Freethought & Rationalism Archive

OAO · 03-15-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are no allusions to an empty tomb in Paul's letters. There are statements about Jesus being buried and rising after the third day, which some people interpret to include by implication the gospel story about Jesus being buried in a tomb, and the tomb being empty after he rose. But Paul's idea of resurrection seems to involve a transformation of the body into a different substance, so it's not clear whether he thought there would be an old body left behind in the grave.

Are you kidding me, man? Jewish context.

I'll take the opinion of 75% of scholars over yours, at any rate.

Plantinga is hardly a joke: his thoughts on modality are fairly important. Haven't you noticed that pretty much every major philosopher is made fun of in the Lexicon? And the Lexicon is run by Dan Dennett, who is one of the biggest laughs I've ever seen. But that's nothing more than an ad hominem, anyway.

OAO · 03-15-2010, 07:14 PM

Oh yeah, as for the New Perspective on Paul. In brief, on this view when Paul says that Christians are justified by faith, not works, "works" refers to actions of the ceremonial law and "faith" is something like faithfulness to God in the new covenant. We are still judged on the basis of our deeds. So classical Protestantism is false, as Protestantism is based on the notion that one is not judged on the basis of one's actions; it's usually tied to predestination.

Toto · 03-15-2010, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

...
Are you kidding me, man? Jewish context.

What does this refer to?

Quote:

I'll take the opinion of 75% of scholars over yours, at any rate.

Habermas' figure of 75% has a spurious sense of "science" about it. But it is not meaningful. He just counted up the number of published writers who expressed an opinion, without taking into account whether they had any basis for their opinion other than their faith.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-15-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

Now, it would be different if there were good evidence that some central claim of Christianity were false - say, good evidence that were was no empty tomb. But there is no such evidence, as far as I know. Gary Habermas did a bibliographical survey and found that 75% of NT scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea (sic), that this tomb was found empty, and that various disciples of Jesus had experiences of him as risen. That doesn't prove the Christian story, but it does mean the evidence isn't against the Christian story.

Regarding "75% of NT scholars," more accurately, according to Habermas himself:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...xperiences.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Habermas

In the study mentioned at the outset of this essay, I found that approximately 75% of the surveyed scholars accept one or more arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb. The remaining 25% accept one or more arguments against the early church's knowledge of an empty tomb. If the majority is correct that Jesus' burial tomb was later found empty, this perhaps adds some credibility to the disciples' claim that they saw the risen Jesus. If the minority view is correct, this reason would of course not support Jesus' appearances.

Please note that Habermas said "75% of the surveyed scholars," not "75% of NT scholars," which some people would misinterpret as being 75% of the majority of New Testament scholars.

Who were the surveyed scholars? What percentage of them are Christians? Did Habermas handpick the scholars?

Since when does an empty tomb reasonably prove that a body was put in it in the first place? Who saw the body put in the tomb? Who did they tell? What non-biblical evidence is there about Joseph of Arimathaea? What non-biblical, non-Christian, first century evidence is there that Jesus performed miracles?

archaeologist · 03-15-2010, 10:54 PM

TOTO

You forget the Biblical account where the soldiers went to the High Priests and were told to say they were aslep and the disciples stole the body

Quote:

Matthew 28:12-15 (New International Version)
12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

archaeologist · 03-15-2010, 10:57 PM

p.s. matthew 27:

Quote:

The Guard at the Tomb
62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."
65"Take a guard," Pilate answered. "Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how." 66So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-15-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Toto, you forget the Biblical account where the soldiers went to the High Priests and were told to say they were asleep and the disciples stole the body.

You forget that only Matthew mentions the tomb, and that there is not any credible non-biblical, non-Christian evidence about the guards.

Why do you automatically rubber stamp everything that the Bible says? Are you an inerrantist? If so, why?

Toto · 03-16-2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

TOTO

You forget the Biblical account where the soldiers went to the High Priests and were told to say they were aslep and the disciples stole the body

I didn't forget, This doesn't say that the guards saw the resurrection. If they had, why did they not convert on the spot?

archaeologist · 03-16-2010, 01:59 AM

Quote:

You forget that only Matthew mentions the tomb, and that there is not any credible non-biblical, non-Christian evidence about the guards.

There doesn't have to be. God and the Bible do not go by secular rules.

Quote:

I didn't forget, This doesn't say that the guards saw the resurrection. If they had, why did they not convert on the spot?

Why should they? people see evidence every day for God yet do not convert, why should the guards be any different.

Rooster · 03-16-2010, 04:00 AM

The following is similar to the OP.

Quote:

The basic point is this: Historical study presupposes methodological naturalism. Thus, it comes to naturalistic conclusions about the X-men. But this shouldn't trouble Marvel fantasists, because Marvel fantasists aren't naturalists; none of them are Marvel fantasists because of historical evidence in the first place.

Now, it would be different if there were good evidence that some central claim of Uncanny X-men #243 were false - say, good evidence that there were never demons in Manhattan. But there is no such evidence, as far as I know. I did a survey and found that 75% of comic geeks believe that Madelyne Pryor was seduced by N'astirh, became the Goblyn Queen, and that various disciples of Professor X had experiences of Limbo as risen. That doesn't prove the story, but it does mean the evidence isn't against the story.

Are you convinced, OAO?

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

03-15-2010, 07:14 PM	#12
OAO Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Southeast Posts: 841	Oh yeah, as for the New Perspective on Paul. In brief, on this view when Paul says that Christians are justified by faith, not works, "works" refers to actions of the ceremonial law and "faith" is something like faithfulness to God in the new covenant. We are still judged on the basis of our deeds. So classical Protestantism is false, as Protestantism is based on the notion that one is not judged on the basis of one's actions; it's usually tied to predestination.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.