Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 03-19-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

I actually think that atheists should accept the tomb story, just claim that the event was purposefully misleading.

Atheists? Now really, far more non-Christian theists reject the empty tomb story than atheists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

The apostles.......were so inspired by Jesus' message that they stole the body and claimed to have experiences of a risen Christ; with these claims, other disciples, wanting to fit in or out of an emotional reaction, claimed to see the risen Christ too, including Paul of Tarsus.

But you can't discuss a stolen body theory unless you first reasonably establish where it was.

Toto · 03-19-2010, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

...
Suppose I am convicted of Christianity on grounds apart from historical evidence. Then what we have are at least two independent sources (most scholars consider John to have an independent source from the Synoptics), perhaps more, about an empty tomb with irrelevant material, presented in multiple forms. The tradition is likely early, and the texts themselves come about within two generations of Easter event. So, given that I'm already disposed to accept Christianity, it is more likely that the tomb story is valid.

There are Christian apologists who pretend that there is neutral historical evidence that should convince an unbeliever. I'm glad that you recognize that this evidence is not very persuasive on its own. After all, an early tradition is not the same as historical fact.

Quote:

I actually think that atheists should accept the tomb story, just claim that the event was purposefully misleading. ...

There are atheists who have similar arguments for purposes of debate, usually in the form that the body was moved and the disciples misinterpreted the empty tomb. But it's just a debate tactic. The whole story of the empty tomb is too similar to fictional romances of the day, and too full of improbable and impossible events.

Quote:

So my point is this: Christians don't accept Christianity because of the historical evidence, they accept it on other grounds. Given that they have their beliefs already, they have a different starting place to interpret the evidence. . .

Evidence is evidence. Your beliefs do not create different historical facts or probabilities.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-19-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

At least two independent sources (most scholars consider John to have an independent source from the Synoptics), perhaps more, about an empty tomb with irrelevant material, presented in multiple forms.

Your arguments are not valid. It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark. None of the Gospel writers claimed to have seen Jesus put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, so their evidence is hearsay, and decades after the supposed facts. The empty tomb story might have only had one original source, Mark, and all other sources copied Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

The tradition is likely early, and the texts themselves come about within two generations of Easter event.

What extra-biblical evidence do you have regarding when empty tomb stories started to circulate?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.