OAO

If the Church fabricated the story,
(a) they would have chosen men, as women were considered notriously unreliable in 1st century Judaism.
(b) they would not have picked a member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus.

I wasn't just talking about the Synoptics. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=7047

I'm not sure that's actually embarrassing in context.

First, it only makes sense to interpret what Paul says in light of the other documents, such as Mark. There is a common tradition being appealed to here.

Second, I think that bit about the law is false reading of Paul. After all, he discusses the punishment due to the Gentiles for disobeying God, and they did not have the law. Moreover, he gives a positive view of the law in Romans.

Third, no, of course not. But that whole notion is developed out of a larger Jewish picture of the Messiah come to redeem the world. It's not foreign to Judaism that with the Messiah the Gentiles would honor God.

Toto:
I'm aware of that. That's why I said the evidence is compatible with, not necessarily supportive of, Christianity. Interpreting it depends on one's background beliefs.

Johnny Skeptic

Not at all, as Dr. Richard Carrier shows in an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ble/women.html.

OAO

Your link doesn't work. Richard Carrier isn't a qualified biblical critic, anyhow.

Here is what the Oxford Companion to the Bible has to say about the empty tomb:

In other words, there was an empty tomb, even if you don't think Paul's reference is adequate.

Toto

Not true. And the church attracted many women. Paul appears to have been supported by wealthy widows and other women.

Why not?

Craig claims (without real evidence) that the synoptics represent different sources, and he counts them several times. He includes Paul's letters, although Paul does not know anything about any empty tomb, much less a rock hewn tomb owned by a rich secret supporter.

That's why the criterion of embarrassment is worthless as a guage of historicity.. Nothing is actually that embarrassing in context.

Are you claiming that Paul knew what Mark was going to write?

Johnny Skeptic

But your own source says "The empty tomb did not create the Easter faith, and in any case it's in itself an ambiguous fact, susceptible of other explanations alluded to in the New Testament itself (e.g., Matt 24:64; John 20:15)." Not only that, but how do you know that your source does not have a presuppositional bias?

Since it is well-known that Matthew and Luke copied a good deal from Mark, you cannot credibly claim that the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb are independent. In addition, you do not have any idea where Matthew and Luke got their information from.

Johnny Skeptic

How could he get qualified?

Toto

I fixed the link for you. Carrier is more qualified that most Bible critics.

This assumes that John is completely independent of the synoptics, and that two sources that post date 70 CE are proof of a "very early" tradition.

This sort of lame reasoning gives the entire field of NT studies a bad name.

In other words, there was a story about an empty tomb.

Johnny Skeptic

But all that the women did was find the empty tomb. The texts indicate that God used the testimonies of men and personal appearances by Jesus to convince the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, not the testimonies of the women.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Luke 24:33-34

"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon."

Changing burial clothes was women's work, not men's work. When a Gospel writer made up the story about the empty tomb, he had to come up some way to claim that the tomb was empty, so he made up the story about the women going to the tomb to change the burial clothes.

The stories of the women at the tomb are obvious fabrications. Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Mark 16:1-3

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?"

Item 2

Luke 24:4-8

"And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
And they remembered his words."

Item 3

John 20:11-13

"But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him."

It is very unlikely that an entire group of women would all have forgotten that a tomb would not be open, maybe one, or two at the most, but not an entire group. It is much more unlikely that "the very same group of women" would have forgotten that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, especially since he had raised Lazarus from the dead. It is an extraordinary thing for a man to raise someone from the dead, and claim that he will rise from the dead. No one forgets things like that.

It is suspicious that Luke says that the angel reminded the women that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, but John says that Mary believed that the body had been moved.

The stories of the women at the tomb make the Bible less believable.

OAO

I'm not really interested in this debate, because my whole point is that without counter-evidence, Christian faith is justified.

In other words, knowing Christianity is true requires absolutely no positive evidence whatsoever, in any form, period.

Nothing either of you have said suggests that there is good counter-evidence to the claim of the empty tomb.

Johnny Skeptic

But a mere hand wave without any rebuttal is not an argument. You did not provide any evidence why my arguments are wrong.

Does Deism require positive evidence?