Great discussion so far! Having thus very correctly elucidated why the Buddha rejected the Eternalistic and Annihilationist views, what we now require to round off with is why the Buddha also rejected the nihilist view.
After all, if
and
why is it wrong to say
SN24.6
Nothing bad is done by the doer when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. Nothing bad is done when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit’
SA161
Whether it’s his life or body, the blade passes between the seven bodies and returns, but it doesn’t harm his life. Nothing is killed by that, and there’s no killer. Nothing is bound, and there’s no binder. Nothing is thought, and there’s no thinker. Nothing is taught, and there’s no teacher.
Just trying to take the discussion forward, not trying to poke the (admittedly non-existent) bear … 
(Hot Tip - See SA139 for the Buddha’s explanation)