The Resurrection

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Wow! You guys are still going at it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Not really. As a reference, I took Logic, Design and Programming, Exposition and Persuasion and Fundamentals Public Speaking in college in 2014. In each class I received an ‘A’ as a grade. I tell you this to my shame not to boost. In all three courses the basic rules given for composing an argument is to never lower your standards and participate in a mudslinging contest. When I stated that NV did not grasp the concept of the fallacy and logical deduction I should never had added the phrase “it went over your head”. I should have just outline his error and left it at that. Oh well to err is human.

I seem to forget too, sometimes. A-Lot actually.

it's hard to to get embittered toward the evils viles of the world.

especially when people boast, and are proud, and make fun of the things we hold to be valuable and cherishable.

I try to remember that Ad Hominem, means.....against the man.

so in debates, you can never go wrong to address a post, and not a poster.

as ad-hominem again, means "against the man."

it's a basic fallacy, but to remember what it means in the original languages, is helpful.

I try to mention that a post contains fallacy and not a poster, but it's hard sometimes.

sometimes you DO take it personal, because of the wording of such people as we see here.

they want it to bite, and to be as hurtful as possible.

but again, adressing the post and not the poster, is not only a way to avoid being reported, but a way to hold honest debate.

and a way to be a Brighter light for Christ.

again, your posts are good reminders of that, thanks.

sorry, I didn't see you rpost right away.

 

[Tawhano]

Then you agree that it is wrong to say that the guards MUST have looked inside the tomb.

It is not wrong based on the evidence in Matthew. That there is other possibilities not recorded in Matthew does not change this. You made it very clear we were discussing the accounts written in the Bible. Speculation, we both agreed, is not evidence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is not wrong based on the evidence in Matthew. That there is other possibilities not recorded in Matthew does not change this. You made it very clear we were discussing the accounts written in the Bible. Speculation, we both agreed, is not evidence.

You have said that because of X, Y must have happened.
(The guards MUST have looked in the tomb.)

Now you are saying that given X, it is possible that Z happened, and not Y, although this is speculation.

So shall we consult the definition of "must"?

 

[Tawhano]

You have said that because of X, Y must have happened.

Nope, not what I said at all.

 

[Tawhano]

The Summary:

The OP laid out the ground work for this discussion with the premise:

And yet there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday, and there was certainly no record of a neutral party making the trip.

Or did skeptics actually go visit? Why would it be the case that skeptics actually did visit the tomb, and yet the gospels did not record this? That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels, since everyone - including the disciples - were always skeptical of Jesus, and the gospels were always making a point of this.

Ending with the conclusion that:

The complete lack of an investigation for a miraculous event is in fact evidence that no miracle occurred in the first place.

When I, and others, presented our arguments that there was an investigation Nihilist Virus (hereafter referenced as NV) did not offer any rebuttal except to say:

I asked why no one cared to pay a visit after Easter Sunday. It's clearly laid out in the OP.

All the rebuttals submitted by NV have been speculation on what should have happened and not once has he abided by his own argument that the OP is about the evidence as written and not about speculation. He has ignored the “gaping holes” in his arguments and tries to cover this up by fabricating “gaping holes” in other poster’s arguments.

Here is the argument NV needs to directly address to prove his intentions for posting is honest:

Why it is not possible that the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty because the guards told them?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope, not what I said at all.

So then just because the priests started the body snatching rumor, we can't conclude that the guards must have looked inside the tomb.

The Summary:

The OP laid out the ground work for this discussion with the premise:

Ending with the conclusion that:

When I, and others, presented our arguments that there was an investigation Nihilist Virus (hereafter referenced as NV) did not offer any rebuttal except to say:

All the rebuttals submitted by NV have been speculation on what should have happened and not once has he abided by his own argument that the OP is about the evidence as written and not about speculation. He has ignored the “gaping holes” in his arguments and tries to cover this up by fabricating “gaping holes” in other poster’s arguments.

Who are you talking to?

Here is the argument NV needs to directly address to prove his intentions for posting is honest:

Why it is not possible that the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty because the guards told them?

The guards might have told them, but that would likely be an assumption on their part.

The guards might have looked inside the tomb but this is unlikely because they were so terrified of the angels, and text seems to indicate that the guards left before the angels did. There is no mention of the angels leaving, there is mention of the guards leaving, and there is no interaction between the guards and the women (they do not notice the guards being terrified or they notice but don't find it significant).

For your version of events to be plausible we need the guards to willfully remain there for a bare minimum of several minutes in a state of terror and then witness the angels leave and then look inside the tomb. Two thens, neither of which are plausible or recorded. The only other possibility I see is that they are so terrified that they faint and the angels are gone when they wake up - plausible because it fits the "like dead men" description - but it still doesn't explain why the women didn't see them.

And while we're at it, why were the women wanting to anoint Jesus’s body if they knew guards wouldn't let them in? Can we conclude that the women didn't know the tomb was being guarded? Why then was it so unremarkable that unconscious guards were there? Why didn't they warn Peter of the guards before he ran over?

 

[Tawhano]

The guards might have told them, but that would likely be an assumption on their part.

Doesn't answer the question. Please direct your response in trying to answer the question. Why it is not possible that the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty because the guards told them?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Doesn't answer the question. Please direct your response in trying to answer the question. Why it is not possible that the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty because the guards told them?

I just said that it's not likely but could've happened. That's what you just selectively quoted. So yes it's possible that the guards reported an empty tomb. It does require speculation as I showed.

 

[Tawhano]

I just said that it's not likely but could've happened. That's what you just selectively quoted. So yes it's possible that the guards reported an empty tomb. It does require speculation as I showed.

Where did you show this?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Where did you show this?

I answered this already. In order for you to offer rebuttal in a debate you must read and understand your opponents post.

 

[Sketcher]

Or did skeptics actually go visit? Why would it be the case that skeptics actually did visit the tomb, and yet the gospels did not record this? That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels, since everyone - including the disciples - were always skeptical of Jesus, and the gospels were always making a point of this.

Skeptics were certainly free to visit. Peter seems to appeal to this in Acts 2:29-33, which was spoken weeks after the Resurrection happened. People had already had time to check the tomb out, and they still had the option.

 

[Tawhano]

see post 431

Sorry, I thought we were done. You said in post #11 that if it could be shown that guards looked into the matter that your question would be answered and the thread closed. I see now that you were not being entirely truthful.

Speculation: ideas or guesses about something that is not known

Induction Reasoning: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data.(Introduction to Logic, Harry J. Gensler)

Examples:
Speculation: The priest started the rumor of the stolen body as a response to the resurrection claim
This is speculation because there is no data from the recorded events to suggest this happened.

Induction Reasoning: The guards looked inside the sepulcher and noticed the body of Jesus was not there.

The data is that there were guards posted outside the sepulcher and some of them went to report the events to the chief priest. The chief priest made up an excuse for the body of Jesus being absent from the sepulcher. Logically the conclusion from the given data is that the chief priest knew the body was missing because the guards told them. Based solely on the given data there can be no other logical conclusion. Arguments that other events not recorded are possible would be speculation without further data to support the premise.

The guards might have looked inside the tomb but this is unlikely because they were so terrified of the angels, and text seems to indicate that the guards left before the angels did.

Regardless if you believe it is unlikely the guards looked into the sepulcher or not you agree it is possible. That it is a possible answer to your question means you have an answer. End of thread.

For your version of events to be plausible we need the guards to willfully remain there for a bare minimum of several minutes in a state of terror and then witness the angels leave and then look inside the tomb. Two thens, neither of which are plausible or recorded. The only other possibility I see is that they are so terrified that they faint and the angels are gone when they wake up - plausible because it fits the "like dead men" description - but it still doesn't explain why the women didn't see them.

First you say it is not plausible and then you give a reason that it could be plausible.

And while we're at it, why were the women wanting to anoint Jesus’s body if they knew guards wouldn't let them in?

The guards were there to ensure the body wasn’t stolen. Why would they not let the women in to anoint the body?

There are probable scenarios to all your supposed hurdles, whether you agree with them or not is not important. What is important is whether they are probable. Your questions have been answered.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry, I thought we were done. You said in post #11 that if it could be shown that guards looked into the matter that your question would be answered and the thread closed. I see now that you were not being entirely truthful.


Examples:
Speculation: The priest started the rumor of the stolen body as a response to the resurrection claim
This is speculation because there is no data from the recorded events to suggest this happened.

Induction Reasoning: The guards looked inside the sepulcher and noticed the body of Jesus was not there.

The data is that there were guards posted outside the sepulcher and some of them went to report the events to the chief priest. The chief priest made up an excuse for the body of Jesus being absent from the sepulcher. Logically the conclusion from the given data is that the chief priest knew the body was missing because the guards told them. Based solely on the given data there can be no other logical conclusion. Arguments that other events not recorded are possible would be speculation without further data to support the premise.

Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:

The women were coming to anoint Jesus' body and therefore either: 1) they were unaware that guards were posted and there was a massive stone sealing the tomb, or 2) they knew about both of those facts and assumed they could persuade the guards to assist them in removing the stone, or 3) they knew about both of those facts and were planning on killing or otherwise subduing the guards so as to have free access to the tomb, and they had a plan for moving the stone, or 4) they were unaware that there were guards but knew the stone was there and were prepared for the task of moving it. Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Upon arriving, the women gave no indication that they saw the guards who were either in a state of terror or else were unconscious due to having fainted. The women either: I) did not see the guards, or II) did not think it was worth mentioning to the disciples when they returned to give the very first gospel message, or III) they did mention the guards to the other disciples, but this was not recorded, and Peter went to the tomb anyway. Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

You cannot claim that the guards left before the women arrived because the angel(s) remained to speak with the women. The guards were utterly terrified of the angel(s) and it is not plausible that they tried to sneak a peak into the tomb while the angel(s) was/were there. Therefore, if the guards did look inside the tomb, it is necessarily the case that they did so after the women arrived.

You see, in order for your model to work, you have to show that some combination of 1-4 together with I-III occurred, but you cannot do so without speculation. Your argument therefore does not survive the very criticism you levied at me.

Regardless if you believe it is unlikely the guards looked into the sepulcher or not you agree it is possible. That it is a possible answer to your question means you have an answer. End of thread.

Let me get this straight. You first say that this thread hinged on whether or not it could be shown that the guards inspected the tomb, and now you are telling me that because you have provided speculation which is not impossible, the OP is answered.

Well then the argument over where Jimmy Hoffa is buried is settled. He wasn't buried at all: he was abducted by aliens. That it is a possible answer to your question means you have an answer.

First you say it is not plausible and then you give a reason that it could be plausible.

No, I gave a version of events which I said was "plausible because it fits the "like dead men" description - but it still doesn't explain why the women didn't see them. You are a liar.

The guards were there to ensure the body wasn’t stolen. Why would they not let the women in to anoint the body?

Because there is a massive stone blocking the entrance, so there is little to no chance they would go through the hassle of moving an extremely large boulder for some post-burial rites of a criminal who was executed by their own government. I find it especially unlikely that they would do this for people who were of what they considered to be an inferior race and gender. Also they would have to be morons to allow known associates of Jesus into the tomb when there was concern that other known associates of Jesus were interested in stealing the body. "Yes, ladies, we will lay down our swords and move this stone for you. Surely there are not other members of your group using a former prostitute as a diversion so that they may ambush us whilst we are encumbered and unarmed."

And this is wild speculation on my part, but I find it reasonable that the orders of "guard the tomb so no one can steal the body" include "don't remove the stone that we put in front of it unless ordered to do so by a superior officer." Also I heard from a Christian on this site that the tomb was sealed with an emperor's seal, meaning it would have been illegal for the soldiers to allow the women entrance. I am skeptical of everything you people say, though, even in a case like this where your claim bolsters my argument; regardless, my argument stands with or without the emperor's seal.

There are probable scenarios to all your supposed hurdles, whether you agree with them or not is not important.

Maybe not important to you. But your financial situation is not important to me. Shall we also say that it is not important?

Because surely it is a waste of time to determine the logical sequence of events concerning what would be the most important event in all of history provided that there was physical or historical evidence to corroborate it.

What is important is whether they are probable. Your questions have been answered.

You are waffling between probable claims being sufficient, and then anything at all being sufficient as long as it is possible, and also there's your stance that no speculation is allowed whatsoever even though you're allowed to speculate logically deduce that the guards inspected the tomb without responding to trivialities such as providing a logical sequence of events.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

In the early years of the Soviet Union, the authorities in a small town commanded the locals to attend a long presentation by an atheist on why Christianity should be rejected as superstition, illogic, etc.

At the end of it, the local Orthodox priest asked "Can I speak?"

The atheist replied, "Fine, you can have one minute."

"Oh, I won't need that long," said the priest. He turned to face his flock, and proclaimed "Christ is risen!"

"He is risen indeed!" they answered.

"Thank you," said the priest, "I've finished."

 

[Tawhano]

Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

Available data according to Matthew 28:

At least two women when to the sepulcher (verse 1). When they arrived there was an earthquake and an angel rolled back the stone (verse 2). The guards witnessed this and became as dead men (verse 4). The angel tells the women that Jesus has risen (verse 5). The women depart quickly (verse 8). When the women leave some of the guards leave to report the events to the priest(verse 11). The priests pay the guards to give false testimony as to the disappearance of Jesus’s body (verses 12-13).

This is all the data we can form our debate on without speculating the reason why the author did not record the women’s reaction to the guards. It is the data from which I logically reason my conclusion that is not only plausible but highly probable that the guards reported the empty sepulcher to the priest. How else would the priest know the body was gone? Unless you can prove that the author made the story up then you need to fabricate an excuse as how the author knew of the events that took place in the presents of the guards and two women before you discount it. This is something you have failed to do in forming your views on how it is not plausible the guards looked in the sepulcher.

Let me get this straight. You first say that this thread hinged on whether or not it could be shown that the guards inspected the tomb, and now you are telling me that because you have provided speculation which is not impossible, the OP is answered.

No that is not my view it is your view. I should have known you could not comprehend the difference between speculation and logical deduction. You never were able to grasp the slippery slope fallacy concept either. I have shown by the data presented that it was plausible to conclude that the guards looked into the sepulcher. Speculation is a conclusion based on no available data. Logical reasoning is based on the available data. This is a very easy concept, perhaps you need to research it?

No, I gave a version of events which I said was "plausible because it fits the "like dead men" description - but it still doesn't explain why the women didn't see them. You are a liar.

Correct, you gave a version of that was plausible after you said it was not plausible. Speculating that the women didn’t see them does not detract from the probability that it is plausible. So how does that make me a liar?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

This is rich, coming from you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

I came up with all of the possibilities and asked which combination is consistent with your model. I am not telling you what your model is but rather am asking what yours is. You are dodging the question because your model for the resurrection clearly makes no sense. You suggested that the women might have expected the guards to let them into the tomb, a completely absurd scenario that can only be proposed by someone with cursory knowledge of the topic. You already showed that your knowledge of the topic is cursory at best when you claimed early in this discussion that the story says the guards inspected the tomb. To top it off, you criticized me for not reading the text.

Unless you can prove that the author made the story up then you need to fabricate an excuse as how the author knew of the events that took place in the presents presence of the guards and two women before you discount it.

So unless I can disprove the story, I must accept it? You can't even prove to yourself that you weren't abducted by aliens yesterday and then your memory of it was erased.

I do believe that the resurrection story is a fabrication. I can't prove it, hence the existence of your religion. But I am showing that the details of the story do not withstand scrutiny. I know this because you refuse to answer my question. You proved nothing substantial from your citation and followed it up with your speculation about the guards investigating the tomb while ignoring the gaping plot holes.

You are hung up on the conversation between the guards and the priests, acting like it is impossible for the priests to have fabricated the story of the body being stolen unless they had a full report. I am saying that the guards saw the angels and the stone rolled away, and reported that without having looked inside, and that the priests issued their statement of the body being stolen as a response to the resurrection claims. While there is speculation here, I've taken everything into account aside from the motivation of the women being at the tomb, but you certainly don't have that information either. Your model employs speculation but also ignores severe continuity errors, so your model is dismissed outright until you account for those things.

Correct, you gave a version of that was plausible after you said it was not plausible. Speculating that the women didn’t see them does not detract from the probability that it is plausible. So how does that make me a liar?

Speculation that the women didn't see the guards is an answer to my second question. You have still ignored the first: did the women know that the guards were there or not, and what was their plan for moving the stone? You have given only a completely absurd answer thus far. To be fair, I don't have an answer either.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

Available data according to Matthew 28:

At least two women when to the sepulcher (verse 1). When they arrived there was an earthquake and an angel rolled back the stone (verse 2). The guards witnessed this and became as dead men (verse 4). The angel tells the women that Jesus has risen (verse 5). The women depart quickly (verse 8). When the women leave some of the guards leave to report the events to the priest(verse 11). The priests pay the guards to give false testimony as to the disappearance of Jesus’s body (verses 12-13).

This is all the data we can form our debate on without speculating the reason why the author did not record the women’s reaction to the guards. It is the data from which I logically reason my conclusion that is not only plausible but highly probable that the guards reported the empty sepulcher to the priest. How else would the priest know the body was gone? Unless you can prove that the author made the story up then you need to fabricate an excuse as how the author knew of the events that took place in the presents of the guards and two women before you discount it. This is something you have failed to do in forming your views on how it is not plausible the guards looked in the sepulcher.
No that is not my view it is your view. I should have known you could not comprehend the difference between speculation and logical deduction. You never were able to grasp the slippery slope fallacy concept either. I have shown by the data presented that it was plausible to conclude that the guards looked into the sepulcher. Speculation is a conclusion based on no available data. Logical reasoning is based on the available data. This is a very easy concept, perhaps you need to research it?
Correct, you gave a version of that was plausible after you said it was not plausible. Speculating that the women didn’t see them does not detract from the probability that it is plausible. So how does that make me a liar?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

It's been such a long thread so I have not had a chance to read everything. I just wanted to ask if you have already mentioned Luke 24:13-49?

 

[Tawhano]

This is rich, coming from you.

Feel free to back up your insult with links to my posts that you feel I had been dishonest.