Steven Carr

This was added 4/12/2005


http://www.christiancadre.org/member.../mal_tomb.html

This passage gives some idea of the bizarre arguments apologists use

' Paul was trying to show to the Corinthian church that the resurrection of Jesus was in a sense spiritual, because Jesus' spirit was resurrected. Saying that Jesus rose from the tomb would make it sound like it was exclusively physical. Make no mistake, Paul believed that Jesus rose physically, but he also argued for the spiritual coverage and that's what he was addressing.'

An example of the way apologists work on ad hoc principles, changing them if necessary to suit the point they want to 'prove'.

The author warns Lowder not to conclude that Jesus had a low probability of burial, because crucifixion victims were not often buried 'But, as was discussed earlier, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about specifics from generalities.'

And when Jeff points out that contrary to Christian claims, women could be considered credible witnesses, the anti-Jeff author writes ' But this doesn't prove anything except that there were exceptions to the general social order.'


So we can dismiss the idea that Jesus was not buried, because that was only what happened in general.

While we must accept that the women who discovered the tomb would have lacked credibility to outsiders, because that was what happened in general.

Nothing like consistent standards.....

And there is nothing like wild speculation, especially when the author has a vivid imagination.

'Malchi' writes 'Lowder next agrees that Paul, on his visit to Jerusalem to see the other apostles, probably was asked them about the resurrection. Indeed, we saw in 1.1, above, that a Greek word found in Galations 1:18 means to do an investigation. And this is almost certainly what Lowder (sic) did. He almost definitely would have asked where Jesus' had been buried and where his tomb had been located. This probably included who buried Jesus. Thus, Paul would have known where Jesus' burial place was and where his tomb was located. As was argued in 1.1 Paul would also have known if there were any discussions amongst the Jews about a temporal burial hypothesis. Paul's lack of discussing it his letters probable means that there wasn't discussion among the Jews about a separate temporal burial tradition.

Finally, Lowder disputes that Paul visited Jesus' tomb before his conversion. While it will be shown later that some Jews probably did check Jesus' tomb, Paul may have also. While this is admittedly speculative, it does seem to be a possible part of Paul's investigation. Lowder next says that it's unlikely prior to Paul conversion that Jews checked Jesus' burial spot. This seems likely. It's probable that at least some curious Jews checked Jesus' tomb and reported back to the Jewish authorities. It is likely that after hearing initial reports from the Jews who did look at Jesus' tomb that they more became interested.'

'Almost defiinitely'.......

This isn't history. It's a Hollywood screenplay.

I find it intriguing that apologists of today try to prove that Christians of 2,000 years ago would not make up stories, by themselves making up stories of how Christians of 2,000 years ago did not make up stories.

The very essay shows how readily Christians of any age will speculate and tell us 'what must have been'

Surely the author of Mark could have done the same thing as Malachi does in his article.

Rather amusingly, Malchi criticises Lowder for making common-sense statements.

Malachi writes 'Upon starting his second argument, Lowder makes a wild speculation, to say the least. He states, "[p]olemical rumors need neither a basis in historical fact nor even sincere belief among those who spread them."'

I like the idea that Malachi thinks this is wild speculation and that wild speculation is a bad thing.

Of course,Malachi's fevered imagination has the disciples proclaiming a resurrection even before the Bible says they did :-

'Meaning while the disciples and undoubtedly others were proclaiming that Jesus was resurrected (they weren't converted until Pentecost but they probably were talking to others about the resurrection and proclaiming it) it is likely that they would have tried to put a severe stoppage to the witnesses' proclamation by producing a body.'

No, I can't see any speculation there at all....

Killer Mike

It is generaly agreed upon by mainstream scholarship the early christian writings are neither histories nor biographies, but rather largely legend and myth. Virtually everything can be found in earlier writings. Stories of miracle births, death and resurrection, etc. are common themes in Paganism and other more ancient religions. In Egypt for example, written on Urgatic texts about 5000BC are stories of a Jesus, a Virgin Mary, a death and resurrection, belief in heaven and hell, etc..
While the names and some of the details are different, the basic themes are all the same.

We also know the Romans commonly would let bodies hang on crosses for days following these kinds of executions. This was done to intimidate and remind people of the penalty for not following Roman authority. So we know the story of an empty tomb is not historical, rather legend. It does not fit with what is known about Roman history.

The thing that makes Christians so silly is that they find no problem in concluding all the different stories found in Greek and Roman Mythology is myth. That Hercules really was not born of a virgin. Nor that Achilles had super strength but had weak ankles.

I would refer anyone interested to "History and Development of Early Christian Literature" by Helmut Koester from Harvard.