2010-12-24

December 24, 2010 • 8:24 am

Posted at 8:24 am

2 thoughts on “2010-12-24

  1. I don’t think it’s as illogical as presented in this strip. Most Biblical historians, conservatives and skeptics alike (Bart Ehrman for example) grant that there probably are some historical nuggets within the gospel stories, and it seems quite likely that the empty tomb is one of those historical nuggets. It seems probable because:
    1. 1st century Jews’ understanding of resurrection entailed the revivification of a corpse. Thus a belief in a resurrection of Jesus would only make sense if the tomb were in fact empty.
    2. The tomb was very close to the point of crucifixion, and thus it is unlikely that somehow the followers later went to the wrong tomb.
    3. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem did not counter Jesus’s followers claim that Jesus was alive by producing a corpse. They countered it asserting that the disciples had stole the body. Thus, people on both sides agreed with the fact of an empty tomb.

    I am not saying that the whole “empty tomb” element couldn’t be a fabrication. I am just saying that some historians find it more plausible to believe that the tomb of a first century man named of Jesus became empty shortly after his death.

  2. And if we grant credence to the empty tomb story, then which scenario to explain the missing corpse is historically more plausible: 1) some people conspired to remove the corpse from the cave and secretly bury it elsewhere 2) the corpse floated through the cave to the sky on command of a God where it remains in eternal life by means of spiritual awakening and subsequent transformation to a life of holiness.

Leave a Reply