Recently I had a conversation with a friend from emergent village about the empty tomb. We were discussing fundamental preoccupations with it as well as personal occupations concerning it. Because I have not asked this individual for permission to share their part of the conversation, I will simply share my reply to them.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a theologian and I have limited academic studies concerning this topic. But this is my opinion at this point in my life:
"Now, I have not really flushed out a lot of my ideas on the ideas of the empty tomb. I'm sure there is some theological word for those who think the tomb is a null point, but I sure as hell don't know it. So let me step back and try to explain how I think the tomb is a moot issue and still maintain more traditional values of Christianity. I'll start with a question. Why does one need to believe Jesus was the son of God in order to be saved? Why does one even need to believe Jesus is the son of God in order to be a Christian? I will explain it in the best way I know how; I think my traditional Christian values told me that the genealogy of a deity is more important than the love of that deity. Or, voiced in another way, the resurrection of a dead man is more important than that mans loving life. That seems to fly in the face of the message of Christ. I don't think that is a humanistic view point. I believe it to be scripturally and traditionally sound in many ways. However, I know it's not a popular opinion in many Christian circles."
There are some major gaps in the argument that I'm not addressing, such as vicarious atonement, the reciprocity of the blood in Old Testament theology and the like. However, I feel like the empty tomb is a good place to start.
I appreciate any comments on this issue. It is a heavy topic, but let us approach it with humility and concern.
