There was No Empty TombꟷThe Gospel’s Resurrection Accounts Never Occurred

JustHanging said:

Which apostles personally witnessed the empty tomb and recorded it? AFAIK none, but I could be wrong. If so, please provide a link to the original document. Thanks in advance.

What non-Christian sources are there for an empty tomb?

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by JustHanging

What non-Christian sources are there for an empty tomb?

Click to expand...

The book analyses biblical texts about the events related to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It Ross was skeptical regarding the resurrection of Jesus, and set out to analyse the sources and to write a short paper entitled Jesus – the Last Phase[19] to demonstrate the apparent myth.[22]
However, in compiling his notes, he came to be convinced of the truth of the resurrection, and set out his reasoning in the book Who moved the stone?. T. S. Eliot, a literary consultant and was an editorial board member at Faber & Faber publishers, read the manuscript when it was submitted for publication. Eliot was enthusiastic about the text and recommended that Faber & Faber publish the book.[23]
The book was released in time for Lent in 1930 and Eliot passed complimentary copies for review to authors such as G. K. Chesterton.[24]
In Chesterton's review, he remarked that he picked the book up "under the impression that it was a detective story" and found that the case for the resurrection was "treated in such a logical and even legal manner."[25]

Click to expand...

Harvard Law Professor Coverts To Christianity After Trying To Disprove Resurrection Of Jesus


Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the acclaimed Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University. He was one of the most celebrated legal minds in American history with one of his works, Treatise on the Law of Evidence, still being considered “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure” (1). He is now considered one of the most important figures in the development of Christian apologetics, specifically legal or juridical apologetics.

As a professed atheist, and while teaching law at Harvard, Greenleaf stated to his class that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a legend (2). This was obvious for him given that miracles were impossible. However, a few of his students responded to his skepticism and challenged him to apply his rules of evidence to the historical resurrection evidence (3). Greenleaf eventually accepted their challenge, and set out to prove that the resurrection of Jesus was false.


Greenleaf went on to boldly claim that
“According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history” (7).

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by JustHanging

What non-Christian sources are there for an empty tomb?

Click to expand...

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

----------------------------

The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader's perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated. For this purpose, and for the sake of more ready and close comparison, they are arranged in juxtaposition, after the general order of the latest and most approved harmonies. The question is not upon the strict propriety of the arrangement, but upon the veracity of the witnesses and the credibility of their narratives. With the relative merits of modern harmonists, and with points of controversy among theologians the writer has no concern. His business is that of a lawyer examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit and whether their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents, coming from the proper custody. If so, then it is believed that every honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result, by receiving their testimony in all the extent of its import. To write out a full commentary or argument upon the text would be a useless addition to the bulk of the volume; but a few notes have been added for illustration of the narratives, and for the clearing up of apparent discrepancies, as being all that members of the legal profession would desire.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Lol. How could you have missed this....if indeed you had done a decent amount of reading?

Click to expand...

Mary Magdalene (and those she referred to as "we"), had seen the tomb empty otherwise she wouldn't have said, "they had taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put Him." Definitely she and at least another woman ("we"), saw that the body was gone!

And then there was Peter, followed by the "other" disciple, whom was described as the one Jesus loved
The description of the scene was vividly detailed, therefore we have to assume that the one who'd relayed or recorded this message was also
with Peter and the "other" disciple.




John 20

20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.

4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.

6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

I'm not in the mood to do any research. Anyway.....

Why would you even think a non-Christian resource would be credible at all?
Would non-Christians really care about an empty tomb? Wouldn't non-Christians justify an empty tomb to say that the Apostles had taken the body?
Would the Romans admit to the embarrassing negligence as to have lost the body?

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Harvard Law Professor Coverts To Christianity After Trying To Disprove Resurrection Of Jesus | Reasons for Jesus

Click to expand...

JustHanging said:

I asked for eye witness. None of that is eye witness.



That is written decades after the event, based on old tales. What sort of evidence do you have that these tales didn't change over the decades, like so many tall tales do?

Where are the non-Christian sources for the Empty Tomb?

Click to expand...

JustHanging said:

That's just silly. If the empty tomb/resurrection is a myth, how could you possibly disprove it? The burden of proof lies on those making the claim...ie those claiming the empty tomb/ressurection. The prof must have been suffering from dementia or something.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

I gave you evidences from credible sources - one was even an ATHEIST FOUNDER OF HARVARD LAW! I gave you the logic.....
……...and yet, you keep asking for eye-witnesses!

You want non-Christian EYE-WITNESSES to boot! :lol:





You reject Simon Greenleaf's research findings - even after the fact that he's got so much crediblility!
Therefore, you're the one who's now making UNSUPPORTED claim!

You even make such a ridiculous assumption that Greenleaf could've been suffering from dementia! My....how desperate is that? :mrgreen:


You're the one who keeps ignoring the evidences I gave like as if you know something we don't.....so, let me ask you....



What evidence do you have that the Resurrection didn't happen?


Don't bother me with your nonsense until you provide something for a change!

Ps: Give something rational.


Btw, I watched the first few minutes of your precious Paulogia - I already saw a major flaw!
I might just respond and rip his juvenile video to shred one of these days!

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

I gave you evidences from credible sources - one was even an ATHEIST FOUNDER OF HARVARD LAW!

Click to expand...

In 1833, Greenleaf was named to the Royall professorship, and in 1846 succeeded Judge Joseph Story as Dane professor of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

I gave you the logic.....
……...and yet, you keep asking for eye-witnesses!

You want non-Christian EYE-WITNESSES to boot! :lol:

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

You reject Simon Greenleaf's research findings - even after the fact that he's got so much crediblility!
Therefore, you're the one who's now making UNSUPPORTED claim!

You even make such a ridiculous assumption that Greenleaf could've been suffering from dementia! My....how desperate is that? :mrgreen:


You're the one who keeps ignoring the evidences I gave like as if you know something we don't.....so, let me ask you....

Click to expand...

. . . the overwhelming majority of scholars who do “New Testament” history are employed by institutions or organizations whose roots are in religious belief. Which means: more than any other group in the present day academy, biblical historians are under immense pressure – sometimes overt, sometimes subliminal, but virtually omnipresent – to adjusl their scholarship, to theologize their historical work. The maintenance of scholarly integrity by so many of the biblical historians is the product of considerable individual heroism. The pressure they frequently experience helps to explain why one encounters so often in the literature appeals to consensus. (pg 541)

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

What evidence do you have that the Resurrection didn't happen?


Don't bother me with your nonsense until you provide something for a change!

Ps: Give something rational.


Btw, I watched the first few minutes of your precious Paulogia - I already saw a major flaw!
I might just respond and rip his juvenile video to shred one of these days!

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

No. I was responding to this part of your post, this I gave the logical explanation based from the Biblical verse you quoted.
The answer is right there in your face! Here:

Oh oh, lying for Jesus, that favorite pastime of apologists everywhere. Where does that quote mention a missing body or an empty tomb?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should also explain to Carrier, that a likely reason why Paul had omitted Jesus' burial was the fact that it had already been written by others. Instead, Paul had latched on to the most important part of the event: RESURRECTION!

Tell Carrier, the Bible isn't meant as a primer, you know.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Two points that you and other apologists get wrong.
1) Simon Greenleaf was a devout Episcopalian before he wrote his apologetic book.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Lol. How could you have missed this....if indeed you had done a decent amount of reading?

Mary Magdalene (and those she referred to as "we"), had seen the tomb empty otherwise she wouldn't have said, "they had taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put Him." Definitely she and at least another woman ("we"), saw that the body was gone!

And then there was Peter, followed by the "other" disciple, whom was described as the one Jesus loved
The description of the scene was vividly detailed, therefore we have to assume that the one who'd relayed or recorded this message was also
with Peter and the "other" disciple.

(snip)

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

So what!
He was an atheist who set out to debunk the Resurrection!

You miss the point - what turned him Episcopalian?

Can you guess?



What's wrong with you folks?
My observation based on how you guys tend to miss the point - you all seem to have one thing in common - you can't shoot straight! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

One man who contributed significantly to Christian apologetics was one of America's great legal leaders. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was a professor at Harvard Law School (1833-1848). He contributed a great deal to the school, expanding it, including its library.

Greenleaf wrote a major textbook used widely, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence.

Contrary to some accounts (even found extensively on the Internet, to this day), Greenleaf was not an atheist or agnostic converted to Christianity by the evidence for the resurrection. He was livelong, active member of the Episcopal Church. In 1847, Greenleaf applied his expertise as a pioneer in the area of trial evidence to the Gospels in a landmark book.

Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospel Examined by the Rules of Evidence. The evangelists, of course, are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. As he applied the rules of evidence to the Gospels, he found them reliable.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Why does the oldest version of Mark end with verse 16:8? Later manuscripts add one or both of two endings, known as the Long and Short.

Why do we have four different tales about the discovery of the empty tomb?

Why is there no Roman record of a "violent earthquake"?

Why is there no record of a town or village named Arimathea? The name may be translated as “Best Disciple Town”

Click to expand...

nota bene said:

From Wiki:

Identification
Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Onomasticon (144:28-29), identifies it with Ramathaim-Zophim and writes that it is near Diospolis (modern Lod). Ramathaim-Zophim was a town in Ephraim, the birthplace of Samuel, where David came to him (1 Samuel 1:1, 19).

According to John Loftus the name Arimathea can be translated as “Best Disciple Town”. Loftus claims there is no textual evidence for the town outside the gospels, and no archaeological evidence exists as well. He concludes that this means that the town must be imaginary. This explains why Luke 23:51 calls it a “Jewish town” since no one had ever heard of it before.

The Encyclopedia of Islam has argued that Crusaders identified Ramla, a medieval town founded circa 705–715 AD by the Umayyads on land in what had once been the allotment of Dan, with both Ramathaim and Arimathea, and changed the name of the town to Arimathea. Scholars of the Onomasticon have identified the Greek "Arimathea" as deriving from the ancient Hebrew place name transliterated into Greek, as the older Hebrew place name "Ramathaim Sophim" attested in the Hebrew Bible was rendered into Greek in the ancient Septuagint as Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα (Armathaim Sipha).

Who is John Loftus? John W. Loftus - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Onomasticon - Wiki
The primary source for the Onomasticon is Codex Vaticanus, Gr. 1456 which dates from the 11th or 12th century.
(. . .)
Date
The Onomasticon has traditionally been dated before 324, on the basis of its sparse references to Christianity, and complete absence of remarks on Constantine the Great's buildings in the Holy Land. The work also describes traditional religious practices at the oak of Mamre as though they were still happening, while they are known to have been suppressed soon after 325, when a church was built on the site. Eusebius references to the encampment of the Legio X Fretensis at Aila (in southern Israel, near modern Aqaba and Eilat); the X Fretensis was probably transferred from Jerusalem to Aila under Diocletian.

Click to expand...

The Problem of Eusebius

Robert M. Grant, a modern historian of the early church period, provocatively asked, "Did the Father of Church History write history?"

Jewish historian Doron Mendels describes Eusebius's Church History as a "media revolution" and suggests that, because of his style of weaving short entries into a broader scheme, the author was "one of the fathers of the journalistic genre." Another writer concludes that Eusebius was "less a historian than a mediator of knowledge."

Or perhaps a mediator of propaganda. This is the man who called Emperor Constantine "most beloved by God," described the fourth-century church as being brought to "a state of uniform harmony," and called Jews "a people who had slain the prophets and the Lord himself."

Click to expand...

Marxistleninist said:

anointing a body three days later doesn't fall in line with any Jewish tradition

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

2) He was not a FOUNDER of Harvard Law School - History of Harvard Law

Click to expand...

Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library.

Click to expand...

Dane Hall was home to Harvard Law when Simon Greenleaf joined Joseph Story in efforts to reinvigorate the school.

“We have shared the toils together,” Story wrote to Greenleaf in 1842, and “you are in every way entitled to an equal share (of respect) with myself.”

The recent digitization of the Simon Greenleaf papers—26 boxes of letters, cases, legal opinions, tracts, and complexly layered manuscripts—documents a collaboration between the two men so thorough it included acquiring artwork to decorate the law school.

The collection also provides the opportunity for virtual visitors to acquaint themselves with Greenleaf himself: an unsung “genius,” according to HLS Visiting Professor Daniel R. Coquillette ’71. (Coquillette is co-author of a new history of Harvard Law School.)

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Simon Greenleaf - Wikipedia





Turning Over a New Leaf - Harvard Law Today

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Your sources on the atheism of Simon Greenleaf are all apologetic sites. Greenleaf was an Episcopalian before he wrote the book you are referencing.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

since you seem to like big letters

SIMON GREENLEAF WAS NOT A FOUNDER OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

ALSO -- He was not an atheist before he wrote his testimony about Jesus

Click to expand...

ALSO -- He was not an atheist before he wrote his testimony about Jesus

Click to expand...

Lovebug said:

The time people spend obsessing about something they think doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

If you'll quibble about that......then, ignore what I said: just simply refer to the description given by Harvard itself.

ALSO -- He was not an atheist before he wrote his testimony about Jesus

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Post #63 "Contrary to some accounts (even found extensively on the Internet, to this day), Greenleaf was not an atheist or agnostic converted to Christianity by the evidence for the resurrection. He was livelong, active member of the Episcopal Church. In 1847, Greenleaf applied his expertise as a pioneer in the area of trial evidence to the Gospels in a landmark book."

Click to expand...

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

Click to expand...

The University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law is a public law school located on the main campus of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in Kansas City, Missouri, near the Country Club Plaza.

It was founded in 1895 as the Kansas City School of Law, a private, independent law school located in Downtown Kansas City, and was purchased by the University of Missouri-Kansas City in 1938. The law school moved to UMKC's main campus soon after, where it is accredited by the American Bar Association and is a member of the Association of American Law Schools.

Rankings
The school is ranked #119 best law school in the U.S., placing it in the third tier according to the four tier system of law schools based on the U.S. News & World Report Annual Rankings (2019 data).[1] In 2017, the U.S. News & World Report ranked the Trial Advocacy Program as number 21 in the nation, tied with Stanford University, University of Georgia, University of Houston, and Campbell University (North Carolina).

History
It is one of four law schools in Missouri (St. Louis University School of Law, University of Missouri Columbia School of Law, Washington University School of Law). It is one of seven American law schools to have had both a President of the United States (Harry S. Truman) and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Charles Evans Whittaker) attend.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Post #63 "Contrary to some accounts (even found extensively on the Internet, to this day), Greenleaf was not an atheist or agnostic converted to Christianity by the evidence for the resurrection. He was livelong, active member of the Episcopal Church. In 1847, Greenleaf applied his expertise as a pioneer in the area of trial evidence to the Gospels in a landmark book."

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Your sources on the atheism of Simon Greenleaf are all apologetic sites. Greenleaf was an Episcopalian before he wrote the book you are referencing. Perhaps Christian Post's piece on Mr Greenleaf will change your mind about 1) calling Greenleaf an "atheist" and 2) relying on apologetic sources for reliable history.

Click to expand...