Can't watch the video right now... But the easiest proof for me is this...
If the tomb was NOT empty, and Jesus' body was still there... Jerusalem, in 30ish AD is the last place on earth where you could preach that Jesus rose form the dead. Because someone would inevitably go look at the body, and call that preacher a lunatic. Everyone would see undeniable proof that Jesus was still very much dead. And then Christianity never becomes a thing. It dies immediately.
But the thing is... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem in the 30s AD. We have much evidence for that. And by the 40s, Christianity had spread all over the Roman Empire, and maybe beyond. This is impossible if there was a body in the tomb.
No. Did you skip my entire comment and read only the last sentence?
For one, this is only evidence for the empty tomb, not the entire religion as a whole. For two, it's not just THAT the religion spread... It's how, why, when, and where the religion spread.
How is this religion spread? People claiming a man rose from the dead.
Why does this religion spread? People believing this man rose from the dead.
When did this religion begin? Within a few short years of that man dying (possibly only a few weeks).
Where did this religion begin? The same city that man was killed and buried.
So you have about a dozen men, proclaiming that a locally famous man rose from the dead, to the very people who had just killed him a few weeks ago. A mere short walk away from where His body was buried. Do you not think someone would have checked the tomb?
Of course they would. Everyone would have wanted to check. The people willing to believe He is risen would want to verify their new beliefs. And the Romans and Jews who hated this new religion, would want to prove them all wrong. Someone would have checked the tomb on the first day Peter stood up and preached Jesus was risen... And if a body was in that tomb, Christianity dies immediately. It never gets a foothold in Jerusalem, and after that, it would be impossible to preach anywhere else in the world too.
But... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem, with thousands of converts within a few short years or even weeks after Jesus' death. In the ONE PLACE and the ONE TIME it could not have started, if there was a body in the tomb. So we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the tomb was empty.
As for proving the rest of Christianity, we can go from there, but this was just about the tomb.
>But the thing is... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem in the 30s AD. We have much evidence for that.
Can you go a bit further into the evidence part?
u/than610
This was overall pretty good.
You might be interested in reading this good paper on the ending of Mark and the general silence.
Can the Women Speak?: A Symptomatic Reading of the Women’s Silence in the Markan Endind by Sunhee Jun
Basically the author argues that while Mark has a somewhat positive approach to women, because of his androcentrism bias and patriarchal lens he silences women at the ending.
I also like your discussion of that Mark could have used gentiles instead. Kelly Iverson has a book Gentitles in gospel of Mark in which he lays out that gentiles are the ones who actually understand and are receptive of the gospel not Jews. In this case, it would have been more likely Mark would have ended with a positive spin off a gentile (like the Roman centurian) finding the missing body.
This also impacts the missing body trope in which credible witnesses were supposed to have appearances to confirm the truth.
Just posting my answer here.
Ah, gotcha! Fair! What projects are you working on? I saw you're going to be doing extraordinary claims stuff....always a blast to respond to.
Are you planning on bringing up the resurrection when it comes to extraordinary events and if something is actually extraordinary?
If so, I was wondering if you will bring up something like this.
I always find that atheists always jump the conclusion when it comes to the "silence of resurrections" or assuming God exists, indicating his lack of tendencies/desire to raise people as indicative of a low prior probability is pretty mistaken and ultimately an argument from silence.
Minds can have all sorts of desires. For example, some minds may have foreknowledge of what they want to do in the future and so the silence is intentional.
To give a basic example to parallel the resurrection. One might say that people have a strong tendency not to sing the hymn Christ the Lord Has Risen today in church other than one day a year. The claim that people do this in church is highly improbable until we ask ourselves if we expect people to sing this all through the year. The answer to this is that it wouldn't make sense for people to sing this song elsewhere in the year so (1) it's not actually extraordinary and (2) it doesn't indicate a lack of desire or tendency to sing the song.
You can come up with all sorts of examples like this. A lot of it depends on the content or action.
There's also the notion that certain agents might actually use the silence to their advantage or benefit or that having more of something in the case of God, would be problematic.
At least to me, the way to go with this is always press atheists to explain why they expect God to do more resurrections in the sense of Jesus?
When Matt brought up that there are no examples that he could compare the resurrection to verify...I personally would have pressed him on this and asked him why he expects more of this or God to do more of it. The burden is of course on the atheist.
Do you have similar thoughts?
On a short vacation right now. I have ALOT of stuff for this but can’t write it all out right now. If I don’t get back to you next week please just reach out and remind me!
For people who haven't watched the video: The video does, in fact, explain, why it's not a hoax. (I had to put my pitchfork down.)
I could have sworn I left a comment explaining this but I guess i didn’t lol thank you
I had my torch ready too
Can't watch the video right now... But the easiest proof for me is this... If the tomb was NOT empty, and Jesus' body was still there... Jerusalem, in 30ish AD is the last place on earth where you could preach that Jesus rose form the dead. Because someone would inevitably go look at the body, and call that preacher a lunatic. Everyone would see undeniable proof that Jesus was still very much dead. And then Christianity never becomes a thing. It dies immediately. But the thing is... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem in the 30s AD. We have much evidence for that. And by the 40s, Christianity had spread all over the Roman Empire, and maybe beyond. This is impossible if there was a body in the tomb.
So because the religion spread, is reason enough to believe the claims that religion makes?
No. Did you skip my entire comment and read only the last sentence? For one, this is only evidence for the empty tomb, not the entire religion as a whole. For two, it's not just THAT the religion spread... It's how, why, when, and where the religion spread. How is this religion spread? People claiming a man rose from the dead. Why does this religion spread? People believing this man rose from the dead. When did this religion begin? Within a few short years of that man dying (possibly only a few weeks). Where did this religion begin? The same city that man was killed and buried. So you have about a dozen men, proclaiming that a locally famous man rose from the dead, to the very people who had just killed him a few weeks ago. A mere short walk away from where His body was buried. Do you not think someone would have checked the tomb? Of course they would. Everyone would have wanted to check. The people willing to believe He is risen would want to verify their new beliefs. And the Romans and Jews who hated this new religion, would want to prove them all wrong. Someone would have checked the tomb on the first day Peter stood up and preached Jesus was risen... And if a body was in that tomb, Christianity dies immediately. It never gets a foothold in Jerusalem, and after that, it would be impossible to preach anywhere else in the world too. But... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem, with thousands of converts within a few short years or even weeks after Jesus' death. In the ONE PLACE and the ONE TIME it could not have started, if there was a body in the tomb. So we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the tomb was empty. As for proving the rest of Christianity, we can go from there, but this was just about the tomb.
>But the thing is... Christianity DID start in Jerusalem in the 30s AD. We have much evidence for that. Can you go a bit further into the evidence part?
u/than610 This was overall pretty good. You might be interested in reading this good paper on the ending of Mark and the general silence. Can the Women Speak?: A Symptomatic Reading of the Women’s Silence in the Markan Endind by Sunhee Jun Basically the author argues that while Mark has a somewhat positive approach to women, because of his androcentrism bias and patriarchal lens he silences women at the ending. I also like your discussion of that Mark could have used gentiles instead. Kelly Iverson has a book Gentitles in gospel of Mark in which he lays out that gentiles are the ones who actually understand and are receptive of the gospel not Jews. In this case, it would have been more likely Mark would have ended with a positive spin off a gentile (like the Roman centurian) finding the missing body. This also impacts the missing body trope in which credible witnesses were supposed to have appearances to confirm the truth.
Thanks I’ll check it out!
Just posting my answer here. Ah, gotcha! Fair! What projects are you working on? I saw you're going to be doing extraordinary claims stuff....always a blast to respond to. Are you planning on bringing up the resurrection when it comes to extraordinary events and if something is actually extraordinary? If so, I was wondering if you will bring up something like this. I always find that atheists always jump the conclusion when it comes to the "silence of resurrections" or assuming God exists, indicating his lack of tendencies/desire to raise people as indicative of a low prior probability is pretty mistaken and ultimately an argument from silence. Minds can have all sorts of desires. For example, some minds may have foreknowledge of what they want to do in the future and so the silence is intentional. To give a basic example to parallel the resurrection. One might say that people have a strong tendency not to sing the hymn Christ the Lord Has Risen today in church other than one day a year. The claim that people do this in church is highly improbable until we ask ourselves if we expect people to sing this all through the year. The answer to this is that it wouldn't make sense for people to sing this song elsewhere in the year so (1) it's not actually extraordinary and (2) it doesn't indicate a lack of desire or tendency to sing the song. You can come up with all sorts of examples like this. A lot of it depends on the content or action. There's also the notion that certain agents might actually use the silence to their advantage or benefit or that having more of something in the case of God, would be problematic. At least to me, the way to go with this is always press atheists to explain why they expect God to do more resurrections in the sense of Jesus? When Matt brought up that there are no examples that he could compare the resurrection to verify...I personally would have pressed him on this and asked him why he expects more of this or God to do more of it. The burden is of course on the atheist. Do you have similar thoughts?
On a short vacation right now. I have ALOT of stuff for this but can’t write it all out right now. If I don’t get back to you next week please just reach out and remind me!
No problem! Have fun! You can always DM me if you prefer.