since I also debate at another well-known debate website under another name. Whenever I encounter evasive Christians, I have achieved my goal since evasiveness indicates weakness to the undecided crowd, the majority of whom are interested in Christian apologetics. I just took a look at some of the threads that you have started, and it is apparent that you main interest at this forum is preaching, not debating. You are wasting your time preaching since preaching is all over the place, including television, radio, CD's books, magazines, newspaper articles, and Internet articles. At the other website where I debate, preaching is not allowed since it interferes with apologetic debates that most people are interested in. Preaching immediately turns off lots of people, and that is good for skepticism.

Are you just hoping for the last word?
And no I wasn't preaching.

 

[Agnostic75]

Are you just hoping for the last word?

No, I am interested in discussing Bible apologetics regarding the empty tomb. Are you? If not, why are you making posts in this thread? If Jesus made some post-resurrection appearances, that would imply that a burial place in an unknown location was empty, but not the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. If faith is your only evidence, you are in the wrong thread because I started this thread in order to discuss Bible apologetics regarding the empty tomb.

 

[dogsgod]

My main intention in this thread is to try to provide reasonable evidence that the story of the guards is probably false. If the story of the guards is false, the story is not useful as additional support for Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.

I do not believe that Jesus made any post-resurrection appearances, but that would be a topic for another thread.

RG Price has an interesting take on the ending of GMark. He views the gospel as allegorical fiction, and explains what the ending might mean for the author.:



"Of the greatest interest, however, are the last few lines of the Gospel of Mark, "terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Unlike the endings of the other canonical Gospels, and the other endings that were later appended to this Gospel, this ending is not triumphant or inspiring. There is no ascension, there is no meeting with the disciples, there is no issuance of a decree to spread the gospel, there is only terror and fear and failure on behalf of the followers.


This ending, in fact, makes perfect sense for the original message of the story, which is about despair and failure and loss, the despair and failure and loss of the war between the Jews and the Romans. Once again, this story is about justifying the loss of the Jews to the Romans and the utter destruction of their civilization. This story is about rationalizing the loss of the Jews as a failure of their own making and of their own character.


One way to read the ending, and perhaps the way that was intended by the author, is that Christ triumphed over death but the Jews and the early apostles of the Christ movement utterly failed. God is now on the side of the Gentiles, not the Jews.


That is, I believe, the intended message of the author of this story, whom I believe was himself a man of Jewish ancestry that had integrated into "Gentile" Roman society, seeing the Judean Jews as corrupt, backwards, too conservative, out of touch with the expanding and integrating Roman world, and out of touch with Paul's message of unity between Jews and Gentiles.


Peter, James, and all of the rest of the apostles outside of the Pauline ministry were left behind. They lost out and missed the whole point of the religion according to the author of the Gospel of Mark."

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

 

[Thief]

RG Price has an interesting take on the ending of GMark. He views the gospel as allegorical fiction, and explains what the ending might mean for the author.:



"Of the greatest interest, however, are the last few lines of the Gospel of Mark, "terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Unlike the endings of the other canonical Gospels, and the other endings that were later appended to this Gospel, this ending is not triumphant or inspiring. There is no ascension, there is no meeting with the disciples, there is no issuance of a decree to spread the gospel, there is only terror and fear and failure on behalf of the followers.


This ending, in fact, makes perfect sense for the original message of the story, which is about despair and failure and loss, the despair and failure and loss of the war between the Jews and the Romans. Once again, this story is about justifying the loss of the Jews to the Romans and the utter destruction of their civilization. This story is about rationalizing the loss of the Jews as a failure of their own making and of their own character.


One way to read the ending, and perhaps the way that was intended by the author, is that Christ triumphed over death but the Jews and the early apostles of the Christ movement utterly failed. God is now on the side of the Gentiles, not the Jews.


That is, I believe, the intended message of the author of this story, whom I believe was himself a man of Jewish ancestry that had integrated into "Gentile" Roman society, seeing the Judean Jews as corrupt, backwards, too conservative, out of touch with the expanding and integrating Roman world, and out of touch with Paul's message of unity between Jews and Gentiles.


Peter, James, and all of the rest of the apostles outside of the Pauline ministry were left behind. They lost out and missed the whole point of the religion according to the author of the Gospel of Mark."

The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

I took the time to review the link you offered.
It is a lengthy reading, and not well written.
It lends little to this 'empty tomb' idea.

As for Mark...the tomb was not empty.
The stone had been rolled back.
It is noted to be a large stone...not likely to be moved by one man.
How many men moved it...and where they went... is not noted.

In the tomb, a young man is found there, sitting 'to the right'.
He reports, the Carpenter has risen.
No mention is made, whether he be a disciple, or angel, or any other associate.

This report was said to the two women, who came to the sepulcher.
When they left, having heard the words of the young man, they were silent, for fear.

The Carpenter makes an appearance shortly there after.

In spite of their fear, the women then take their testimony to the followers of the Carpenter. Their testimony was not believed.

Additional appearances were then made.

That you offer the work of RG Price is all fine and well.

But should his rewrite, or opinion of Mark, be held in higher regard?....
As disciple?, apostle?, as prophet?

People who believe in life after death....are going to lean to argument that favors that outcome.
Did you want to say the tomb was empty?

 

[logician]

do you not think that more important than these things are the things that jesus actually said, rather than things that could have happened or could have not happened. these things are completely irrelevant if you just listen to the words that jesus spoke. 1. love 2. have no fear. to have no fear is to accept things for how they are and to see that you are part of it.

Unknown writers wrote the gospels, not a supposed Jesus. Ask them.:sleep:

 

[Agnostic75]

This report was said to the two women, who came to the sepulcher.
When they left, having heard the words of the young man, they were silent, for fear.

The Carpenter makes an appearance shortly there after.

In spite of their fear, the women then take their testimony to the followers of the Carpenter. Their testimony was not believed.

Additional appearances were then made.

That you offer the work of RG Price is all fine and well.

But should his rewrite, or opinion of Mark, be held in higher regard?....
As disciple?, apostle?, as prophet?

People who believe in life after death....are going to lean to argument that favors that outcome.

Did you want to say the tomb was empty?

Since it is probable that guards were not posted at the tomb, the accounts of the women's visits to the tomb are irrelevant since the body could have been stolen or moved.

As far as Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are concerned, I have told you on several occasions that that is not an issue in this thread. If I had wanted to discuss Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, I would have started a thread on that issue. If you want to discuss that issue, please stop hijacking this thread and start your own thread. If you continue to ignore my requests, I will report you to the moderators.

Logical people are going to lean to arguments that guards were not posted at the tomb.

 

[Agnostic75]

People who believe in life after death are going to lean to argument that favors that outcome.

A Christian can have faith in life after death and not accept the claim that guards were posted at the tomb. In addition, a Christian can have faith in life after death and not accept the claims that a global flood occured, that the earth is young, and that theistic evolution is false. If you wish to debate what a man must believe in order to be a Christian, please start a new thread.

 

[dogsgod]

I took the time to review the link you offered.
It is a lengthy reading, and not well written.
It lends little to this 'empty tomb' idea.

As for Mark...the tomb was not empty.
The stone had been rolled back.
It is noted to be a large stone...not likely to be moved by one man.
How many men moved it...and where they went... is not noted.

In the tomb, a young man is found there, sitting 'to the right'.
He reports, the Carpenter has risen.
No mention is made, whether he be a disciple, or angel, or any other associate.

This report was said to the two women, who came to the sepulcher.
When they left, having heard the words of the young man, they were silent, for fear.

The Carpenter makes an appearance shortly there after.

In spite of their fear, the women then take their testimony to the followers of the Carpenter. Their testimony was not believed.

Additional appearances were then made.

That you offer the work of RG Price is all fine and well.

But should his rewrite, or opinion of Mark, be held in higher regard?....
As disciple?, apostle?, as prophet?

People who believe in life after death....are going to lean to argument that favors that outcome.
Did you want to say the tomb was empty?

The tomb was empty in that Jesus was not there. The oldest copies of GMark have it end with the women afraid and telling no one. As I stated, RG Price has an interesting take on Mark, one that makes a lot of sense. As far as people who believe in life after death, I have no doubt they will lean to arguments that favor that outcome.

 

[Agnostic75]

I took the time to review the link you offered. It is a lengthy reading.......

Many issues by necessity require a good deal of detail.

.......and not well written.

Your personal opinion of what I write is not an issue.

It lends little to this 'empty tomb' idea.

Why is that? It would help if you would spefically comment on what I write.

As for Mark...the tomb was not empty.
The stone had been rolled back.
It is noted to be a large stone...not likely to be moved by one man.
How many men moved it...and where they went... is not noted.

In the tomb, a young man is found there, sitting 'to the right'.
He reports, the Carpenter has risen.
No mention is made, whether he be a disciple, or angel, or any other associate.

This report was said to the two women, who came to the sepulcher.
When they left, having heard the words of the young man, they were silent, for fear.

The Carpenter makes an appearance shortly there after.

In spite of their fear, the women then take their testimony to the followers of the Carpenter. Their testimony was not believed.

Additional appearances were then made.

That you offer the work of RG Price is all fine and well.

But should his rewrite, or opinion of Mark, be held in higher regard?....
As disciple?, apostle?, as prophet?

None of that is useful "unless" you can provide reasonable proof that guards were posted at the tomb, which you have not done.

 

[PolyHedral]

...and not well written

Your personal opinion of what I right is not an issue.

:clap

 

[Agnostic75]

I took the time to review the link you offered. It is a lengthy reading.......

Many issues by necessity require a good deal of detail.

.......and not well written.

Your personal opinion of what I write is not an issue.

It lends little to this 'empty tomb' idea.

Why is that? It would help if you would spefically comment on what I write.

As for Mark...the tomb was not empty.
The stone had been rolled back.
It is noted to be a large stone...not likely to be moved by one man.
How many men moved it...and where they went... is not noted.

In the tomb, a young man is found there, sitting 'to the right'.
He reports, the Carpenter has risen.
No mention is made, whether he be a disciple, or angel, or any other associate.

This report was said to the two women, who came to the sepulcher.
When they left, having heard the words of the young man, they were silent, for fear.

The Carpenter makes an appearance shortly there after.

In spite of their fear, the women then take their testimony to the followers of the Carpenter. Their testimony was not believed.

Additional appearances were then made.

That you offer the work of RG Price is all fine and well.

But should his rewrite, or opinion of Mark, be held in higher regard?....
As disciple?, apostle?, as prophet?

None of that is useful "unless" you can provide reasonable proof that guards were posted at the tomb, which you have not done.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since my arguments have over 10,000 characters, I will have to make two posts.

:sleep:Where can I ge the Cliff's Notes?

 

[Agnostic75]

Where can I get the Cliff's Notes?

Are you interested in discussing the story of the guards at the tomb? Do you believe that guards were posted at the tomb?

 

[allright]

Its true! After the disciples saw what happened to Jesus they got together and decided to steal the the body.
They said "Hey we can lie and claim he rose from the dead and than the Jewish leaders and the Romans can arrest and torture and crucify us too.
Sounds like great fun, lets do it.
Who wants to go first ?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well you have to admit, even the Bible is not consistant on who went to the tomb that morning and what happened when they got there.

 

[Agnostic75]

It's true! After the disciples saw what happened to Jesus they got together and decided to steal the the body. They said "Hey we can lie and claim he rose from the dead and than the Jewish leaders and the Romans can arrest and torture and crucify us too. Sounds like great fun, lets do it. Who wants to go first?

Apparently you do not have an intelligent rebuttal to my arguments.

Well you have to admit, even the Bible is not consistent on who went to the tomb that morning, and what happened when they got there.

All of the Gospel accounts regarding various peoples' visits to the tomb are largely dependent upon whether or not guards were posted at the tomb. If guards were not posted at the tomb, we cannot even be reasonably certain that the body of Jesus was put there in the first place.

Since the story of the guards is probably false, logically, that brings all of the other Gospel accounts about the tomb into question.

Do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve, that the earth is young, and that a global flood occurred?

 

[allright]

To agnostic 75

To believe that there were no guards and the disciples stole the body, than you have to believe the disciples acted just as I described
.
Its your theory that is not intelligent and requires the disciples to act as suicidal lunatics for it to be true