Orthodox_Freethinker

Craig does support it with evidence. Would you care to refute him?

Orthodox_Freethinker

What about the Babylonian Talmud?

Amaleq13

Assuming this to be true, I would be ever so happy if you chose to start emulating him with regard to your own assertions. You could start by addressing the questions of and challenges to your assertions here and here.

Defend your assertions or admit that you cannot. This game playing has gotten quite tiresome.

I think Lowder did an excellent job that requires no additions. If, however, you ever decide to read his article and have questions, I'm sure everyone here will be willing to attempt to provide any additional information you might need.

Orthodox_Freethinker

No one in the first century disputed the physical resurrection of Christ. At least, no one provided a written record of such a dispute. Therefore, there is no negative testimony against the resurrection.

As for Saint Paul's attestation of the empty tomb:
"Does this formula bear witness to the fact of Jesus' empty tomb? Several questions here need to be kept carefully distinct. First we must decide: (1) does Paul accept the empty tomb, and (2) does Paul mention the empty tomb? It is clear that (1) does not imply (2), but (2) would imply (1). Orin other words, just because Paul may not mention the empty tomb, that does not mean he does not accept the empty tomb. Too many New Testament scholars have fallen prey to Bultmann's fallacy: 'Legenden sind die Geschichten vom leeren Grab, von dem Paulus noch nicht weiss.'{7} Paul's citation of Jesus' words at the Last Supper ( I Cor 11: 23-26) shows that he knew the context of the traditions he delivered; but had the Corinthians not been abusing the eucharist this knowledge would have remained lost to us. So one must not too rashly conclude from silence that Paul 'knows nothing' of the empty tomb. Next, if Paul does imply the empty tomb, then we must ask: (1) does Paul believe Jesus' tomb was empty, and (2) does Paul know Jesus' tomb was empty? Again, as Grass is quick to point out, (1) does not imply (2);{8} but (2) would imply (1). In other words, does Paul simply assume the empty tomb as a matter of course or does he have actual historical knowledge that the tomb of Jesus was empty? Thus, even if it could be proved that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of the body, that does not necessarily imply that he knew the empty tomb for a fact..."
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/tomb2.html

I hope that will be a good read for you.

It's such a strange claim that Paul didn't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, especially since that would be so inconsistent with the whole of his teachings. Perhaps you could give reasons as to why you don't believe that Paul knew of the empty tomb.

Vorkosigan

Thanks! I'll pop over there and make some comments.

Michael

Vorkosigan

That is because it was not an issue until the second, when the mythical Jesus became the historical one. The crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Paul's day did not occur on earth. So negative evidence not necessary.

There's 400 years of western science. If Jesus was a historical human, he didn't resurrect. Period.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

1. Did you conduct a poll of everyone living in the first century area? If not, then there is no way that you can make such a ridiculous statement.

2. Are the records of that time complete, without any gaps or missing volumes? If not, then then there is no way you can make such a sweeping statement.

3. Was everyone in the 1st century literate, and able to leave a written record of whatever they thought? If not, then your model is broken. Your argument assumes a reliance upon written records, but in a time when literacy was not universal.

4. Are the people of the first century known to be critical thinkers, examining rumors and tales to see if they are accurate? Or are they superstitious and prone to believe fantastic stories told to them? Hint: the latter option is the case.

Says who? You have not shown that there are no such written records. And in a time when literacy was not universal, it is pointless to claim that "well, if nobody wrote about it, then that somehow proves that nobody doubted it".

Therefore, you've just stacked several assumptions like stale pancakes, and the result is a totally busted argument.

Orthodox_Freethinker

What 'mythical Jesus'? The majority of sholarship shows that the Gospels were writtin in the first century, either within or close to the generation of Christ and that a man known as Yeshua of Nazareth was crucified. :banghead:

Really? Western science has disproved that God can resurrect a human body? Man, it's great to know that science can place such limitations on an infinite God. :down:

Orthodox_Freethinker

Think about it. Most scholars would agree that Josephus at least mentioned Jesus in his writings even if interlopations were later added. Why wouldn't the man dispute the resurrection if it were false?

Vorkosigan

OF, at the moment there is no credible way of dating the gospels. I wish you'd invest more time in studying methodology, rather than spouting apologetics. The majority of scholarship shows nothing, because it lacks a credible methodology to underpin its opinions, and because its discussions are skewed by the inclusion of much conservative writing, which has a clear agenda, and no methodological foundation whatsoever. The fact is that the earliest gospel, Mark, can be dated to any of several dates. So, for that matter, can the Paulines (I prefer a post 70s date for them, but I can be persuaded that they date from the second century).

The dating problem should clear up a little, however, soon. Ted Weeden is going to show that Mark depends on Josephus' War, which means it can't date prior to 75. His book is not out yet. Beyond that I have seen credible cases for any date from 75-135. My own analysis indicates that Mark dates to after 110, since it may know Josephus' Antiquities, and probably after 130 or so.

I'm glad the lesson has sunk home. There are no gods, and no resurrection. That is why you cannot demonstrate with any historical method that Jesus rose from the dead. You can, as a matter of faith, believe that particular fairy-tale, but the moment you move into the realm of history you're stuck using scholarly methods, and answering to them.

Vorkosigan