Den tomme grav – et indicium på Jesu opstandelse?

Den tomme grav - et indicium på Jesu opstandelse? Robert Thun Svendsen
Abstract
In this assignment I focus on Jesus' empty tomb as evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. Many reasons have been given to why
the tomb was found empty, and I seek to find the least unlikely.
In the beginning of the paper, I give account for Rudolf Bultmanns
understanding of a spiritual/metaphorical resurrection, and I state that an
understanding like that is not plausible. Therefore the resurrection of Jesus has to
be understood as a physical/historical resurrection. I argue then against the
posture, that the empty tomb can be used as a demonstrably sound argument. It is
not possible because of the premises, which has to be met before the
argumentation of the empty tomb can be used as an apologetic argument. The
argument is an informal argument, not a formal one.
I give account for four frequent explanations to why the tomb of Jesus was
found empty: 1) Theft: Some claim that Jesus' friends, enemy’s or just grave
robbers stole the dead body of Jesus while he was in the tomb for two days. 2)
Jesus wasn't dead: Others give the explanation to the empty tomb that Jesus didn't
die on the cross, either because it wasn't Jesus who was crucified or because he
wasn't dead when he was taken down from the cross. 3) The empty tomb was not
the tomb of Jesus: Others again finds that the empty tomb can't be the tomb of
Jesus, and the reason why it was claimed was because the women went to the
wrong grave or that the dead body of Jesus had been moved before the women
came to the grave. I look at these explanations and argue for the conclusive
explanation: Jesus' tomb was found empty because: Jesus died, was laid in the
tomb but rose again on the third day, as the Bible teaches. When people give other
reasons to the empty tomb, and denies the resurrection of Jesus it is not because of
the historical facts, but because of their worldview.
20