We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Minimalist]

I find it somewhat relevant to the mystery surrounding the empty tomb

Thena, there is only a mystery surrounding the "empty tomb" if there was, in fact, an "empty tomb."  All we have to support that idea is the useless gospel drivel which is about as reliable as a $2 watch.

Remember, any non-supernatural explanation is more plausible than a supernatural explanation.  I find "none of it ever happened" to be the most convincing argument of all.  But then, I don't put any credence in fairy tales.

[Aractus]

Here are the problems. Firstly we know nothing about the man who took the body in the first place and who owned the tomb: Joseph of Arimathea.

Actually, we do know a few things:

1. 1. he was a wealthy man (cf. Mt 27:57)
   
2. 2. he was a member of the Jewish ruling council (Mk 15:43)
   
3. 3. he was a secret disciple of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57, Jn 19:38)
   
4. 4. he asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:58)
   
5. 5. he buried Jesus by wrapping Jesus’ body in a linen cloth, placing it in his own tomb (caved out of rock) and rolling a stone over the entrance. (Mt 27:59-60)
   

Randy, we don't know anything about him. He may not have been wealthy at all - all we know is that he owned or possessed a wealthy man's tomb. And that according to the gospels the body of Jesus was put in his tomb. As far as we know, none of the four gospel writers knew him personally so the information they provide about him is hearsay - that is we can't take it very seriously without external corroborating evidence, which we don't have. James, Jude, Paul all say nothing about him.

It could simply be that Joseph had the body taken out of his tomb and put elsewhere – in an ossuary, or in a grave, or maybe he had the body embalmed, or perhaps even cremated.

Since Pilate knew that JoA had asked for the body, doesn’t it seem likely that once the disciples began to claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, Joseph, a member of the ruling council, would have been the FIRST person that the Jews and the Romans would have wanted to interrogate? Joseph was a disciple, but what reason would he have had to hide the body from the authorities or to lie about how he disposed of it? The Jews believed in the coming of a messiah—but not one that would be hanged on a tree.

The gospels say that he was a secret follower of Jesus, as you pointed out. He never has any interaction with the disciples - so we can presume they don't know about him. We can also assume they may have asked the family of Jesus where he was laid instead, and been given inaccurate, incomplete, or incompetent information about the location of the tomb.

No one's saying that Joseph "hid" the body - it could have been taken out and laid elsewhere by the family. Depending on the size of Jesus's family (we know about Mary, Joseph, James, Judas, Simeon, and Joseph jr) the disciples may have asked the wrong family member for the location, and that person may not have known that the body was to be moved first thing on Sunday evening (immediately after the sun has set on the Sabbath).

But since you mentioned it maybe the family didn't want the disciples to know where the body went after that and kept it secret from them intentionally. After all Jesus had just been killed by the Romans as a result of his preachings.

I presume you meant Saturday evening (after the Sabbath had ended). If Joseph did give the body to Jesus’ family or hide the body from the authorities, then there is the question of whether a conspiracy of such magnitude could be maintained. This is unlikely.

The Hebrew day begins with the evening. Even in Genesis 1 this is the case "... and there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day". Evening always comes first. Even in your next sentence you acknowledge this by saying the Sabbath begins at sunset ...

There is no account of “jewellery (sic) or other valuables” being placed in the tomb. Jesus was buried in haste because the Sabbath was approaching quickly at sunset.

That doesn't mean there wasn't any valuables. All it means is we don't know.

But assuming that the grave robber was unaware of this, how would the robber have slipped past this Roman guard, moved the stone without waking any of them (assuming they were caught napping), and robbed the grave undetected?

I don't know, but perhaps there wasn't a Roman guard and that's just a detail that was embellished into the tale by the time it got written down in the gospels.

Further, if the robber was aware of the fact that someone had been buried in the “wealthy person’s tomb”, would they not also have known that the body belonged to a man crucified that very day? And how much wealth would be expected from a crucified criminal?

Well we don't know how wealthy Jesus's family was. Jesus lead a modest life when he was preaching - however that tells us nothing about his family's potential wealth. He was of David's lineage and Joseph was a builder in a location that at the time was experiencing growth - there would have been plenty of work, he would have been well paid. Assuming that James, Joseph (jr), Simeon, and Judas were also builders the family could be very well off.

The fact that Jesus has detailed knowledge of the scripture and has studied it suggests that he was taught and mentored by a Rabbi, and that was not cheap. The fact that the family could afford this tuition for Jesus also suggests they were quite well off.

[Randy Carson]

Arimathea (Ancient Greek: Ἁριμαθαία), according to the Gospel of Luke (xxiii. 51), was "a city of Judea". It was reportedly the home town of Joseph of Arimathea, who appears in all four Gospel accounts of the Passion for having donated his new tomb outside Jerusalem to receive the body of Jesus. Apart from the Bible, there is no record of a place called Arimathea existing.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

According to Wikipedia, the only physical, archaeological evidence that confirms the existence of Pilate is the Latin inscription found on a limestone block relating Pilate's tribute to Tiberius. The artifact, sometimes known as the Pilate Stone, was discovered in 1961.

So, what evidence did we have of the existence of Pontius Pilate prior to 1961?

[Minimalist]

Yeah it is, shithead.  There is absolutely no evidence that martians invaded the Ohio Valley in 1832.  I suppose you think that means it may have happened?

We had the writings of Philo and Josephus in addition to the coins minted by Pilate's administration.  BTW, both Philo and Josephus do not make Pilate out to be the vacillating, lilly-livered wimp of your silly gospels.  They make him out to be a major prick.

[Randy Carson]

Actually, we do know a few things:

1. 1. he was a wealthy man (cf. Mt 27:57)
   
2. 2. he was a member of the Jewish ruling council (Mk 15:43)
   
3. 3. he was a secret disciple of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57, Jn 19:38)
   
4. 4. he asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:58)
   
5. 5. he buried Jesus by wrapping Jesus’ body in a linen cloth, placing it in his own tomb (caved out of rock) and rolling a stone over the entrance. (Mt 27:59-60)
   

Randy, we don't know anything about him. He may not have been wealthy at all - all we know is that he owned or possessed a wealthy man's tomb.

Indeed. If he was not wealthy, then he could have sold the tomb. The fact that he had not done so suggests that he did not need the money. And he was a PROMINENT member of the Sanhedrin.

And that according to the gospels the body of Jesus was put in his tomb. As far as we know, none of the four gospel writers knew him personally so the information they provide about him is hearsay - that is we can't take it very seriously without external corroborating evidence, which we don't have. James, Jude, Paul all say nothing about him.

And why should they? He's a minor figure in the story. There are LOTS of people who only have cameo roles in the gospels. Jesus is the star, remember?

But the fact that all four gospels mention JoA is insufficient corroboration? Why is that?

Since Pilate knew that JoA had asked for the body, doesn’t it seem likely that once the disciples began to claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, Joseph, a member of the ruling council, would have been the FIRST person that the Jews and the Romans would have wanted to interrogate? Joseph was a disciple, but what reason would he have had to hide the body from the authorities or to lie about how he disposed of it? The Jews believed in the coming of a messiah—but not one that would be hanged on a tree.

The gospels say that he was a secret follower of Jesus, as you pointed out. He never has any interaction with the disciples - so we can presume they don't know about him.

It is true that the gospels are silent regarding HOW Joseph came to believe in Jesus, but you're not going to make an argument from this silence, are you? Further, the gospel of John tells us clearly that the members of the ruling council had to be cautious:

John 3:1-2
3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night...".

Why at night, Daniel? Because he did not want anyone to know that he was meeting privately with Jesus. And JoA was on that same ruling council. It was risky for them to be viewed as supportive of Jesus.

We can also assume they may have asked the family of Jesus where he was laid instead, and been given inaccurate, incomplete, or incompetent information about the location of the tomb.

No one's saying that Joseph "hid" the body - it could have been taken out and laid elsewhere by the family. Depending on the size of Jesus's family (we know about Mary, Joseph, James, Judas, Simeon, and Joseph jr) the disciples may have asked the wrong family member for the location, and that person may not have known that the body was to be moved first thing on Sunday evening (immediately after the sun has set on the Sabbath).

But since you mentioned it maybe the family didn't want the disciples to know where the body went after that and kept it secret from them intentionally. After all Jesus had just been killed by the Romans.

This is the Collusion Theory. I have addressed the problems with maintenance of a collusion elsewhere, but it is unlikely. And at the end of the day, you haven't really gotten around the fact that the Jewish (and possibly Roman) officials would have called JoA in, explained the situation to him, and gone en masse to see his tomb for himself. Since HE undoubtedly knew where it was, they would either have found a body or an empty tomb. They found the latter.

I presume you meant Saturday evening (after the Sabbath had ended). If Joseph did give the body to Jesus’ family or hide the body from the authorities, then there is the question of whether a conspiracy of such magnitude could be maintained. This is unlikely.

The Hebrew day begins with the evening. Even in Genesis 1 this is the case "... and there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day". Evening always comes first. Even in your next sentence you acknowledge this by saying the Sabbath begins at sunset ...

After sunset on Saturday, it would have been possible to go to the tomb since the Sabbath was over. However, it was after sunset...it would have been dark. Still possible, I suppose...but the gospels say that the women waited until daylight on Sunday morning since they had much work to do in annointing his body with spices, etc.

There is no account of “jewellery (sic) or other valuables” being placed in the tomb. Jesus was buried in haste because the Sabbath was approaching quickly at sunset.

That doesn't mean there wasn't any valuables. All it means is we don't know.

True. A word of caution though: skeptics are quick to point out when believers start saying "what if". Turn about's fair play.

But assuming that the grave robber was unaware of this, how would the robber have slipped past this Roman guard, moved the stone without waking any of them (assuming they were caught napping), and robbed the grave undetected?

I don't know, but perhaps there wasn't a Roman guard and that's just a detail that was embellished into the tale by the time it got written down in the gospels.

If there was no Roman guard, the Jews would have had a stronger case for the disciples' theft of the body than merely telling the guard to claim that the body had been stolen and promising to keep them out of trouble. If this were a complete fabrication, then someone could have testified that there was no guard. There is no evidence of that testimony.

Further, you still run smack into the problems of maintaining a conspiracy and you cannot account for the conversion of Paul and James who would have been more likely than not to believe a theft rather than a resurrection.

Further, if the robber was aware of the fact that someone had been buried in the “wealthy person’s tomb”, would they not also have known that the body belonged to a man crucified that very day? And how much wealth would be expected from a crucified criminal?

Well we don't know how wealthy Jesus's family was. Jesus lead a modest life when he was preaching - however that tells us nothing about his family's potential wealth. He was of David's lineage and Joseph was a builder in a location that at the time was experiencing growth - there would have been plenty of work, he would have been well paid. Assuming that James, Joseph (jr), Simeon, and Judas were also builders the family could be very well off.

The wealthy man was JoA, not Jesus. He hadn't worked in years, and before that, he was a common day laborer (not technically a carpenter). Joseph had died years before, and Jesus was an only child. This was not a wealthy family.

The fact that Jesus has detailed knowledge of the scripture and has studied it suggests that he was taught and mentored by a Rabbi, and that was not cheap. The fact that the family could afford this tuition for Jesus also suggests they were quite well off.

Or that Jesus was God and knew the scriptures because He inspired them to begin with.  

[Randy Carson]

Yeah it is, shithead.  There is absolutely no evidence that martians invaded the Ohio Valley in 1832.  I suppose you think that means it may have happened?

We had the writings of Philo and Josephus in addition to the coins minted by Pilate's administration.  BTW, both Philo and Josephus do not make Pilate out to be the vacillating, lilly-livered wimp of your silly gospels.  They make him out to be a major prick.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're saying that on the basis of the writings of Philo and Josephus, we can accept the existence of Pontius Pilate? Interesting.

If that's true, I suppose we should also include the brief mention made by Tacitus; the four canonical gospels; the Gospel of Nicodemus; the Gospel of Marcion; and other apocryphal works.

<dramatic pause before springing the trap>

So, if we can accept the existence of the historical Pontius Pilate based upon the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and a few others, we can accept the existence of the historical Jesus based upon the writings of those same authors.

Game. Set. Match.

Goodnight, Min. Pleasant dreams.

[Athene]

I find it somewhat relevant to the mystery surrounding the empty tomb

Thena, there is only a mystery surrounding the "empty tomb" if there was, in fact, an "empty tomb."  All we have to support that idea is the useless gospel drivel which is about as reliable as a $2 watch.

Remember, any non-supernatural explanation is more plausible than a supernatural explanation.  I find "none of it ever happened" to be the most convincing argument of all.  But then, I don't put any credence in fairy tales.

Maybe, maybe not....doesn't matter.
My point in going along with the premise was...so what?
If there was an empty tomb, there are numerous possible scenarios that would explain that occurrence...a few of which were addressed in the OP, and quickly dismissed via confirmation bias.

I know that non-supernatural explanations are more plausible than supernatural ones. That was the entire point of the video.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in magic....haven't you heard?  

[Anomalocaris]

Intelligent people needn't doubt confident Christians are doubly idiotic.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Maybe, maybe not....doesn't matter.
My point in going along with the premise was...so what?
If there was an empty tomb, there are numerous possible scenarios that would explain that occurrence...a few of which were addressed in the OP, and quickly dismissed via confirmation bias.

I know that non-supernatural explanations are more plausible than supernatural ones. That was the entire point of the video.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in magic....haven't you heard?  

That video was right on point. Just wanted to send more kudos for bringing that up.

[Esquilax]

<dramatic pause before springing the trap>

So, if we can accept the existence of the historical Pontius Pilate based upon the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and a few others, we can accept the existence of the historical Jesus based upon the writings of those same authors.

Game. Set. Match.

Goodnight, Min. Pleasant dreams.

You'd have to stop at "historical Jesus," though, and you couldn't then get to "supernatural divine avatar Jesus," without a whole lot more evidence than is available. I know it's inconvenient, but please do keep in mind the difference between mundane claims and extraordinary ones here.

I mean, there's also that problem where you say you know things about Joseph of Arimathea, and all you did is cite bible verses. Sorry, but "bible says so," is not sufficient justification for a rationally supported knowledge claim.