The empty tomb

[Agnostic75]

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. It's your theory that is not intelligent and requires the disciples to act as suicidal lunatics for it to be true.

You have not reasonably established that the body of Jesus was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Today, it obviously would not make any sense to discuss whether or a certain person's body was stolen from a cemetery unless there was reasonable proof that the body was put in a specific tomb in the first place.

 

[Agnostic75]

To believe that there were no guards and the disciples stole the body, then you have to believe the disciples acted just as I described.

It's your theory that is not intelligent and requires the disciples to act as suicidal lunatics for it to be true.

You are completely mistaken. I do not believe that historical records provide sufficient evidence regarding where Jesus was buried, let alone whether or not his body was stolen.

Although I do not use the stolen body theory as evidence, if it is not intelligent, and requires the disciples to act like suicidal lunatics, that is excellent reason for people to conclude that the chief priests, the elders, and Pontius Pilate would not have paid any attention to such an absurd theory, and for that reason, Pontius Pilate would not have posted guards at the tomb.

How could anyone have been concerned with posting guards at the tomb since even Jesus' own disciples did not believe that he would rise from the dead, and since even the empty tomb did not convince Mary and Peter?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Sure.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

Sure.

Do you mean that you believe that guards were posted at the tomb? If so, why?

Where can I get the Cliff's Notes?

What is Cliff's Notes? What does that have to do with the guards at the tomb?

 

[PolyHedral]

What is Cliff's Notes? What does that have to do with the guards at the tomb?

Cliff's Notes is a website that summarizes books and other texts. He's pointing out that he doesn't want to have to read 20,000+ word posts to get to your point.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you mean that you believe that guards were posted at the tomb? If so, why?

Because the Bible tells me so.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Mystery of the Empty Tomb


All the four gospel writers are unanimous on it that the tomb was empty. But how it got empty is the answer we have got to find for the question.

Starting with Matthew, at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at the sunset, Mary Magdalene with another Mary, went to see the tomb. Never mind that the tombstone was sealed and the guards were there to prevent the approach of any suspect. They either did not know it or the conspiracy to provide an eyewitness had backfired.

As the women arrived there, there was nothing of the sort. However, the writer of Matthew reports an earthquake, as an angel came down to move the tombstone, and sat on it. Who was inside the tomb? Nobody. The tomb was empty. Then, the angel addressed the women and said, "I know you are looking for Jesus. As you can see, he is not here." The tomb was empty. Even the angel could not be used as an eyewitness, because when he removed the tombstone, the tomb was empty already. (Mat. 28:1-6)

Let us ask Mark about this. He says almost the same, except for the earthquake. When that Sabbath was over, the women brought perfumed oils to anoint Jesus' body. They were worried only on how to remove the tombstone, which was huge. Never mind that it was sealed and kept by guards, because when they got there, they saw nothing of the sort. So much so that the stone was already removed and the tomb was empty, except for a youngman who was there, telling them that Jesus was not there. That he had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised. It means that someone had indeed removed Jesus from there. (Mark 16:1-6)

How about Luke? What did he have to say? That the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty, but there were two guys asking why the women were looking for the living among the dead. And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their "nonsense and idle tale," as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)

Last but not least, we have John, who brought to the tomb only Mary Magdalene. The tombstone was removed as usual, and the tomb was indeed empty. All that Mary could think of, was that Jesus had been taken from the tomb. They all probably had never heard about resurrection. Mary remained at the tomb crying her eyes out. Then, to a guy there, whom she thought was the Gardener, she asked to let her know where he had put Jesus' body, so that she could take it away with her, if he had been the one who had removed Jesus from there. It means that Mary had come to the tomb with the intention to remove Jesus from there. Bad luck for her, because obviously Joseph of Arimathea had done the removal during the first hours of Friday night. (John 20:1-15)

As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the "idle tale" of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben

 

[waitasec]

The Mystery of the Empty Tomb


All the four gospel writers are unanimous on it that the tomb was empty. But how it got empty is the answer we have got to find for the question.

Starting with Matthew, at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at the sunset, Mary Magdalene with another Mary, went to see the tomb. Never mind that the tombstone was sealed and the guards were there to prevent the approach of any suspect. They either did not know it or the conspiracy to provide an eyewitness had backfired.

As the women arrived there, there was nothing of the sort. However, the writer of Matthew reports an earthquake, as an angel came down to move the tombstone, and sat on it. Who was inside the tomb? Nobody. The tomb was empty. Then, the angel addressed the women and said, "I know you are looking for Jesus. As you can see, he is not here." The tomb was empty. Even the angel could not be used as an eyewitness, because when he removed the tombstone, the tomb was empty already. (Mat. 28:1-6)

Let us ask Mark about this. He says almost the same, except for the earthquake. When that Sabbath was over, the women brought perfumed oils to anoint Jesus' body. They were worried only on how to remove the tombstone, which was huge. Never mind that it was sealed and kept by guards, because when they got there, they saw nothing of the sort. So much so that the stone was already removed and the tomb was empty, except for a youngman who was there, telling them that Jesus was not there. That he had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised. It means that someone had indeed removed Jesus from there. (Mark 16:1-6)

How about Luke? What did he have to say? That the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty, but there were two guys asking why the women were looking for the living among the dead. And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their "nonsense and idle tale," as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)

Last but not least, we have John, who brought to the tomb only Mary Magdalene. The tombstone was removed as usual, and the tomb was indeed empty. All that Mary could think of, was that Jesus had been taken from the tomb. They all probably had never heard about resurrection. Mary remained at the tomb crying her eyes out. Then, to a guy there, whom she thought was the Gardener, she asked to let her know where he had put Jesus' body, so that she could take it away with her, if he had been the one who had removed Jesus from there. It means that Mary had come to the tomb with the intention to remove Jesus from there. Bad luck for her, because obviously Joseph of Arimathea had done the removal during the first hours of Friday night. (John 20:1-15)

As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the "idle tale" of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben

i like that, very interesting indeed...
i have also wondered about this; if the tomb was sealed, why is it that only women were sent, knowing that this very large rock would be too difficult to move...? was that a tradition?
could the roman guards have taken the body and disposed of it?
because it was very uncommon, in fact unheard of, for the crucified to have been buried.

 

[outhouse]

Point #1 theres no way to know what happened to the body of jesus if he did exist.

the end of mark dealing with the tomb is a known forgery added later. [since the author is unknown its hard to call it forgery but the last part was added later then the original version.]

Empty tomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this link above has good facts to start with.



Resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The narrative of Jesus' entombment and resurrection circulated orally among early Christians before it was found in mark.

, Helmut Koester writes that the stories of the resurrection were originally more like the visionary experience of Paul and that they were interpreted as physical proof of the event at a secondary stage. He contends that the exact details of the resurrection story are also secondary and do not come from historically trustworthy information but belong to the genre of the narrative types.

This link below is for historical jesus and teh work scholars have done so far

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried.

the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.

Some scholars think that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that Mark's account of the women telling no one explains why the story had not been widely or previously known



everything ive posted comes back to,,,, Point #1 theres no way to know what happened to the body of jesus if he did exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do you mean that you believe that guards were posted at the tomb? If so, why?

Because the Bible tells me so.

Obviously, anyone has the right to believe anything by faith, but it would be a waste of time for someone to start a discussion/debate website merely in order for people to state that they believe such and such a religious book just because it says so. All that you have accomplished is to waste your and other people's time.

 

[outhouse]

Obviously, anyone has the right to believe anything by faith, but it would be a waste of time for someone to start a discussion/debate website merely in order for people to state that they believe such and such a religious book just because it says so. All that you have accomplished is to waste your and other people's time.

true

the bible contradicts itself so much you could truely only believe parts of it, not in the whole book literaly

 

[allright]

You are completely mistaken. I do not believe that historical records provide sufficient evidence regarding where Jesus was buried, let alone whether or not his body was stolen.

Although I do not use the stolen body theory as evidence, if it is not intelligent, and requires the disciples to act like suicidal lunatics, that is excellent reason for people to conclude that the chief priests, the elders, and Pontius Pilate would not have paid any attention to such an absurd theory, and for that reason, Pontius Pilate would not have posted guards at the tomb.

How could anyone have been concerned with posting guards at the tomb since even Jesus' own disciples did not believe that he would rise from the dead, and since even the empty tomb did not convince Mary and Peter?

The Jewish leaders considered Jesus enough of a threat to arrest him and bring him to Pilate to have him executed
Since Pilate unwilling went along with it, whats the big deal about him agreeing to station a couple of soldiers at the tomb. He probably would have done it just to have the Jewish leaders go away and quit bothering him.

 

[outhouse]

The Jewish leaders considered Jesus enough of a threat to arrest him and bring him to Pilate to have him executed
Since Pilate unwilling went along with it, whats the big deal about him agreeing to station a couple of soldiers at the tomb. He probably would have done it just to have the Jewish leaders go away and quit bothering him.

correct me if im wrong but crusified people were rarely buried.

and why guard a dead person.

there to many holes here to deal with.

whats the big deal about him agreeing to station a couple of soldiers at the tomb

i think you would have to show guards had been posted before in another crucifiction, to merit this roman decision

take into account the jewish high archy had stoned people to death in the past during this time. Im not sure they would have had to conspire to kill him and go to the romans if they thought he was a threat.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Obviously, anyone has the right to believe anything by faith, but it would be a waste of time for someone to start a discussion/debate website merely in order for people to state that they believe such and such a religious book just because it says so. All that you have accomplished is to waste your and other people's time.

Well since what I've assertained from a brief perusal of your long-winded post you think the whole shebang is bogus because there is a dissention on the nationality of the guards and Matthew is bunk. Is this correct?

 

[dogsgod]

Don't question the gospels, it drives believers crazy.

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously, anyone has the right to believe anything by faith, but it would be a waste of time for someone to start a discussion/debate website merely in order for people to state that they believe such and such a religious book just because it says so. All that you have accomplished is to waste your and other people's time.

Well since what I've assertained from a brief perusal of your long-winded post.......

The length of my posts is irrelevant. No one asked you to make any posts in this thread. If you were not interested in discussing the guards at the tomb, why are you making posts in this thread? Many people read long books about the Bible, and take years to do it, and here you are complaining about something that the average person can read in ten minutes.

You think the whole shebang is bogus because there is a dissension on the nationality of the guards and Matthew is bunk. Is this correct?

Many people accept or reject the Bible for many reasons. It would be impossible to start one thread that included everyone's reasons for accepting or rejecting the Bible, so Internet discussion websites have individual forums, and individual threads so that people can discuss individual topics that interest them. Many Christians make a big deal out of the issue of the empty tomb. Since that is the case, it is certainly reasonable for skeptics to want to discuss the empty tomb. You can easily find thousands of articles about the empty tomb at the Internet. That shows how much interest there in is the empty tomb. Some other topics that interest a lot of people are the global flood, the age of the earth, and theistic evolution.

Logically, if you oppose a worldview, a political party, or anything else, the best approach is to find as much good evidence against whatever you are opposing as possible. I started this thread in order to discuss the guards at the tomb. If a good case cannot be made that guards were posted at the tomb, there is no way that Christians can make an intelligent case that Jesus' body was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that the tomb was found empty. If guards were not posted at the tomb, that would be just one of many probably false claims in the Bible, but nonetheless an important claim. If the story of the guards is false, which is probably the case, why should anyone trust the other accounts regarding the events at the tomb?

 

[waitasec]

If the story of the guards is false, which is probably the case, why should anyone trust the other accounts regarding the events at the tomb?

because it's the word of god...duh

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The length of my posts is irrelevant. No one asked you to make any posts in this thread.

Actually, you asked me if I wanted to discuss this.

Many people accept or reject the Bible for many reasons. It would be impossible to start one thread that included everyone's reasons for accepting or rejecting the Bible, so Internet discussion websites have individual forums, and individual threads so that people can discuss individual topics that interest them. Many Christians make a big deal out of the issue of the empty tomb. Since that is the case, it is certainly reasonable for skeptics to want to discuss the empty tomb. You can easily find thousands of articles about the empty tomb at the Internet. That shows how much interest there in is the empty tomb. Some other topics that interest a lot of people are the global flood, the age of the earth, and theistic evolution.

Logically, if you oppose a worldview, a political party, or anything else, the best approach is to find as much good evidence against whatever you are opposing as possible. I started this thread in order to discuss the guards at the tomb. If a good case cannot be made that guards were posted at the tomb, there is no way that Christians can make an intelligent case that Jesus' body was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that the tomb was found empty. If guards were not posted at the tomb, that would be just one of many probably false claims in the Bible, but nonetheless an important claim. If the story of the guards is false, which is probably the case, why should anyone trust the other accounts regarding the events at the tomb?

Golly, I though I asked a yes or no question. Go back in look, did I (briefly) sum up your position correctly?

 

[Agnostic75]

You think the whole shebang is bogus because there is a dissension on the nationality of the guards and Matthew is bunk. Is this correct?

Skeptics have many reasons for rejecting the events at the tomb, and for rejecting the Bible in general. The issue of the guards is one of those reasons, and a very important reason. I started this thread in order to discuss the guards. Do you wish to discuss the guards? If so, please provide whatever evidence you have that guards were posted at the tomb.

So far, you have not contributed anything useful regarding the issue of the guards, but since you believe that you are not adequately prepared to discuss that issue, I understand your reluctance. Thank you for helping to build my confidence. Whenever Christians refuse to discuss issues, that is good for skepticism.

Why are you making posts in this thread?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Skeptics have many reasons for rejecting the events at the tomb, and for rejecting the Bible in general. The issue of the guards is one of those reasons, and a very important reason. I started this thread in order to discuss the guards. Do you wish to discuss the guards? If so, please provide whatever evidence you have that guards were posted at the tomb.

So far, you have not contributed anything useful regarding the issue of the guards, but since you believe that you are not adequately prepared to discuss that issue, I understand your reluctance. Thank you for helping to build my confidence. Whenever Christians refuse to discuss issues, that is good for skepticism.

Why are you making posts in this thread?

It seems you are arguing with yourself. You asked whether or not I believed a Biblical account about a Biblical story. I do. Can you give me an abridged version of why I shouldn't. Maybe I'm jus two stupit to follow more than one simple point at a time.