The Empty Tomb

[edge]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan . ..(major snip) . . . This account is highly implausible. It's unlikely Pilate would have bothered writing the Titulus. . . . (snip) . . . .



I originally overlooked this point in your post. If you agree that Pilate is unlikely to have personally written the Titulus, then you are saying the Gospel of John is false, ergo not divinely inspired. Is this, in fact, your stance?

Each witness sees an event a little different, just as today all the information is there then it is up to what matches each account that makes it possible to understand what happened, sometimes evidence is thrown out or understood in a more important way.
All I can tell you is that in my life time I have witnessed enough manifestations of certain things that tell me it isn’t exactly as we have been lead to believe but it is there and matches pretty much what we know. I give credit to all religions for acknowledging that there is a god or spiritual connection and how to be better for morality’s sake. Then we have cultural biases that are interjected that nullify what the whole belief was about to begin with. Inconsistences come from corruption of what was meant to be good and moral.
Old laws are interjected and added and new interpretations turn the good into really evil.
What I can tell you is there is something there that is good on that other side, also something there that’s very evil.

 

[TimCallahan]

Each witness sees an event a little different, just as today all the information is there then it is up to what matches each account that makes it possible to understand what happened, sometimes evidence is thrown out or understood in a more important way. . . . (snip) . . .

I've heard this argument for harmonizing the gospels before. Then, as in now, if doesn't hold up. The differences in wording among the Synoptic Gospels is minor enough to be harmonized. However, the Gospel of John not only has PIlate personally write the Titulus as well interjects an exchange between Pilate and the priests that is entirely missing from the other gospels.

So, tell me, who first met the risen Christ? This is a multiple choice question.

1) Nobody (as Mark has it)

2) The women who had come to wash and anoint the body (as Matthew has it)

3) two unnamed disciples on the road to Emmaus (as Luke has it)

4) Mary Magdalene (as John has it)

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

23) It's all a made-up story.

I'm amazed it's got this far.

Well, we have a thread on why we should believe anything at all in the Babble and it's still going on after all these years.

 

[HansMustermann]

The fly in the ointment for most hypotheses about how there really was an empty tomb, is that:

A) Paul seems to actually say that Jesus rose as a spirit. Checking a grave to see if the body is still there would have been even nonsense, if one didn't expect a bodily resurrection.

B) desecrating graves and stealing bodies was a capital offence in the Roman Empire. So regardless of how or where Jesus may have been disposed of, I find it somewhat unlikely that someone would go dig him out. I mean, it's already insane to think that someone is alive (and can stay alive) after receiving a coup de grace, doubly so when it's after being buried for two days, and doubly so again when it's also a capital offence to go dig him out.

C) the reasons given in the gospel for going to the tomb are hare-brained. There was no custom (that we know of) anywhere in the world to take out a body that's already been buried, and do some more preparations to it. Not the least because, then like now, most graves were a hole in the ground, and nobody went to dig out the corpse to do more anointing and stuff.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . megasnip) . . . .

C) the reasons given in the gospel for going to the tomb are hare-brained. There was no custom (that we know of) anywhere in the world to take out a body that's already been buried, and do some more preparations to it. Not the least because, then like now, most graves were a hole in the ground, and nobody went to dig out the corpse to do more anointing and stuff.

Concerning the hilited area, from what I've read, First century Jews, assuming their families were well-off enough, had family crypts. Even if they were dug into hillsides, they were far more than a hole in the ground. The recently interred body was laid out on a slab on a platform in the middle of the room, covered by a shroud. The body was then allowed to decay and desiccate for a few months. after which the relatives opened the crypt, cleaned the now disarticulated bones and put them into an ossuary, or bone box, made of limestone. The box was then inserted into a niche dug into the wall of the crypt.

That said, you're right about the women going in the morning to anoint the body. The presupposes that, in spite of having Jesus already placed in a shroud, nobody had washed or anointed it. I suppose defenders of the tale could argue that Jesus had to be buried in haste because of certain religious strictures concerning the sabbath. John's gospel argues that Good Friday was the day before Passover, though the Synoptics have the last supper as a Passover meal.

 

[SezMe]

DOC: it is, simply, dishonest of you to continue to continue to pretend that Ehrman believes that the Jesus that existed is the Ἰησοῦς Χριστός that walked on water, did miracles, and rose from an "empty tomb". Had you ever bothered to read the book, you would have seen the arguments Ehrman presents against the silliness of conflating the fully-human apocalyptic preacher that did, in fact (in Ehrman's opinion) exist, with the miraculous messiah-figure. You keep telling this lie, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that it is, in fact, dishonest of you so to do.

I quote this for emphasis and to help ensure DOC doesn't miss it.

DOC, your use of Ehrman is seriously dishonest. What part of "Thou shall not bear false witness" is giving you trouble?

 

[HansMustermann]

Concerning the hilited area, from what I've read, First century Jews, assuming their families were well-off enough, had family crypts. Even if they were dug into hillsides, they were far more than a hole in the ground. The recently interred body was laid out on a slab on a platform in the middle of the room, covered by a shroud. The body was then allowed to decay and desiccate for a few months. after which the relatives opened the crypt, cleaned the now disarticulated bones and put them into an ossuary, or bone box, made of limestone. The box was then inserted into a niche dug into the wall of the crypt.

Well, I did say "most graves", not "most graves of rich people". Back then too the wealthy were a minority. So body preparation customs had to also fit the majority of people, who did go into a hole in the ground.

That said, I don't really buy it that Jesus went into a kokh-type tomb of a well-off family. Even IF the Romans didn't do their usual thing of disposing of the body themselves and denying the body of executed criminals a burial by their family (Romans were dicks to you even after you were dead), there's even less reason to think that Jews were more inclined to put a random executed guy in their own family tomb. According to their religion, a criminal executed and hung on a stick was "cursed to god" and defiling the land (Deut 21:22–23), so while he did have to be buried, there is no reason one would want to use their own family tomb for the cursed body of a stranger. And there was the precedent in their holy books that even a King could be denied burial in their family tomb, if they had transgressed against the Lord (1 Kings 13:22.)

Even those trying to keep the burial by Joseph Of Arimathea have to do weird justificatios like that either was a disciple (that we never heard of, and doesn't seem to be with the disciples after that) or that, see, he was just a pious Jew who only wanted the corpse buried the same day in accordance to Deuteronomy 21:23 (but doesn't show the same pious interest in the other two crucified people, who apparently the Romans are perfectly able to dispose of themselves.)

That said, you're right about the women going in the morning to anoint the body. The presupposes that, in spite of having Jesus already placed in a shroud, nobody had washed or anointed it. I suppose defenders of the tale could argue that Jesus had to be buried in haste because of certain religious strictures concerning the sabbath. John's gospel argues that Good Friday was the day before Passover, though the Synoptics have the last supper as a Passover meal.

Well, not just the Sabbath. As I was saying, executed criminals had to be buried on the day they died, not left over night hung on a stick.

But it would seem mighty weird if Joseph of Arimathea went through all the trouble of getting the body and using his own family's tomb, just to give it an improper funeral. I mean, if all he wanted was seeing to it that the wannabe Messiah is improperly buried, couldn't he just leave it to the Romans?

Also if the Lord commanded him that the burial has to be finished on the same day, why would he essentially leave it unfinished for two more days? Because that's really what I'm asked to believe: Joe takes the body and places it on the slab in his family tomb, but actually finishing the job is put off for two more days, technically violating the Law.

The Sabbath may explain why they came after two days instead of next day, but really leaves the rest of it the same big wth.

 

[pakeha]

The Report of Pilate the Procurator Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ. Sent to the August Cæsar in Rome.

Here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0809.htm

And this PDF:
Another version:
...

Why do you think this is a true account of those events?

Wow I never realized that as soon as the Christ-ers took over they turned Jerusalem into a theme park

Follow the money!

...Obviously, there's the blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof, which is very naughty, but I think this approach also resembles a bizarre effect called Perry Mason syndrome.

Nice one, RA.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Would it neccessarily have had to have been Jesus himself on the cross?
Remember, he was supposedly identified by Judas kissing him before he was arrested, how easy would it have been for Judas, who was apparently a desciple of Jesus, to kiss someone else while Jesus escaped?
Surely it's not beyond the realms of reason to consider that another desciple, someone who was fully dedicated to Jesus and believed in a reward in the afterlife, could have volunteered to take the place of Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

Would it neccessarily have had to have been Jesus himself on the cross?
Remember, he was supposedly identified by Judas kissing him before he was arrested, how easy would it have been for Judas, who was apparently a desciple of Jesus, to kiss someone else while Jesus escaped?
Surely it's not beyond the realms of reason to consider that another desciple, someone who was fully dedicated to Jesus and believed in a reward in the afterlife, could have volunteered to take the place of Jesus?

Anything whatsoever can be imagined, including your story. No wonder scholars have given up "the search for the Historical Jesus"!

 

[pakeha]

Would it neccessarily have had to have been Jesus himself on the cross?
Remember, he was supposedly identified by Judas kissing him before he was arrested, how easy would it have been for Judas, who was apparently a desciple of Jesus, to kiss someone else while Jesus escaped?
Surely it's not beyond the realms of reason to consider that another desciple, someone who was fully dedicated to Jesus and believed in a reward in the afterlife, could have volunteered to take the place of Jesus?

That's an interesting idea.
The messianic message, resurrection, Lamb of God sacrifice and laying down his life to redeem our sins was just a con, then?

 

[edge]

Why do you think this is a true account of those events?

Follow the money!



Nice one, RA.

It is an outside source, seems to be what everyone wants.

 

[edge]

I've heard this argument for harmonizing the gospels before. Then, as in now, if doesn't hold up. The differences in wording among the Synoptic Gospels is minor enough to be harmonized. However, the Gospel of John not only has PIlate personally write the Titulus as well interjects an exchange between Pilate and the priests that is entirely missing from the other gospels.

So, tell me, who first met the risen Christ? This is a multiple choice question.

1) Nobody (as Mark has it)

2) The women who had come to wash and anoint the body (as Matthew has it) 3) two unnamed disciples on the road to Emmaus (as Luke has it) 4) Mary Magdalene (as John has it)

I think the highlighted ones are relevant, as far as in Mark it could be any number of reasons.
He or they may have thought it was covered enough and other things that weren’t were to be covered by him? I’ll have to go read and see.

Luke 1
New International Version (NIV)
Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


They obviously didn't all talk to the same witnesses at the same time but the main message wasn't confused.

 

[tsig]

Anything whatsoever can be imagined, including your story. No wonder scholars have given up "the search for the Historical Jesus"!

It's funny, in order to argue for an HJ they have to trash the Faith Jesus. The Jesus that incarnated, suffered and died for sins that the majority of Christians believe in is completely abandoned in favor of an obscure itinerant preacher who most Christians would not recognize.

 

[Craig B]

It's funny, in order to argue for an HJ they have to trash the Faith Jesus. The Jesus that incarnated, suffered and died for sins that the majority of Christians believe in is completely abandoned in favor of an obscure itinerant preacher who most Christians would not recognize.

Not so funny really. The imaginary Jesus of the Christians can not possibly exist. But if we strip the impossible things away, are we left with a "kernel" of truth? Or is the Jesus story like an onion, with no core?

 

[TimCallahan]

Would it neccessarily have had to have been Jesus himself on the cross?
Remember, he was supposedly identified by Judas kissing him before he was arrested, how easy would it have been for Judas, who was apparently a desciple of Jesus, to kiss someone else while Jesus escaped?
Surely it's not beyond the realms of reason to consider that another desciple, someone who was fully dedicated to Jesus and believed in a reward in the afterlife, could have volunteered to take the place of Jesus?

I could see this done as a great comedy routine: At the last supper, instead of saying, "One of you will betray me," Jesus says, "One of you is going to draw the short straw." Or, Jesus might turn to Judas and say, "Judas, pick who's going to bite the big one on my behalf." Judas either counts, "Eeny, meany, miney, moe; catch a Roman by the toe . . ." or there's a voice-over of his thoughts, "Peter's always been a real dick to me, so . . . ." Or, Jesus tells Judas to kiss someone when the authorities arrive. It turns out Judas is gay and has always had a thing for Peter (possibly related to his name), but the big fisherman, being a homophobe, has threatened to out Judas.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, if we're at writing our own Jesus fanfic, can I just vote for the existing SinFest Fan Fiction 2: The Betrayal Of Jessica Christ strip?

 

[HansMustermann]

Not so funny really. The imaginary Jesus of the Christians can not possibly exist. But if we strip the impossible things away, are we left with a "kernel" of truth? Or is the Jesus story like an onion, with no core?

Well, if you strip all the impossible things from Spiderman, are you really left with a kernel of truth about the historical Peter Parker?

The problem, which I illustrated before with Eugnostos and the Sophia Of JC, is that we can see those guys not just putting someone else's junk in Jesus's mouth like he's a Catholic choir boy, but also invent the settings in which the disciples ask stuff and Jesus delivers the smart stuff they copied from Eugnostos. It's not just an IMDB-style collection of quotes from Jesus, like the Gospel Of Thomas largely is, but it actually invents the settings and happenings that set the stage for Jesus saying his smart stuff.

And if you think that could only happen to the gnostics, try the adulteress pericope in John or the four different forged endings to Mark that were in circulation at some point. Yeah, people had no problem inventing whole events and settings.

Which brings us to eliminating all the miraculous stuff. (And I'd also vote all the blatantly symbolic stuff where people act completely unnaturally just so Jesus can get to be the Black Hole Sue.) Can you really trust the rest of the setting there to not be just an invented stage for Jesus to get to do his shtick? E.g., if he didn't single-handedly overpower the dozens of merchants and hundreds of armed guards, was he at the temple at all before he got nailed? Or is that just an invented setting? E.g., if he didn't make the symbolic point of feeding multitudes at home AND abroad, unlike the Law which denied them certain kinds of foods, did he actually travel to those places? Etc.

ETA: don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I know they didn't happen. I don't. I'm just saying that the sources are really that circumspect, when it comes to discerning fact from fiction.

 

[TimCallahan]

[/HILITE]


I think the highlighted ones are relevant, as far as in Mark it could be any number of reasons.
He or they may have thought it was covered enough and other things that weren’t were to be covered by him? I’ll have to go read and see.

Luke 1
New International Version (NIV)
Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


They obviously didn't all talk to the same witnesses at the same time but the main message wasn't confused.

Concerning the material from Luke in boldface, do you believe that the author of Luke and Acts was actually one of Paul's traveling companions? If so, how do you account for him failing to mention the over 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, according to 1 Corinthians? Such a stunning evidence of the Resurrection isn't something you would leave out. So, to account for the fact that none of the gospels report this, there are a number of possible reasons I can think of, off-hand:

1) Paul wrote about this to the church in Corinth, but didn't tell Luke about it.

2) Paul did tell Luke about it, but he didn't think it was important enough to include in his gospel.

3) All the gospel writers were aware of this story, but discounted it as being unlikely.

4) None of the gospel writers included the 500+ brethren, because it wasn't originally in 1 Corinthians, but was inserted in the process of transmission by a later editor.

I find 1) and 2) highly improbable. Explanation 3) is possible. However, since the passage in 1 Corinthians shows signs of tampering, I suspect that 4) is the most likely explanation. Here's the passage as it now stands 1 Cor. 15:3 - 8:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day n accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared Cephas, then to the twelve, Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me.

It is quite apparent from Paul's epistle to the Galatians that James, not Peter (Cephas), is in charge of the church in Jerusalem. This would be unlikely if James were so far down the line in order of appearances and if Jesus appeared to Peter first. Also, let us remember that Peter (Cephas) is, after all one of the twelve. So, if there was tampering that demoted James, as well as adding the 500, the original passage would have been as follows:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day n accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared James, then to the twelve, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me.

Note that in the passage as we have it now, there is a widening circle to whom Jesus appears, but one that is disrupted by the appearance to James:

1) Jesus appears to Peter (Cephas).
2) Jesus appears to the 12.
3) Jesus appears to over 500 brethren.
4) Jesus appears to James.
5) Jesus appears to all the apostles.

If this is, in fact, an altered version, and my version is what the original was like, then the widening circle isn't broken:

1) Jesus appears to James.
2) Jesus appears to the 12.
3) Jesus appears to all the apostles.

Also, this would explain the failure of the gospels to include the 500+ brethren. Of course, there's still the possibility that the gospel writers, who, after all, do not conform in any way to the passage in 1 Corinthians, may have simply ignored Paul in the process of writing their own fictional accounts.

A possible reason for this is that Paul seems to have had some sort of conversion experience, which would seem to be visionary. So, he might well have understood the other appearances to likewise have been visions. Starting with Mark, the gospel writers might well have altered this to be a physical, rather than spiritual, resurrection, Mark's view being that the physically resurrected Jesus would have immediately ascended to heaven, leaving only the empty tomb as evidence. Succeeding gospel writers probably found this as unsatisfying as most of those reading it do today; hence the varied accounts in of post-reurrection appearances of Jesus in the flesh in Matthew, Luke and John.

 

[edge]

TimCallahan asked many things:

Concerning the material from Luke in boldface, do you believe that the author of Luke and Acts was actually one of Paul's traveling companions? If so, how do you account for him failing to mention the over 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, according to 1 Corinthians? Such a stunning evidence of the Resurrection isn't something you would leave out. So, to account for the fact that none of the gospels report this, there are a number of possible reasons I can think of, off-hand:

1) Paul wrote about this to the church in Corinth, but didn't tell Luke about it.

2) Paul did tell Luke about it, but he didn't think it was important enough to include in his gospel.

3) All the gospel writers were aware of this story, but discounted it as being unlikely.

4) None of the gospel writers included the 500+ brethren, because it wasn't originally in 1 Corinthians, but was inserted in the process of transmission by a later editor.

I find 1) and 2) highly improbable. Explanation 3) is possible. However, since the passage in 1 Corinthians shows signs of tampering, I suspect that 4) is the most likely explanation. Here's the passage as it now stands 1 Cor. 15:3 - 8:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day n accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared Cephas, then to the twelve, Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me.

It is quite apparent from Paul's epistle to the Galatians that James, not Peter (Cephas), is in charge of the church in Jerusalem. This would be unlikely if James were so far down the line in order of appearances and if Jesus appeared to Peter first. Also, let us remember that Peter (Cephas) is, after all one of the twelve. So, if there was tampering that demoted James, as well as adding the 500, the original passage would have been as follows:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day n accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared James, then to the twelve, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me.

Note that in the passage as we have it now, there is a widening circle to whom Jesus appears, but one that is disrupted by the appearance to James:

1) Jesus appears to Peter (Cephas).
2) Jesus appears to the 12.
3) Jesus appears to over 500 brethren.
4) Jesus appears to James.
5) Jesus appears to all the apostles.

If this is, in fact, an altered version, and my version is what the original was like, then the widening circle isn't broken:

1) Jesus appears to James.
2) Jesus appears to the 12.
3) Jesus appears to all the apostles.

Also, this would explain the failure of the gospels to include the 500+ brethren. Of course, there's still the possibility that the gospel writers, who, after all, do not conform in any way to the passage in 1 Corinthians, may have simply ignored Paul in the process of writing their own fictional accounts.

A possible reason for this is that Paul seems to have had some sort of conversion experience, which would seem to be visionary. So, he might well have understood the other appearances to likewise have been visions. Starting with Mark, the gospel writers might well have altered this to be a physical, rather than spiritual, resurrection, Mark's view being that the physically resurrected Jesus would have immediately ascended to heaven, leaving only the empty tomb as evidence. Succeeding gospel writers probably found this as unsatisfying as most of those reading it do today; hence the varied accounts in of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the flesh in Matthew, Luke and John.

Ok all I can tell you is that I see it like this:
1) Jesus appears… this in itself is a miracle because no one steps off of a Roman cross or tree. Let alone walking out of a grave, if he is in the flesh or spirit he still bears the scars. The kill scar is there too, an open wound that leads into his chest. I like the fact that in John’s account Thomas puts his hand in it, which turns the skeptic into an all-out believer. So whatever kind of body he has it isn’t affected by the great loss of blood or the insertion of a hand into the rib cage let alone a spear where the liver and heart are exposed and wounded. The bottom line is with all those wounds, and in a grave for three days, it is amazing in it's self; because that would have killed anyone else easily.
NKJV:

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

So for at least five days he appears then disappears and still doesn’t succumb to sepsis blood poisoning or gangrene?

2) I’ll go with Mark and Matthew.
The 500 is probably exaggerated, it may have been 120 or 200. But earlier they are told to all go to Galilee for the ascension. This would make more sense, further away from the authority that crucified him.
John’s account happens in Galilee too. We can assume there were small villages along the sea, but it also included a larger area.
You say twelve above you mean 11?
But then again there’s this from John:

20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

It seems to me that Judas is still around; he had to do his part. I think he was even forgiven and it’s possible his death was contrived for his own protection.
Then this:

24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Is the writer talking about Judas or Peter?
Then look at where Peter’s teachings are today?

I will stick to he was the son of God incarnated into human form, plus the fact he did this for us. The Father didn’t do this for himself, but he set a high bar for Jesus, because I think that God was done with us, but the son seen something in us that was redeemable, but at the same time had to feel what we feel, what we experience through suffering and an injustice through death but not only death but an unjustified death, wrongful death. The Romans made sure that there was lots of that going on in so many ways. If some of what is in there is addendums then they thought it was important. You have to ask yourself why perpetuate a LIE?

No one but no one goes to horrible deaths for a lie as the disciples did. Before this when they captured Jesus, they ran but not later, sure they laid low for a while, for 30 to 80 years by not writing this down right away. So something miraculous happened.

My number 1. above is enough.

The rest of what I get… I get from the living and the present, evidence that
proves soul, after life, and life experiences now in our lives, proof there is more behind the scene than we know or that has been reveled and I do not look in a grave and see an end, not at all.
I think this life is a character building experience and we get that from the emotions that are here and maybe not so prevalent or recognizable for a human soul on that other side. But I think it’s even more; a reading of the heart of what your principalities are and become. It looks to me that before Christ most everybody fails and this is where that wasn’t acceptable. I think even after death you will get a chance at redemption, at that point you will know for sure, at this point your good, great morals of an atheist better be right.
Maybe we are being set up for something even greater. I also believe that there will be work there and more things to do than we can ever imagine.
We could be molded to be Gods emissaries to some other world that is later created in this universe with sentient beings that are just starting their civilization and in need for guidance. There may be civilizations out there that didn’t fall, that would be something to go and see or experience.

How much authority we are given on that side is dependent on how we act on this side; that seems to be the theme. On this side none of us know how well we are doing, if you think you do then you are wrong and without humility, something you need over there on that other side is humility. No matter what you believe now, we all will have the opportunity to advance, to change our minds and move on and keep learning. This is my belief and I got this from asking to see what the truth is or to show me what these things are that manifest into our reality, I got my wish so I know there is a high unassailability to all this and what I got was clear a bell.