Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

"When someone died, that would gather people around. It happened. The point was it said they moved the stone. How do we know how big a stone was? Simple. We have found burial tombs and the stones used. The stones would weigh about a ton and you would have to push upward. Want to find me five men who can push a one-ton stone upwards?"

Ok, Nick, enough of your assumptions and generalizations. Please give me a source that says that the stone in front of Jesus tomb weighed a ton and could only be rolled back with "equipment" or a very large crowd.

[Gary]

1. "To roll that stone back up again would require the strength of several men."

" it would take several people to roll the stone back up the groove away from the entrance."

So I was right. It would only take "several" men to move the stone back, not "equipment, not a "crowd", as you assumed. Therefore, some of Jesus brothers with some cousins or others could have moved the stone away prior to the guards arriving at the tomb. There is zero evidence that the Sanhedrin left a look out. This is wild speculation on your part.

[Gary]

Nick: As for how the body left the tomb, well here's the deal. I'll try to explain slowly.

At point A, the body is in the tomb.

At point B, the body is not in the tomb.

Somehow, the body left the tomb.

One does not need to know the how to know that it left the tomb somehow.

Gary: Exactly!!! All we have is an empty tomb! No one claimed to witness the body leave the tomb. So there is ZERO evidence for the Resurrection event itself, only an empty tomb, and, alleged post-death sightings of the deceased---which in the history of humankind, come a dime a dozen. We don't believe someone or ones today claiming to see dead people, why should we believe claims of seeing dead people from TWENTY centuries ago??

[Apologiaphoenix]

1. "To roll that stone back up again would require the strength of several men."

" it would take several people to roll the stone back up the groove away from the entrance."

So I was right. It would only take "several" men to move the stone back, not "equipment, not a "crowd", as you assumed. Therefore, some of Jesus brothers with some cousins or others could have moved the stone away prior to the guards arriving at the tomb. There is zero evidence that the Sanhedrin left a look out. This is wild speculation on your part.

Good night but how obtuse can someone be. As for Sanhedrin watching, the Sanhedrin were the ones responsible for the burial of Jesus. Why would they guard the tomb? Not just to squelch any mention of resurrection, but to keep away mourners.

Never mind that if the brothers were going to take the body, they would wait a year to do so. The body had been buried and they would gather the bones in a year in an ossuary. We have no record of anything like this happening.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick: As for how the body left the tomb, well here's the deal. I'll try to explain slowly.

At point A, the body is in the tomb.

At point B, the body is not in the tomb.

Somehow, the body left the tomb.

One does not need to know the how to know that it left the tomb somehow.

Gary: Exactly!!! All we have is an empty tomb! No one claimed to witness the body leave the tomb. So there is ZERO evidence for the Resurrection event itself, only an empty tomb, and, alleged post-death sightings of the deceased---which in the history of humankind, come a dime a dozen. We don't believe someone or ones today claiming to see dead people, why should we believe claims of seeing dead people from TWENTY centuries ago??

Good grief.....

You'd have a point if all we had was the empty tomb. We don't.

We also have the appearances of Jesus to the people. Again, you make the mistake of trying to explain one thing in isolation not realizing that the explanation does not make sense of the other pieces of data. One explanation covers them all. The resurrection of Jesus. All you need is "God exists" and I have enough independent evidence of that.

[Gary]

Good night but how obtuse can someone be. As for Sanhedrin watching, the Sanhedrin were the ones responsible for the burial of Jesus. Why would they guard the tomb? Not just to squelch any mention of resurrection, but to keep away mourners.

Never mind that if the brothers were going to take the body, they would wait a year to do so. The body had been buried and they would gather the bones in a year in an ossuary. We have no record of anything like this happening.

Assumptions! Assumptions! Assumptions!

You have no proof that the family of Jesus had to wait a year to move the body to a family plot. The fact is, that under Jewish law, a body can be moved to a family plot. Period! The onus is on you to prove that a body could not be moved for a year!

[Gary]

Good grief.....

You'd have a point if all we had was the empty tomb. We don't.

We also have the appearances of Jesus to the people. Again, you make the mistake of trying to explain one thing in isolation not realizing that the explanation does not make sense of the other pieces of data. One explanation covers them all. The resurrection of Jesus. All you need is "God exists" and I have enough independent evidence of that.

How dimwitted are you, Nick??

I specifically stated the evidence for the empty tomb AND the post death sightings. That is all the evidence there is other than your assumptions and generalizations regarding the behavior and thinking of first century Jews!

[psstein]

Assumptions! Assumptions! Assumptions!

You have no proof that the family of Jesus had to wait a year to move the body to a family plot. The fact is, that under Jewish law, a body can be moved to a family plot. Period! The onus is on you to prove that a body could not be moved for a year!

The burial custom was not to move the body until it decomposed. The burden is on you to show that a body was moved before it decomposed.

[psstein]

It is obvious to many skeptics that Matthew was a master of scouring the Old Testament for any possible prophecies he could tie to Jesus. The phrase "to this day" was most likely borrowed from the anonymous authors of the Pentateuch who also liked that phrase. What proof do we have of any of these "to this day" statements? None.

No. Not at all. The "to this day" implies that Matthew was written later than the events transpired. That's all it means.

Reading books would tell you that.

[Gary]

The burial custom was not to move the body until it decomposed. The burden is on you to show that a body was moved before it decomposed.

Are you saying that temporary burials were never allowed in Second Temple Judaism? Prove it!

We have no evidence that Joseph of Aramathea meant for Jesus' burial in his tomb to be permanent. For all we know Jesus' body was hurriedly put in Aramathea's tomb to get it off the cross before sundown and the beginning of the Sabbath as a temporary measure. Maybe Aramathea planned to give the body to the family after the Sabbath. Maybe the Sanhedrin asked for the guards until this transfer could be arranged to prevent the disciples from taking the body during the Sabbath and claiming a resurrection. The family beat them to it, however. Therefore, it would not be a violation of Jewish law to move the body before or after the Sabbath to a permanent, family, plot.

Another scenario is that Aramathea himself, after sunset Saturday night, with permission from Pilate, told the guards to open the tomb, take the body, and bury it in an unmarked grave somewhere else. The next morning the women arrive, find the tomb empty and the stone rolled away...and the rest of the story begins.

But here is another interesting point which you fail to grasp: Why did the Sanhedrin ask for the guards? Was it to prevent grave-robbers from taking the body? Was it to prevent Romans or other pagans from taking the body? Answer: No! The Jewish Sanhedrin asked for guards to be placed at the grave, before the beginning of the Sabbath, to prevent Jesus' JEWISH disciples from taking the body!! And Matthew says that after the "resurrection" occurred, that is EXACTLY the story that the Sanhedrin told the soldiers to tell the public. If no Jew would believe that a Jew would move a body on the Sabbath WHY IS THAT THE STORY THE SANHEDRIN SPREAD, AND WHY WOULD THEY THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD BUY IT??

Another of your assumptions and generalizations bites the dust!

You see, Nick, there are MANY plausible scenarios to explain the empty tomb. There are many plausible scenarios to explain why mostly uneducated, superstitious, ancient peoples would claim to see dead people. The only thing for which there is no explanation is your insistence that there were never any exceptions to all your hard and fast generalizations about the beliefs and habits of people living TWENTY CENTURIES ago!!

Open your eyes, my friend. The truth is right in front of your face!

[Gary]

No. Not at all. The "to this day" implies that Matthew was written later than the events transpired. That's all it means.

Reading books would tell you that.

Or he made it up for "theological" purposes. It was not meant to be taken literally...like the "saints" coming out of their graves to chat with friends and relatives on the streets of a major city...

Your gullibility knows no bounds.

[Gary]

The burial custom was not to move the body until it decomposed. The burden is on you to show that a body was moved before it decomposed.

From the Jewish virtual library: "Jewish law forbids the transfer of a dead body or of remnant bones https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...5_0_05253.html

Notice that this statement doesn't just say "remnant bones". It would say "remnant bones" if only bones could be moved as you are trying to assert. Therefore, Jewish bodies can be moved in Judaism under the conditions listed in the remaining portion of the article, one which includes moving the body to a family plot.

Therefore, the family and/or friends of Jesus could move the body to a family plot, such as in Bethany, and it would not be a violation of Jewish law.

Now. Are you willing to admit that there ARE other plausible explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection other than a literal, bodily resurrection, or, are you going to continue throwing out false generalizations?

[One Bad Pig]

Are you saying that temporary burials were never allowed in Second Temple Judaism? Prove it!

Psstein was describing a temporary burial.

We have no evidence that Joseph of Aramathea meant for Jesus' burial in his tomb to be permanent. For all we know Jesus' body was hurriedly put in Aramathea's tomb to get it off the cross before sundown and the beginning of the Sabbath as a temporary measure. Maybe Aramathea planned to give the body to the family after the Sabbath. Maybe the Sanhedrin asked for the guards until this transfer could be arranged to prevent the disciples from taking the body during the Sabbath and claiming a resurrection. The family beat them to it, however. Therefore, it would not be a violation of Jewish law to move the body before or after the Sabbath to a permanent, family, plot.

The family was not involved at this point (which is why Mary was placed in the care of the beloved disciple). And you're speculating freely.

Another scenario is that Aramathea himself, after sunset Saturday night, with permission from Pilate, told the guards to open the tomb, take the body, and bury it in an unmarked grave somewhere else. The next morning the women arrive, find the tomb empty and the stone rolled away...and the rest of the story begins.

Rank speculation. There's no motive for Joseph of Aramathea to do this, and he would have been about the first person asked.

But here is another interesting point which you fail to grasp: Why did the Sanhedrin ask for the guards? Was it to prevent grave-robbers from taking the body? Was it to prevent Romans or other pagans from taking the body? Answer: No! The Jewish Sanhedrin asked for guards to be placed at the grave, before the beginning of the Sabbath, to prevent Jesus' JEWISH disciples from taking the body!! And Matthew says that after the "resurrection" occurred, that is EXACTLY the story that the Sanhedrin told the soldiers to tell the public. If no Jew would believe that a Jew would move a body on the Sabbath WHY IS THAT THE STORY THE SANHEDRIN SPREAD, AND WHY WOULD THEY THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD BUY IT??

Jesus repeatedly broke the "hedge laws" that the scribes and Pharisees set up, which they equated with breaking actual convenantal laws. Of course, sleeping on duty was punishable by death, which would be rather more shocking an admission.

[Gary]

Psstein was describing a temporary burial.

The family was not involved at this point (which is why Mary was placed in the care of the beloved disciple). And you're speculating freely.

Rank speculation. There's no motive for Joseph of Aramathea to do this, and he would have been about the first person asked.

Jesus repeatedly broke the "hedge laws" that the scribes and Pharisees set up, which they equated with breaking actual convenantal laws. Of course, sleeping on duty was punishable by death, which would be rather more shocking an admission.

Assumptions, upon embellishments, upon assumptions and generalizations!

Real evidence, please!

[Gary]

Dear Readers, I think it is obvious to any rational, educated person who is willing to look at the evidence:

1. There are alternative, plausible, naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb.
2. There are alternative, plausible, naturalistic explanations for why individuals and even groups of people will claim to have seen something that in reality was not there.
3. There are alternative, plausible, naturalistic explanations for why a small minority of people in a group would believe a new, unheard of, even shameful belief.
4. There are alternative, plausible, naturalistic explanations for why one very religious man would claim to have seen a dead person and subsequently convert to that dead person's new religion that he had previously despised and persecuted.
5. There are alternative, plausible, possible exceptions to almost every generalization.

Skeptics cannot disprove that the Judeo-Christian God literally brought the dead body of Jesus back from the dead. But neither can we disprove the majority of supernatural claims of other supernatural based belief systems. But the fact that there ARE alternative, plausible, naturalistic, possible explanations for every piece of evidence related to the early Christian belief in a Resurrection should give every intelligent, educated, rational person pause. In all other areas of your life a miracle/magical cause is the last explanation that you would assume explained an odd event.

If your keys are missing, do you assume a demon took them?
If there is a gash on your car, do you assume that a gremlin did it?
If your paycheck comes back short, do you assume that the Devil did it?
If you see an empty grave today, do you assume that the body left in a supernatural manner?
If someone tells you that their dead friend or family member appeared to them in bright, shiny garments, and was able to enter a locked room without using the door, do you believe them??

So when you hear an ancient story about a man whose grave was found empty and allegations that his friends, family, and ONE stranger saw this dead man appear to them, why would you jump to the miracle/magical explanation before assuming that one of the many alternative, plausible, naturalistic explanations is most likely the true explanation?

Think about that. What conservative/traditional Christians are asking you to believe is not rational thinking.