Empty Tomb Puzzle

[Godscreated]

The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths

That's an assumption. Please provide us with a list of the disciples and their deaths if you don't mind. I'll give you a head start: John died a natural death.

In prison away from his family and could have been treated badly. Would you fight for a lie that would result in that kind of treatment.

---

This is the kind of comment I expected, just babble.

Translation: "la la la not listening"

I have given two arguments about the empty tomb, both valid and reasoned. The priest could have ended it right there by opening the tomb, and would have if it was holding evidence in their favor.

Again, assuming the characters were real, the account historical and factual, and also that you understand the real characters and their motivations, and the politics of the region. Which you don't, because you can't, because no-one alive for the last millennium does.

The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths, for what, a lie, by no means. Some of the twelve would have given up the lie before death, so the twelve must have know the truth of the resurrection. HE IS RISEN.

Or it could all be a crock, a bunch of semi-historical fiction written by unknowns for reasons unknowable about events they never witnessed decades in the past with a political or philosophical agenda that the credulous in later centuries mistake for fact and waste a good deal of their lives trying to rationalise. HE IS BULLSHIT.

I thought we were making an argument from the position it is true, that's the way it started. Then when no argument was forth coming from you it changed to la, la, la not listening, again what I expected.

[Tempus]

There is no direct evidence for the existence of a master document like Q.

There's no evidence at all that the Bible was written by a god or divinely inspired. Nor is there any evidence for any of the miraculous events contained within it. Whether the stories are consistent or not is irrelevant to whether they're actually true. Besides it's not just the inconsistencies in the stories that make some scholars suspect multiple writers and a hypothetical Q document.

I've witnessed friends of mine embellish stories with made up facts before only weeks after the event in question. If you add to that a motivating ideology and another forty years it wouldn't be surprising if parts of the story were totally fabricated, even if it remained internally consistent.

[NoMoreFaith]

The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths, for what, a lie, by no means. Some of the twelve would have given up the lie before death, so the twelve must have know the truth of the resurrection. HE IS RISEN.

Bear in mind, it is not just the Apostles whom are supposed to have seen Jesus risen. 1 Corinthians 15:6 claims 500 saw the rising Jesus, Matthew 28:17 points out the doubt many had (how you can doubt a shining rising Jesus is somewhat of a mystery).
By the time Peter was addressing the believersn Acts 1:15 only 120 were left.

So out of 500, almost 75% of those who "saw" Jesus rising, didn't believe it was any such thing, and not proof of his resurrection.
A small percentage who believes that what they saw was in fact the rising of Jesus which evidently wasn't that convincing is hardly solid testimony.

In order for your argument to carry any weight, each disciple had to die in a manner that allowed them to escape death by claiming it was all just a big "hoax".
Being a believer and dying, does not mean you died for a lie.

Well, certainly not Peter. Nero blamed the christians for the burning of Rome and their personal beliefs made no difference to their deaths. Recanting the basis of the belief, in the resurrection isn't likely to save them from the wrath of Nero, he was killing them in revenge.
So how did Peter die for his beliefs? He didn't.

Now the disciples were religious leaders of the Christian movement. During the persecution of the Christians, "would not die for a lie" simply ignores the fact that they would be targeted for death as leaders of a rebellious belief system. I very much doubt a roman legionnaire sent to arrest them would have turned away because they recanted, it would be meaningless. Orders are orders, and they are marked for death.

For this argument "they would not die for a lie" to work, you need to show, that the resurrection of Jesus was a sufficiently impressive event to convince. It wasn't, only the diehards apparently were, which makes Christianity nothing more than a cult of gullibility gotten out of control.

Secondly, you need to show how each apostle died. But we have no facts here, no history, not even biblical support.

The argument is a smokescreen, pretending to knowledge you cannot possess about the facts of the situation.

[FallentoReason]

In prison away from his family and could have been treated badly. Would you fight for a lie that would result in that kind of treatment.

I think you're describing Paul....

You realise that the NT only tells us about the deaths of only two disciples? The rest of the stories come from 'church tradition'. This is the same 'church tradition' that gave names to the Gospels some centuries later after being written. In other words, no proof of them dying martyrs... not one.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I have my doubts if they were all present during these events.

I agree with that. Matthew does not mention anyone other than the guards being present at the tomb when the earthquake happened. And the ‘earthquake’ must have been like a .05 Richter, just the ground shaking in that area. Most likely many of the ‘undead’ (pretty funny, I’ll probably use that one!) stories are rumors like you said. There incorporation contributes more to the symbolism, and not to the accuracy. (Like the miracle of the two fish and five loaves, like no one is a huge crowd brought lunch. C’mon.)

Mark seems to not care about earthquakes though. It's strange that his perception limited him from experiencing the supernatural.

I doubt Mark was a direct witnessed to the earthquake. Most of his account sounds second hand to me as well. Perhaps Mark was more skeptical about certain events than Matthew. I don’t know. Any modern reporter would collect information from multiple sources. But we will never know how thoroughly they evaluated the reliability of those sources or whether they excluded things even they found too incredible. In my scenario, each of the accounts excluded details found in the others. That may have been intentional. Maybe not.

I remember reading that he correctly describes some 300+ places. This doesn't make it any more real than a fiction writer using real places and even events in their stories. It can't be taken as evidence for or against.

You are correct. Merely mentioning locations does not lend credibility to the original account. It undermines the assertions of older archeologists that believed none of the places actually existed.

[FallentoReason]

I doubt Mark was a direct witnessed to the earthquake. Most of his account sounds second hand to me as well. Perhaps Mark was more skeptical about certain events than Matthew. I don’t know. Any modern reporter would collect information from multiple sources. But we will never know how thoroughly they evaluated the reliability of those sources or whether they excluded things even they found too incredible. In my scenario, each of the accounts excluded details found in the others. That may have been intentional. Maybe not.

Wait, so you also believe that the names of the Gospels don't correspond to the people that wrote them (I think you mentioned that before), but at the same time you do believe disciples of Jesus wrote them?

Like the miracle of the two fish and five loaves, like no one is a huge crowd brought lunch. C’mon.

What do you mean?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Wait, so you also believe that the names of the Gospels don't correspond to the people that wrote them (I think you mentioned that before), but at the same time you do believe disciples of Jesus wrote them?

Anyone can be a disciple, but there were only 12 apostles. I suspect that each of the Gospels were not necessarily penned by the actual apostles, since simple fishermen would not have to learn to read or write. Pure speculation on my part, but I image each apostle having their own band of believers and each of the gospel accounts come out of those separate communities.

Like the miracle of the two fish and five loaves, like no one is a huge crowd brought lunch. C’mon.
What do you mean?

In the Swedenborg tradition the 'revealed' texts have an inner spiritual meaning. The two fish and five loaves of barley are symbols for the type of instruction that Jesus 'fed' to the crowd. What I'm trying to say is this. Whether what happened that day was a miracle or not does not matter to me. Belief in miracles does not by itself cultivate lasting faith. Conviction comes from receiving instruction and applying it to life. As such the miraculous events are not so much 'evidence' of divinity but object lessons.

[Godscreated]

In prison away from his family and could have been treated badly. Would you fight for a lie that would result in that kind of treatment.

I think you're describing Paul....

You realise that the NT only tells us about the deaths of only two disciples? The rest of the stories come from 'church tradition'. This is the same 'church tradition' that gave names to the Gospels some centuries later after being written. In other words, no proof of them dying martyrs... not one.

No one can prove or disprove for certain the writers of the gospels are who they say they are. The church tradition can be reliable and again you can not disprove it. John was in prison on the Isle of Patmos, Rev.1:9 and you did not answer my question about dying for a lie.

[FallentoReason]

Anyone can be a disciple, but there were only 12 apostles. I suspect that each of the Gospels were not necessarily penned by the actual apostles, since simple fishermen would not have to learn to read or write. Pure speculation on my part, but I image each apostle having their own band of believers and each of the gospel accounts come out of those separate communities.

This sounds reasonable. That means all we have is hearsay.. That throws open the door to a whole bunch of theories about how these stories originated.

In the Swedenborg tradition the 'revealed' texts have an inner spiritual meaning. The two fish and five loaves of barley are symbols for the type of instruction that Jesus 'fed' to the crowd. What I'm trying to say is this. Whether what happened that day was a miracle or not does not matter to me. Belief in miracles does not by itself cultivate lasting faith. Conviction comes from receiving instruction and applying it to life. As such the miraculous events are not so much 'evidence' of divinity but object lessons.

Hmm this resonates strongly with me. I used to think like this as well I think but the influence of my 'literal reading' Christian friends made it hard to know how I really should look at scripture.

No one can prove or disprove for certain the writers of the gospels are who they say they are.

Naming the gospels after 100 years or whatever the figure is doesn't really help their case. There is too much room for error.

and you did not answer my question about dying for a lie.

So the apologetic argument goes like this: Jesus was either a lunatic or telling the truth. Well what about the 3rd option? He never existed. No one had to die for a lie because there's no evidence that proves Jesus or his Apostles for that matter.

[Godscreated]

The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths, for what, a lie, by no means. Some of the twelve would have given up the lie before death, so the twelve must have know the truth of the resurrection. HE IS RISEN.

Bear in mind, it is not just the Apostles whom are supposed to have seen Jesus risen. 1 Corinthians 15:6 claims 500 saw the rising Jesus, Matthew 28:17 points out the doubt many had (how you can doubt a shining rising Jesus is somewhat of a mystery).
By the time Peter was addressing the believersn Acts 1:15 only 120 were left.

So out of 500, almost 75% of those who "saw" Jesus rising, didn't believe it was any such thing, and not proof of his resurrection.
A small percentage who believes that what they saw was in fact the rising of Jesus which evidently wasn't that convincing is hardly solid testimony.

Jesus appeared to 500 people during the 40 days after the resurrection to the ascending. The event in Acts 1:15 was on a single day after the ascending, this does not mean that the other 380 had turned from the way. Your misrepresentation of what scriptures say is no more than a ploy to deceive.

In order for your argument to carry any weight, each disciple had to die in a manner that allowed them to escape death by claiming it was all just a big "hoax".
Being a believer and dying, does not mean you died for a lie.

Well, certainly not Peter. Nero blamed the christians for the burning of Rome and their personal beliefs made no difference to their deaths. Recanting the basis of the belief, in the resurrection isn't likely to save them from the wrath of Nero, he was killing them in revenge.
So how did Peter die for his beliefs? He didn't.

Nero used the christians as scapegoat they did not burn Rome. Peter said in the scriptures that his death was near. Peter was jailed and beaten also, he had many chances to deny the resurrection, if it were not true. This shows that Peter died for the truth.

Now the disciples were religious leaders of the Christian movement. During the persecution of the Christians, "would not die for a lie" simply ignores the fact that they would be targeted for death as leaders of a rebellious belief system. I very much doubt a roman legionnaire sent to arrest them would have turned away because they recanted, it would be meaningless. Orders are orders, and they are marked for death

James the son of Zebedee, was killed by Herod Agrippa, not a roman solider. As I said above, Peter said his death was near, Paul also made the same statement. Even though Paul was not one of the 12 he spent much time with them, and more than likely would found out the lie if it were true. Paul also imprisoned many christians as Saul, why would a man turn from the stature he enjoyed, and suffer through the life of a christian.

For this argument "they would not die for a lie" to work, you need to show, that the resurrection of Jesus was a sufficiently impressive event to convince. It wasn't, only the diehards apparently were, which makes Christianity nothing more than a cult of gullibility gotten out of control.

Secondly, you need to show how each apostle died. But we have no facts here, no history, not even biblical support.

The argument is a smokescreen, pretending to knowledge you cannot possess about the facts of the situation.

500 saw and believed, you mean to tell me if you saw a friend who had been dead, walking around alive and well, you would not be convinced he was risen. The diehards as you call them were the ones Christ revealed Himself to, why would He reveal Himself to people who would not know Him.
By the way why haven't you addressed the second part of my statement, why didn't the Jewish priest just open the tomb and show everyone the body was still in the tomb?

---

---

Anyone can be a disciple, but there were only 12 apostles. I suspect that each of the Gospels were not necessarily penned by the actual apostles, since simple fishermen would not have to learn to read or write. Pure speculation on my part, but I image each apostle having their own band of believers and each of the gospel accounts come out of those separate communities.

---

---

This sounds reasonable. That means all we have is hearsay.. That throws open the door to a whole bunch of theories about how these stories originated.

---

---

In the Swedenborg tradition the 'revealed' texts have an inner spiritual meaning. The two fish and five loaves of barley are symbols for the type of instruction that Jesus 'fed' to the crowd. What I'm trying to say is this. Whether what happened that day was a miracle or not does not matter to me. Belief in miracles does not by itself cultivate lasting faith. Conviction comes from receiving instruction and applying it to life. As such the miraculous events are not so much 'evidence' of divinity but object lessons.

---

---

Hmm this resonates strongly with me. I used to think like this as well I think but the influence of my 'literal reading' Christian friends made it hard to know how I really should look at scripture.

---

No one can prove or disprove for certain the writers of the gospels are who they say they are.

Naming the gospels after 100 years or whatever the figure is doesn't really help their case. There is too much room for error.

and you did not answer my question about dying for a lie.

So the apologetic argument goes like this: Jesus was either a lunatic or telling the truth. Well what about the 3rd option? He never existed. No one had to die for a lie because there's no evidence that proves Jesus or his Apostles for that matter.

You can not disprove Christ and His apostles, I know that's not your burden, it does not matter, the fact remains that no one can disprove Christ and His apostles. No the apologetic does not go like that, the OT and NT mesh together well, showing us Christ is who He said He was.