• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Finding Jesus's Empty Tomb

I am not sure the story is true or false.
I know it has great influence though even to this day. I recently took my parents to see the movie Risen (just to exemplify).
From an Anthropology approach, I imagine it is slightly easier to search for than the Garden of Eden.
Galilee is a large place and coupled with this whether or not the tomb is empty today really adds no physical evidence to a land from thousands of years ago...and the cultural espionage happening back then cannot be put into a nice, neat timeline. There is some truth to the history being written by winners.
I'm not a professional Anthropologist as a disclaimer.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
To be fair, Greenleaf has done that work. I don't think Logicman is required to cite it all from memory.

If you look at it, of course, you'll see how many gaps there are in the different versions, and how much work it takes to shoe-horn it into a single narrative. Seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me....
Click to expand...

I don't know Greenleaf and haven't see the post.

It's not required to recite by rote. I was just curious if anybody knew the material well enough to answer the questions.
 
Logicman said:
Well first, you're not getting or wanting to admit there is a unanimous consensus regarding confirmation of the resurrection in the Gospels.

Second, there's no passages on the size of the tomb. If you want to try to nitpick alleged contradictions involving the number of angels at the tomb, which women showed up first, etc., then do the smart thing like a forensic policeman and put each passage on a timeline. Then the discrepancies disappear. In fact, this was already done - see link below.

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Of course, when there is no contradiction (the resurrection), you don't believe it anyway, right? So why try to beat to death the minor points when you're kicking to the curb the MAIN EVENT? Or are you?
Click to expand...

You keep on posting that greenleaf essay. However, you never bother to actually respond to any of the points on how it is an unadulterated piece of nonsense.
 
RAMOSS said:
You keep on posting that greenleaf essay. However, you never bother to actually respond to any of the points on how it is an unadulterated piece of nonsense.
Click to expand...

That nonsensical post of yours above belongs at the bottom of a bird cage.
 
Red_Dave said:
Not to mention the 20 odd gospels that were not in the bible, many of which would contract that statement
Click to expand...

Which one of those so-called '20 odd gospels not in the bible' is first century like the traditional Gospels, and was written by either a follower of Jesus, or a close associate or early investigator of the facts (Mark, Luke)?
 
Logicman said:
That nonsensical post of yours above belongs at the bottom of a bird cage.
Click to expand...

Out of the times that an examination of Greenleaf have been given in depth, this is the level of your response. From the level of discourse that you actually have used on the multiple times you have posted it (and a good search shows you used it many many times in the past on this site), you never actually read it.
 
Visbek said:
lol... I'm not derailing anything. I'm responding to your post.

You asked the OP why he's holding this event to higher standards, and there are some obvious answers:

• It's a description of a supernatural event, which for some people triggers higher standards of scrutiny
• Some vocal Christians assert that the text is both absolutely true and consistent, which is not the case (and obviously what the OP is trying to call out)
• Some vocal Christians assert various textural claims (such as apostolic authorship, or the absence of an oral tradition) which are undercut by inconsistencies in the text

By the way, I already pointed out to the OP that his standards are a bit too high. I also pointed out to you that we don't necessarily presume that accounts are accurate, merely because they were written down.



Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because it's a claim about a supernatural event? We aren't talking about conflicting accounts of the final days of Masada, or the burning of Rome in 64 CE.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine.....I will play along. So if it IS a supernatural event......and neither you nor the OP believe in the supernatural......then why be concerned with the historicity of said event at all?

Let us stop mincing words, shall we and I will tell you why.....It's because someone is slyly using a feigned interest in historic methodology to try and discredit the faith of others. What a surprise. :roll:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Okay, fine.....I will play along. So if it IS a supernatural event......and neither you nor the OP believe in the supernatural......then why be concerned with the historicity of said event at all?
Click to expand...
I'm not that worried about it, as I don't think it's historical in the first place. It is possible that the Romans bent the normal rules in order to avoid aggravating the Jews, but typically the body of a crucified rebel would be left to rot.

We should also remember that the gospels were not intended to be historical. Their job was to proselytize, not provide a neutral report.

My interest in the discrepancies is merely one of curiosity, as it shows (as I mentioned) how the views of the early Jesus movement changed over time, the impact of oral tradition, and so forth.

Anyway: You asked why these descriptions ought to be held to a higher standard, and I gave you a reasonable answer.


Let us stop mincing words, shall we and I will tell you why.....It's because someone is slyly using a feigned interest in historic methodology to try and discredit the faith of others. What a surprise. :roll:
Click to expand...
<< shrug >>

1) I've largely given up on discrediting fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity. My interest is mostly in discussing the historical aspects. How you deal with potential conflicts between history and theology is not my problem.

2) Casting aspersions on my motives, based on basically no information, is mildly amusing -- and does not eradicate the findings of many modern scholars.

3) Keep in mind that many of those scholars are themselves religious. Go figure.
 
RAMOSS said:
Out of the times that an examination of Greenleaf have been given in depth, this is the level of your response. From the level of discourse that you actually have used on the multiple times you have posted it (and a good search shows you used it many many times in the past on this site), you never actually read it.
Click to expand...

Ramoss - why are you always on the wrong side of the issues?
 
Visbek said:
We should also remember that the gospels were not intended to be historical. Their job was to proselytize, not provide a neutral report.
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be concluded unless you know the actual minds of the Gospel authors. I think very much they wanted people to know that the resurrection was real and should be considered an actual, historical event.

One of the skeptics of Biblical Christianity - Somerville - put forth the argument that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical. Of course the answer to that is why were the women and apostles running around saying Jesus was resurrected if they couldn't see the event (it supposedly being just spiritual)? And why then didn't they do the same thing at every Jewish death and tomb? So that argument is laughable.
 
Logicman said:
Ramoss - why are you always on the wrong side of the issues?
Click to expand...

I am not. that is what seems to be elluding you comprehension.
 
Visbek said:
I'm not that worried about it, as I don't think it's historical in the first place. It is possible that the Romans bent the normal rules in order to avoid aggravating the Jews, but typically the body of a crucified rebel would be left to rot.

We should also remember that the gospels were not intended to be historical. Their job was to proselytize, not provide a neutral report.

My interest in the discrepancies is merely one of curiosity, as it shows (as I mentioned) how the views of the early Jesus movement changed over time, the impact of oral tradition, and so forth.

Anyway: You asked why these descriptions ought to be held to a higher standard, and I gave you a reasonable answer.



<< shrug >>

1) I've largely given up on discrediting fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity. My interest is mostly in discussing the historical aspects. How you deal with potential conflicts between history and theology is not my problem.

2) Casting aspersions on my motives, based on basically no information, is mildly amusing -- and does not eradicate the findings of many modern scholars.

3) Keep in mind that many of those scholars are themselves religious. Go figure.
Click to expand...

There are several separate eyewitness accounts of an event occurring. If you choose to ignore historic evidence and the historicity of that event based upon minor inconsistencies (which are ALWAYS present in accounts of ancient historical events) or based upon your personal feelings regarding what you call "fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity".......well then I suppose that is your prerogative. It does not, however, detract from the evidentiary double-standard which you are placing upon these historic accounts. (ACCOUNTS....not upon the alleged event itself)

Whether you, me or anyone else believes that Christ rose, His body was stolen, that He was never dead in the first place, or that later sightings were just cases of mistaken identity......really matters not in this discussion.....the OP simply asked that we weigh separate historic accounts of an alleged historic event for their cohesiveness and their consistency.....nothing more. Evidently you are having some difficulty putting your emotions aside long enough to understand this very basic concept?
 
FluffyNinja said:
There are several separate eyewitness accounts of an event occurring. If you choose to ignore historic evidence and the historicity of that event based upon minor inconsistencies (which are ALWAYS present in accounts of ancient historical events) or based upon your personal feelings regarding what you call "fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity".......well then I suppose that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. But the more critical point, as you should already realize, is that I don't believe it happened at all.

Thus, examining the descriptions of the event has nothing to do with determining its veracity. For me, it's about learning how the community of the early Jesus movement changed over time, the impact of earlier sources and oral traditions, and so on.

It should also be pretty clear what I'm referring to with the term "fundamentalist," it's a common term for those who assert that the texts in question are literally accurate, and absolutely true. My feelings about such individuals are not what generates the inconsistencies in the texts, thus are not relevant. I'm only pointing out the likely target of the OP's agenda.


It does not, however, detract from the evidentiary double-standard which you are placing upon these historic accounts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I'm not the one with the double standard. Claims of witnessing supernatural events, many of which do not support Christian theology, abound throughout the world. And yet, it is only certain ones that are privileged. Seems odd.

My standards also apply equally to certain incredible secular matters. E.g. if we accept eye witness accounts of unlikely events, does that mean that Elvis did not die in 1977? That Earth has been visited by aliens? That Xerxes invaded Greece with 1 million soldiers?

I could also spend lots of time casting all sorts of doubt on the validity of eye witnesses, the effects of oral transmission, the commonality of people seeing dead people, and so on. But as you've pointed out, that's not really what this thread is about, is it?


Whether you, me or anyone else believes that Christ rose, His body was stolen, that He was never dead in the first place, or that later sightings were just cases of mistaken identity......really matters not in this discussion.....
Click to expand...
It does, if you're trying to figure out the OP's goals. It seems to me he is seeking to embarrass the fundamentalists. (He also seems to have checked out of the conversation awhile ago.)

I suggest you read the OP's last post in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...nding-jesuss-empty-tomb-5.html#post1065442157

It's pretty clear he had an agenda.
 
Visbek said:
Yes, it is. But the more critical point, as you should already realize, is that I don't believe it happened at all.

Thus, examining the descriptions of the event has nothing to do with determining its veracity. For me, it's about learning how the community of the early Jesus movement changed over time, the impact of earlier sources and oral traditions, and so on.

It should also be pretty clear what I'm referring to with the term "fundamentalist," it's a common term for those who assert that the texts in question are literally accurate, and absolutely true. My feelings about such individuals are not what generates the inconsistencies in the texts, thus are not relevant. I'm only pointing out the likely target of the OP's agenda.



Sorry, but I'm not the one with the double standard. Claims of witnessing supernatural events, many of which do not support Christian theology, abound throughout the world. And yet, it is only certain ones that are privileged. Seems odd.

My standards also apply equally to certain incredible secular matters. E.g. if we accept eye witness accounts of unlikely events, does that mean that Elvis did not die in 1977? That Earth has been visited by aliens? That Xerxes invaded Greece with 1 million soldiers?

I could also spend lots of time casting all sorts of doubt on the validity of eye witnesses, the effects of oral transmission, the commonality of people seeing dead people, and so on. But as you've pointed out, that's not really what this thread is about, is it?



It does, if you're trying to figure out the OP's goals. It seems to me he is seeking to embarrass the fundamentalists. (He also seems to have checked out of the conversation awhile ago.)

I suggest you read the OP's last post in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...nding-jesuss-empty-tomb-5.html#post1065442157

It's pretty clear he had an agenda.
Click to expand...
I've read every post in this thread. But thanks for the link. I'm not that concerned with his agenda; I was simply attempting to address the questions posed in his original post......from the perspective of a historian......with no emotional investments either way. From the perspective of an unbiased historian, separate eyewitness accounts of an event which seem to corroborate one another are simply that....nothing more. This evidence does not "prove" that an event happened in the exact manner that an individual nearly 2000 years later interprets it.....however, it should be evaluated and weighed fairly, in an unbiased manner...... as the evidence that it is.

Ultimately, the conclusions that you or I draw from it doesn't really matter and as I have attempted to show exhaustively, do not detract from its consistency nor its cohesiveness.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I've read every post in this thread. But thanks for the link. I'm not that concerned with his agenda; I was simply attempting to address the questions posed in his original post......from the perspective of a historian......with no emotional investments either way.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then you should have no problems accepting a historical analysis which strongly indicates that the story of the resurrection is largely a fabrication, and analyzing the texts not as a literal report, but as proselytization tools, an indication of the changes of the early Jesus movement over time, etc.


From the perspective of an unbiased historian, separate eyewitness accounts of an event which seem to corroborate one another are simply that....nothing more.
Click to expand...
An unbiased historian will also recognize that the texts were not written by actual eye-witnesses, and that the documents were written anonymously, decades after the events depicted, most likely based on oral traditions. Most likely dates, based on modern scholarship:

Mark = 48-55 CE
Matthew = 65-70CE
Luke = 57-62 CE
John = 90-95 CE


This evidence does not "prove" that an event happened in the exact manner that an individual nearly 2000 years later interprets it.....however, it should be evaluated and weighed fairly, in an unbiased manner...... as the evidence that it is.
Click to expand...
It proves that people believed it happened, and believed there were witnesses. It is insufficient to prove that it did actually happen... or that it was unique.

If that is considered a valid form of evidence, then we should also hold that Vespasian miraculously healed citizens with his bare hands, that aliens have visited earth, and that Elvis did not die in 1977. Which of these do you accept as true, on the basis of witness testimony?
 
Visbek said:
If that's the case, then you should have no problems accepting a historical analysis which strongly indicates that the story of the resurrection is largely a fabrication, and analyzing the texts not as a literal report, but as proselytization tools, an indication of the changes of the early Jesus movement over time, etc.



An unbiased historian will also recognize that the texts were not written by actual eye-witnesses, and that the documents were written anonymously, decades after the events depicted, most likely based on oral traditions. Most likely dates, based on modern scholarship:

Mark = 48-55 CE
Matthew = 65-70CE
Luke = 57-62 CE
John = 90-95 CE



It proves that people believed it happened, and believed there were witnesses. It is insufficient to prove that it did actually happen... or that it was unique.

If that is considered a valid form of evidence, then we should also hold that Vespasian miraculously healed citizens with his bare hands, that aliens have visited earth, and that Elvis did not die in 1977. Which of these do you accept as true, on the basis of witness testimony?
Click to expand...

There is a large number of biblical scholars that will disagree with the dates you provided.

For example, Mark is most often given between 65 and 80, , Luke is given between 80 and 130, Matthew between 80 and 100, and john is 90 to 120.


The dates given by you for 'modern scholarship' is highly biased to the 'modern fundamentalist/conservative evangelistic theologian', not mainstream.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is a large number of biblical scholars that will disagree with the dates you provided.
Click to expand...
I may be off on the dates, but the argument is still the same. The texts were written anonymously, by people who were not actual witnesses to many of the events, who did not know Jesus personally, and much of the information about Jesus was transmitted orally for an unknown number of years.
 
Visbek said:
I may be off on the dates, but the argument is still the same. The texts were written anonymously, by people who were not actual witnesses to many of the events, who did not know Jesus personally, and much of the information about Jesus was transmitted orally for an unknown number of years.
Click to expand...


That is correct.... the Gospel of John identifies as "John", but not which John.
 
distraff said:
I have often head the empty tomb used as evidence that Jesus is God...
Click to expand...

Nah, we know he wasn't God because he said so himself often enough..:)

"I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 )
"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)
"Only God knows when Judgement Day will be, I don't know myself" (Mark 13:32)
"I say nothing of my own accord, i only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)
"I am going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God" (John 20:17)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom