The Empty Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth

I'm not sure if you're talking about a recent publication I haven't heard of or simply the Bible itself, but I'll go with the latter.

Quite simply, there's nothing here to "explain". There's no reason to assume that Jesus even existed in the first place, much less that his body disappeared from some undisclosed tomb, other than that the gospel-writers said so, and that is not a good reason.

My take, then, is that a couple of different people wrote separate (and contradictory) accounts of an imaginary event (no less than seventy years after it allegedly happened) and that the early Christians, who were no more eye-witnesses to the "fact" than its followers today, believed it.

Can a theist respond?

Anyway, I'm going to say that the best evidence for the empty tomb is the mentioning of women as being the first witnesses.

Simon Greenleaf was an atheist who studied the evidence for Jesus' ressurection in depth.

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of 'A Treatise on the Law of Evidence',believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice'. He came to the conclusion 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."

Simon Greenleaf was an atheist who studied the evidence for Jesus' ressurection in depth.

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of 'A Treatise on the Law of Evidence',believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice'. He came to the conclusion 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."

Lansdowne5

Care to give the source for this quote?

Anyways I don't think that a resurrection from the dead is the best fit for an empty tomb at all. I don't know what explanation to give but that shouldn't mean that I resort to supernatural miracles to explain the world.

Care to give the source for this quote?

Anyways I don't think that a resurrection from the dead is the best fit for an empty tomb at all. I don't know what explanation to give but that shouldn't mean that I resort to supernatural miracles to explain the world.

domatron23

The source is Mr. Blackstone's book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice', and 'More Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.

It's not the "best fit", it's what actually happened. :)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Care to give the source for this quote?

Anyways I don't think that a resurrection from the dead is the best fit for an empty tomb at all. I don't know what explanation to give but that shouldn't mean that I resort to supernatural miracles to explain the world.

Lansdowne5

The source is Mr. Blackstone's book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice', and 'More Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.

It's not the "best fit", it's what actually happened. :)

Well it looks like Mr Greenleaf confused eyewitness testimony with hearsay. It was a good try but I don't think that would stand in court.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Care to give the source for this quote?

Anyways I don't think that a resurrection from the dead is the best fit for an empty tomb at all. I don't know what explanation to give but that shouldn't mean that I resort to supernatural miracles to explain the world.

domatron23

The source is Mr. Blackstone's book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice', and 'More Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.

It's not the "best fit", it's what actually happened. :)

Well it looks like Mr Greenleaf confused eyewitness testimony with hearsay. It was a good try but I don't think that would stand in court.

So you'd trust an Atheist like Dawkin's thoughts on theology and so on but not another Atheist who actually uncovered the truth? Very interesting indeed.

There's no evidence that Jesus even existed. People cite the Bible as evidence, but they forget that the parts in the Bible concerning Jesus were written at least 80 years after his supposed death. If such a miraculous event actually happened, I'm sure that at least some of the historians of the day would've recorded something about it.Strategist1117

Hmmmm, except for the fact that around the time after Jesus' death anyone who even spoke his name was nailed to a cross for supposed 'blasphemy'? Surely only a true, eye witness, and faithful believer, would risk that? Say the four authors of the gospels?

So by the time the Roman Historians began to write about Jesus I suppose the rawness of the situation would have died down quite substantially enough for them to consider themselves 'safe'.

Simon Greenleaf was an atheist who studied the evidence for Jesus' ressurection in depth.

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of 'A Treatise on the Law of Evidence',believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice'. He came to the conclusion 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."

Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Care to give the source for this quote?

Anyways I don't think that a resurrection from the dead is the best fit for an empty tomb at all. I don't know what explanation to give but that shouldn't mean that I resort to supernatural miracles to explain the world.

Lansdowne5

The source is Mr. Blackstone's book, 'An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice', and 'More Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.

It's not the "best fit", it's what actually happened. :)

Well it looks like Mr Greenleaf confused eyewitness testimony with hearsay. It was a good try but I don't think that would stand in court.

So you'd trust an Atheist like Dawkin's thoughts on theology and so on but not another Atheist who actually uncovered the truth? Very interesting indeed.

The thing about atheism Lansdowne is that it has no grouping or leadership (contrary to this very board). It doesn't matter if an atheist says something it matters what someone says. If Dawkins became a fundamentalist Christian tomorrow I wouldn't trust what he has to say unless he gave some damned good evidence and reasoning.

There's no evidence that Jesus even existed. People cite the Bible as evidence, but they forget that the parts in the Bible concerning Jesus were written at least 80 years after his supposed death. If such a miraculous event actually happened, I'm sure that at least some of the historians of the day would've recorded something about it.Strategist1117

No. Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written between 20-40 years after his death; 60 years after is when John came out.

No. Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written between 20-40 years after his death; 60 years after is when John came out.STWELCH

[QUOTE="STWELCH"]No. Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written between 20-40 years after his death; 60 years after is when John came out.Strategist1117

Not true; the Pauline epistles provide information, scant as it may be, about Jesus's life before the Gospel accounts. And, in ancient history, the fact that they came out that soon after his death is remarkable; it was relatively quick by antiquity standards.

[QUOTE="Strategist1117"][QUOTE="STWELCH"]No. Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written between 20-40 years after his death; 60 years after is when John came out.STWELCH

Not true; the Pauline epistles provide information, scant as it may be, about Jesus's life before the Gospel accounts. And, in ancient history, the fact that they came out that soon after his death is remarkable; it was relatively quick by antiquity standards.

Precisely right.

As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?Alter_Ego

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?felixlynch777

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

What about the whole spear incident while he was on the cross. The swoon hypothesis is perfectly possible but I've never really taken it as a likely explanation for the resurrection.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?domatron23

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

What about the whole spear incident while he was on the cross. The swoon hypothesis is perfectly possible but I've never really taken it as a likely explanation for the resurrection.

He could have survived it. A soldier in WW1 survived 9 shots to the head and it was common for people on the cross to survive for 3+ days.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?felixlynch777

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

What about the whole spear incident while he was on the cross. The swoon hypothesis is perfectly possible but I've never really taken it as a likely explanation for the resurrection.

He could have survived it. A soldier in WW1 survived 9 shots to the head and it was common for people on the cross to survive for 3+ days.

But how on Earth did he push the boulder away while in that kind of state?

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?felixlynch777

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

What about the whole spear incident while he was on the cross. The swoon hypothesis is perfectly possible but I've never really taken it as a likely explanation for the resurrection.

He could have survived it. A soldier in WW1 survived 9 shots to the head and it was common for people on the cross to survive for 3+ days.

Hot damn.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]As atheists, what is your take on the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sure you're aware that the resurrection is the most widely accepted and best fit explination, but others theories have been set forth nonetheless. There is the swoon theory, the stolen body hypothesis, mass hallucinations, fabled history, and others I'm sure. So what's your take?Lansdowne5

I think he did not die and went into a coma like state. When he 'woke up' he would have had serious nerve damage, evidence of this shows on The Gospels as he did not recognise his Disciples when he first saw them.

What about the whole spear incident while he was on the cross. The swoon hypothesis is perfectly possible but I've never really taken it as a likely explanation for the resurrection.

He could have survived it. A soldier in WW1 survived 9 shots to the head and it was common for people on the cross to survive for 3+ days.

But how on Earth did he push the boulder away while in that kind of state?

There is no truly reliable evidence of jesus' tomb, and who's to say he pushed the boulder away on his own, or for that fact who's to say it was there at all? There's simply no proof of jesus' "ressurection" or the sudden appearance of all of his "miracles" (super-powers?) he exhibited after that event.

Hot damn.

domatron23

I know. It hurt badly enough when I was shot in the leg in Afghanistan never mind in the head, (I wasn't in the army, I had to go there for a study.)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Hot damn.

felixlynch777

I know. It hurt badly enough when I was shot in the leg in Afghanistan never mind in the head, (I wasn't in the army, I had to go there for a study.)

Oh wow man I didn't know you got shot while you were down there. You should have told Vilot_Hero that in his moving to Afghanistan thread.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Hot damn.

domatron23

I know. It hurt badly enough when I was shot in the leg in Afghanistan never mind in the head, (I wasn't in the army, I had to go there for a study.)

Oh wow man I didn't know you got shot while you were down there. You should have told Vilot_Hero that in his moving to Afghanistan thread.

I didn't say I was shot but I did say I went there and how terrible it was. I don't really like to talk about it to be honest.

I was lucky though that the army gave me this when I was there:

I hate to go off-topic, but how do we know that Jesus even existed? I seem to recall someone saying something about somebody proving his existence, but I have never actually seen any evidence to support this. Anyone have a link?Forerunner-117

The gospel's in themselves along with the epistles would count as evidence, along with the accounts of Josephus and Tacticus would present historical evidence. Also Jesuse is apparently the most referenced person in antiquity. I'm not an expert so feel free to try and debunk this.

[QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]I hate to go off-topic, but how do we know that Jesus even existed? I seem to recall someone saying something about somebody proving his existence, but I have never actually seen any evidence to support this. Anyone have a link?123625

The gospel's in themselves along with the epistles would count as evidence, along with the accounts of Josephus and Tacticus would present historical evidence. Also Jesuse is apparently the most referenced person in antiquity. I'm not an expert so feel free to try and debunk this.

No, you're precisely right. There's infact more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than of Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great. 

No, you're precisely right. There's infact more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than of Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great. 

Lansdowne5

No, you're precisely right. There's infact more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than of Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great. Lansdowne5

Even if you were able to prove that he existed. There is no evidence that supports the miracles.

Problems regarding the need for Jesus.

There are plenty of other people from that time period, and before that who seem to share alot of characteristics with Jesus.

I could mention a few of them like Mithra,Attis,Dionysus,Horus etc.

I am not even to point out the problems related to the use of the bible as a source.

Even if you were able to prove that he existed. There is no evidence that supports the miracles.

Problems regarding the need for Jesus.

There are plenty of other people from that time period, and before that who seem to share alot of characteristics with Jesus.

I could mention a few of them like Mithra,Attis,Dionysus,Horus etc.

I am not even to point out the problems related to the use of the bible as a source.

_Tobli_

There are a few things that I don't quite buy about that site ( the Horus-Jesus one). For instance it is remarkably similar too zeitgeist, and some of the information it presents on Horus's accound seems sketchy. It says he was born on the winter solstice, and this does'nt even matter, because Jesus was actually supposed to have been born in the spring or early summer t least according to bible, so they didn't even copy that. And I seriously doubt Horus was crucified in the exact same manner as Jesus was, I very much doubt that indeed. And I have a strong problem with it's sources, like Archyra S, or Gerald Massey.

I am in no position to know whether these are the facts or not, but these sound very sketchy. And it is generally accepted Jesus existed, no doubt there.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]No, you're precisely right. There's infact more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than of Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great. _Tobli_

Even if you were able to prove that he existed. There is no evidence that supports the miracles.

Problems regarding the need for Jesus.

There are plenty of other people from that time period, and before that who seem to share alot of characteristics with Jesus.

I could mention a few of them like Mithra,Attis,Dionysus,Horus etc.

I am not even to point out the problems related to the use of the bible as a source.

But 'proving' he existed wasn't the point was it? It was that if we were to try and prove that those three people existed, there would be more evidence for Jesus than of the other two.

In regards to the first article, I don't know where to start, it's got so many wrong ideas about Sin, "supposedly" from the Bible and it just builds and builds on them until you reach a conclusion that doesn't seem to have any relevance to what the Bible teaches about Sin at all.

I'm sorry to say this, but you've been hoodwinked. The article drawing similarities between Horus and Jesus is complete and utter rubbish. It makes it up as it goes along.

For instance:

Mother's name was Meri. WRONG. 

Birth witnessed by shepherds. WRONG.

Born in cave. WRONG.

Foster father named Seb. WRONG.

Conception by Virigin. WRONG.

Of royal descent. WRONG.

Birth announced by Angel. WRONG.

Age at ritual - 12. WRONG.

Twelve disciples. :lol: WRONG.

Walked on water, cast out demons, gave sight to the blind. :lol: :lol: WRONG.

Transfigured on a mountain. WRONG

Was Crucified. WRONG.

Descended into hell, ressurected in three days. WRONG.

I think you get the pictures that these so called "parrellels" are nothing but down right lies. And anyone who's ever studied Ancient Egypt would know.

You're not going to point out the problems with using the Bible as a source? That's a shame. :( 

In regards to the first article, I don't know where to start, it's got so many wrong ideas about Sin, "supposedly" from the Bible and it just builds and builds on them until you reach a conclusion that doesn't seem to have any relevance to what the Bible teaches about Sin at all. Lansdowne5

Your interpritation is of course the only valid interpritation :roll: ..... Would you care to explain what is incorrect about the premise?

I think you get the pictures that these so called "parrellels" are nothing but down right lies. And anyone who's ever studied Ancient Egypt would know.Landowne5

You simply can't nitpick it like that. It is about general characteristics. It is not saying that it was the same person. It is about the inspiration for the myths.

You're not going to point out the problems with using the Bible as a source? That's a shame. Landowne5

Well there are several hundred contradictions in the bible.

Then there are the scientific errors in the bible. I'm sure you have heard them all before. That pi=3,bats are birds,rabbits chew cud,the earth can never be moved,insects have four legs, etc. A vey reliable source of information. Wouldn't you agree?

 Your interpritation is of course the only valid interpritation :roll: ..... Would you care to explain what is incorrect about the premise? _Tobli_

It's not my interpretation. It's what's actually written.......  

This pretty much explains it - http://www.tektonics.org/lp/origsin.html 

 You simply can't nitpick it like that. It is about general characteristics. It is not saying that it was the same person. It is about the inspiration for the myths. _Tobli_

Yes I can, it's not like the whole argument is constructed so that if I choose to address specific parts as errors individually the whole thing collapses. And by "general characteristics" I assume you mean "Lies made up by some nutcase who will do anything to try and disprove the Lord really existed".

 Well there are several hundred contradictions in the bible.

Then there are the scientific errors in the bible. I'm sure you have heard them all before. That pi=3,bats are birds,rabbits chew cud,the earth can never be moved,insects have four legs, etc. A vey reliable source of information. Wouldn't you agree? _Tobli_

There are no contradictions whatsoever. The "contradictions" only arise when snippits are taken from specific verses which don't make sense either on their own, or when taken out of context. At least give me some Bible quotes if you're going to reference "errors" in it.

1. Bats are not called birds. I presume you are talking about Leviticus 11:13 & 19 and Deuteronomy 14:11 & 18? The nearest word we have to what would've described "winged creatures" in the Hebrew language is "bird". Not an error, but the closest translation possible.

2. Again, I presume you're referring to Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7? Here's the answer - http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

3. "it can never be moved" is referring to the fact that only God is powerful enough to set the foundations (obviously not physical pillars) in place. Other verses clarify the fact that the Earth is not held up by anything: "he hangeth the Earth upon nothing" - Job 26:7

4. Insects having only four legs? No - http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

Well, I dunno honestly. Look how many people believed that "The DaVinci Code" was non-fiction. Couldn't the same have happened with the Bible, but on a much larger scale due to it being in a time where information was harder to come by?Forerunner-117

Here are some reasons that I think invalidate the claim that Jesus is a myth. The epistles of Paul, the historian accounts of Josephus (I'm looking in on the information regarding this), and the account of tacticus. All these people mention Jesus as a real person. And you also have christian matyrs dying about 60 to 70 years later after Jesus (when nero came around and started persecuting christians). I would say it was more apparent to them, that Jesus existed, and was not a myth to give your life too.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]No, you're precisely right. There's infact more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than of Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great. _Tobli_

Even if you were able to prove that he existed. There is no evidence that supports the miracles.

Problems regarding the need for Jesus.

There are plenty of other people from that time period, and before that who seem to share alot of characteristics with Jesus.

I could mention a few of them like Mithra,Attis,Dionysus,Horus etc.

I am not even to point out the problems related to the use of the bible as a source.