My second fact to present to decide whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is fact or fiction is the empty tomb.
Three reasons offered as proof:
1. The Jerusalem factor. He was publicly executed (as we proved in the first fact) and buried in Jerusalem. Then that is exactly where his resurrection was first proclaimed. In order for that to have happened his body could not have been in the tomb b/c his Roman and Jewish enemies only would have had to visit the tomb to prove it wrong.
2. His enemies response. They acknowledged the empty tomb. Justin and Tertullian reported that the Jewish leadership were claiming that the disciples had stolen the body to account for the missing corpse which proves the tomb was empty.
3. Claims of Resurrection suggests an empty tomb. If they had only meant Jesus was still alive in a Spiritual sense, the term resurrection would not have been used as that term means bringing the corpse back to life.
Ok...that's fact number two. Any rebuttals with proof that the tomb was not empty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
CT, I am not attacking your belief, but your proof is incredibly circumstantial. And what is the source for Justin's role?
However, I personally do believe the tomb was empty. I have a feeling tomorrow's point is where we will disagree.
one of the things to keep in mind here is that extra-Biblical sources are still a bit spotty (though I am impressed by some of them), so our main source of information comes from the Bible itself. So CT, after this topic is done (and keep doing it- I enjoy reading each day's notes), I think you should do a topic/post on the Accuracy & Authority of the Bible Itself. There is a boat-load of information and support for trusting in the inerrancy of Scriptures.
Southpaw...The source for Justin is the ancient work, Trypho, and for Tertullian, De spectaculis.
Shannon...that is a good idea...why haven't you started a blog yet??? =)
I am not an attorney, so I may be incorrect of my understanding of circumstantial evidence (indirect evidence) vs. direct evidence.
However, bearing the fact that no one is alive today on this earth that witnessed this event... doesn't that lead to the conclusion that there would be no direct evidence?
Hence, we must use all of the indirect evidence that exists and piece this together?
By the way, wasn't Scott Peterson solely convicted on circumstantial evidence?
Joe...that is a very good conclusion. Due to lack of direct evidence we have to rely on circumstancial based on historical records and authenticity of those records. If the bulk of the evidence suggests the conclusion is true and a lack of evidence to show the conclusion as false, then an intellectually honest conclusion is to make a decision based on the bulk of historical evidence despite it being only circumstantial.
Post a Comment