In asking Christians to provide evidence for the divinity of Jesus, they usually go the "Empty Tomb" argument in which they argue that well, there was an empty tomb. What I don't understand is how does that even prove the divinity of Jesus? How do they know that is the tomb that was previously occupied by a man named Jesus?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
people choose to believe what they want to believe, their faith blinds them to reality sad. That empty tomb could also mean jesus never existed.
How does anyone know anything that happened to long ago is entirely accurate? There is no sure way of knowing.
I agree that there is truly no way of knowing anything was as accurate as they describe it. There are so many possible variable to the sroty and no onw will ever know for sure.
The argument is just incredibly weak and impossible to corroborate.
The tomb was empty. According to his followers. Who also claimed that he walked around after death, and talked with people, and ate, and then flew into the sky. None of which was seen by anyone but...his followers. According to scriptural texts which weren't even written until long after he was dead.
Bob Ingersoll pointed out that two of the gospels make no mention of the Jesus’ ascension into heaven, and that a third, the gospel of Mark, mentions it only in text which was clearly tacked onto the end of the gospel many years afterward. “Luke testifies that Christ ascended on the very day of his resurrection. John deposes that eight days after the resurrection Christ appeared to the disciples and convinced Thomas. In the Acts we are told that Christ remained on earth for forty days after his resurrection. These "depositions" do not agree. It is impossible for both to be true. One of these "witnesses" must have been mistaken….I cannot believe in the miracle of the ascension, in the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ. In the light shed upon this question by the telescope, I again ask, where was he going? The New Jerusalem is not above us. The abode of the gods is not there. What did he do with his body? How high did he go? In what way did he overcome the intense cold? The nearest station is the moon, two hundred and forty thousand miles away. It may be said that his body was "spiritual." Then what became of the body that died? Just before his ascension we are told that he partook of broiled fish with his disciples. Was the fish "spiritual?" Who saw this miracle?”
And again Ingersoll's questions got to the point: “If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret. in a corner? It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast multitude—a miracle that could not be simulated—one that would have convinced hundreds of thousands. After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became a necessity. They had to dispose of the body.”