Magdlyn

The scriptures Paul was referring to were from the Hebrew Scriptures, probably specifically the suffering servant of Isaiah. Not the gospels of the New Testament, which were written generations after Paul's letters.

aa5874

1. The JESUS who supposedly was crucified, died and was raised from the dead from the dead cannot be found in Isaiah.

2. The Pauline writer did not say HEBREW scripture.

3. An apologetic source claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

4. Paul referred to a character called JESUS over 200 times.

5. There is no character called JESUS in the entire OT who was betrayed, crucified, died and was raised from the dead.

6. There is no indication that the Pauline letters were written before the Jesus story.

7. JESUS of the NT did NOT exist as described.

8. The Pauline writers claimed there were people in Christ before him.

9. No details about Jesus in the Pauline writings were used in the Synoptics.

10. All the details IN THE GOSPELS of the conception, birth, baptism, temptation, miracles, transfiguration, betrayal, trial, crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension of JESUS are NOT found in the Pauline writings.

11. All the details about the geographical location of JESUS while he was on Earth cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

12. Without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles there is very little information about JESUS and the Apostles.

13. UP to the middle of the 2nd century Justin Martyr did NOT account for ANY Pauline writings or any character called Paul who preached and traveled all over the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr wrote that Simon Magus was in Rome but did NOT mention that Paul was anywhere in the habitable EARTH.

14. The elevation of Jesus to be EQUAL to GOD is found in the later gospel of John and the Pauline writings.

15. The late long ending of gMark is compatible with the Pauline writings.

The ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE tend to show that the Pauline writings were LATE and after the Synoptics.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/tomb2.html

But how does an empty tomb help Christians? The Resurrection implies some of kind of empty burial location, but an empty burial location does not imply that Jesus rose from the dead. Evidence for the Resurrection must precede evidence for an empty burial location. Even if the tomb was empty, if Jesus had not made any personal appearances, almost no one would have believed that he rose from the dead. Even Peter and Mary Magdalene were not convinced by the empty tomb.

On its own, the empty tomb is a useless argument for Christians.

show_no_mercy

No Christians seemed to know where this supposed "empty tomb" was at until Constantine; and its "discovery" is no more authentic than that of the True Cross. Whereas other famous 1st century Jews who lived in Galilee had their tombs venerated almost immediately after their deaths.

Toto

Sometimes I think that Willian Lane Craig is engaging in a game of verbal judo. He does have a PhD in philosophy and seems intelligent enough, but he doesn't believe that logic or reason leads to Truth - he believes that god has spoken to him, and if logic disagrees with that, there is something wrong with logic.

His empty tomb argument is psuedo-logic. It is just wrong on any logical or historical basis, but it is cleverly constructed and is appealing to apologists who have an inferiority complex about their intellectual status. You can deconstruct it and find holes in it six ways to Sunday, but you won't put a dent in Craig's certainty.

rhutchin

If we cannot quote ancient documents to develop a foundation of facts, what method do you think we should use to introduce facts not already in evidence?

rhutchin

If I understand Doug Shaver's interpretation of your "facts not in evidence", everything you say above amounts to "facts not in evidence" as you have not established any facts yet.

show_no_mercy

He's saying that the above five points are "facts" assumed by apologists that actually aren't factual at all.

rhutchin

I agree. When Paul says, "according to the scriptures," he is referring to the OT.

Kapyong claimed that "The empty tomb story appears unknown to early Christians, and did not become known until later." Yet, Paul writes, "I delivered unto you," which means that he was speaking of these things to people thus countering the notion that the empty tomb story appears unknown to early Christians. At least, that is the conclusion I draw.

show_no_mercy

Paul says Jesus was "buried". He doesn't mention any tomb. There's no reason to assume that he wasn't buried in a common grave (as was the common fate of crucifixion victims, besides their carcasses being left on the cross for wild animals to eat) unless you inject information from the later written gospels.