Freethought & Rationalism Archive

robto · 05-11-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Gary Habermas writes 'Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it...'

Does anyone besides me find this phrasing peculiar? I would have expected "75% find in favor of the empty tomb's historicity" or something like that. Instead Habermas speaks of "arguments". Wouldn't any historian with an ounce of objectivity be able to find arguments on both sides? I would think that with real numbers we would have "Of these scholars, 99% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while 99% think that one or more arguments oppose it."

Johnny Skeptic · 05-11-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

What evidence is acceptable [regarding where Jesus was buried]? After all the idea that Jesus was buried is a non-extraordinary claim. But because its connected to an extraordinary claim (ie. the resurrection) does that mean the burial itself also requires extraordinary evidence?

If the answer is no then what is your minimalist criteria to show the historicity of any non-extraordinary claim? And then give me an example of an historical event which does just meet this minimal criteria then I can compare the two and find out if I do have any evidence which does meet your standard.

It would be nice to have some credible eyewitnesses who saw where Jesus was buried. That is where the evidence must begin, right?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.