Evidence: The Gathering

[Jenny A]

Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.

If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.

Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?

If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.

If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.

Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???

If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?

I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.

poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.

This is where the difference between direct and indirect evidence becomes important.  Even eye witnesses (I'll assume eye witnesses for the moment, but I don't by any means concede their existence for any other purpose) testimony that the tomb was empty is not direct evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  Why not?  Because more reasoning and information is needed.  It's merely circumstantial evidence dependent on determining what an empty tomb means by further reasoning.

Now, lets detour a moment and take a look at how circumstantial evidence works.  Suppose you wake up and flick on a light switch and nothing happens.  That's direct evidence your light isn't working but circumstantial evidence of numerous other things:  the light bulb is out; the light fixture is broken; the circuit breaker has tripped; you have a short circuit; the main breaker has tripped; the power company turned off your power; the power to your house is out; the power to your neighborhood is out; your whole power grid is down.   Then there are more remote possibilities:  aliens have shut down your power; you're are hallucinating; you suddenly went blind; god is punishing you; it ghosts; it's your neighbor using his psychic powers.

With more evidence, you might eliminate a few.  If you look outside you might see lights in other people's windows.  You might check the breaker box, change the light bulb, or call the power company.

But just the light not working proves none of them, though perhaps we can agree that ghosts, godly punishment, your psychic neighbor, you went blind, or you are hallucinating are more remote.  And even among the more common possibilities your light bulb being out or a relatively local outage are more likely. 

If I told you the reason was ghosts and you most prove one other possibility or accept it's ghosts, you'd think I was crazy.  But, given that it's happening real time you might find the real problem and prove ghosts wrong.

That's the rub.  The possibilities for an empty tomb are: theft (with benign or malignant intent for honest or fraudulent reasons), waking up from what wasn't really death; failure to actually inter the body (again for benign or malignant reasons); the witnesses lied; dogs, people, or other animals ate the body; or rising from the dead like Lazarus is said to have done; or even more improbably waking to eternal life.  The first five are reasonably probable.  The later two impossibly improbable.  It is not for those arguing that it might of been one of the first five to show that it was a particular one of the five, but he who argues for the impossible to show that the first five are really and truly impossible.  Otherwise the empty tomb is proof of nothing like resurrection.  It is circumstantial evidence of nothing in particular, just possibilities, much like the light that doesn't come on.