Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Was the Tomb Empty?

Central to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is where Jesus was buried - and whether that tomb was empty on Sunday morning.

I invite everyone to watch/listen to this presentation by William Lane Craig, who provides a brief overview of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection...

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/vi...

And then read this more thorough and written explanation of the evidence for the empty tomb....

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...

» pink101 - Was the Tomb Empty?

In response to Was the Tomb Empty? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Your man, Craig, is putting an outright lie out when he says, "Back in the forties and fifties it was widely believe that the story of Jesus' empty tomb was a legend shaped by the theology of the early church which arose many years after Jesus was dead and gone. The post mortem appearances of Jesus were thought to be hallucinations brought on by the disciples fervent faith..." etc. He is giving the impression that almost everyone believed such statements. The facts are that more people believed what is taught by Fundamentalist today than people do today.
.
Bull roar!!
.
And, he continues with, "Today, these positions have been largely abandoned within the scholarly community..."
.
I'd like to know what Craig thinks the word, scholarly, means.
.
This video is plain rhetoric and, as such, is ridiculous. It bears no resemblance to any scientific discovery of truth. None whatsoever.
.
It is an insult to thinking minds. So, everything he says is questionable.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Was the Tomb Empty?

In response to Was the Tomb Empty? posted by pink101:

Craig is talking about the academic community, when he says "it was widely believed." I've read much of Craig's stuff, and listened to several of his presentations.

» Migisi - Cross-posted from Mithras & Christ

From the "Mithras & Christ" thread:
.
Brian wrote: "For example, all four Gospel accounts say that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea (sp?). Well, why question that? That's FOUR ancient documents - four sources - that report that particular situation. There's no reason to throw that out."
.
I replied:
Yes there is reason to throw it out. Was it Joseph's tomb?
.
- Mat 27 says "placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock."
- Mark 15 says "and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock".
- Luke reads "placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid".
- John 19 reads "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."
.
So, only Matthew identifies the tomb as belonging to Joseph. The other three don't.
.
Discrepancies surrounding this simple little detail, and the many others surrounding the resurrection and appearances afterwards, shoot holes in the accuracy of the four "ancient documents".
.
According to Jewish burial tradition back then, Joseph would've had his tomb built in his native Arimathea where his family clan was. Let's say Joseph followed tradition. Problem is even the location of Aramathea remains in question. Some say it's about 16 miles east of Joppa, some say it's northwest of Lydda, others think it's actually the town of Ramah six miles north of Jerusalem. So, who really knows where Joseph's tomb really was - or where Jesus' tomb was??
.
-------------
.
I cross posted this here so it wouldn't be lost and go unanswered. I'll be back later... Have a great day!

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Was the Tomb Empty?

In response to Was the Tomb Empty? posted by BrianTubbs:

.

Craig is talking about the academic community, when he says "it was widely believed."
.
Then he is mixing apples and frogs when he speaks of scholars in his talk. I think his talk has to be seen as akin to junk science.
.
If he were to come right out and make the statement that his claims are strictly based on biblical information, he would be more respected. But, he makes it look as though science ~ itself ~ has accepted his points.
.
Not!!
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Misunderstanding Craig

In response to Was the Tomb Empty? posted by pink101:

Pink, you are mischaracterizing William Lane Craig (whether this is deliberate or not, I cannot say) and you are dismissing him in a manner that is quite anti-intellectual. Craig is a respected academic. Even many of Craig's opponents (and he has debated some of the most eminent agnostic or critical scholars on Christianity) have a measure of respect for him. For you to use the kind of rhetoric you are concerning Craig is what's truly "bull roar." Not Craig. You.

I listened to Craig's presentation again - the one referenced above. And I don't think he uses the word "science" at all. He's not talking science. He's talking about history.

And he's referring to the scholarly community in the context of HISTORY, especially ancient and New Testament historical studies. That is his context, and that's what he's talking about when he says that it was "widely believed in the 1940s and 50s that...." and so forth.

Craig is not "mixing apples and frogs." YOU are mixing them. Craig is very focused and very deliberate in what he is saying, but unfortunately, there's no way for him to guarantee that hot-headed critics won't take certain phrases and statements that he makes - and twist them around.

You write: "If he were to come right out and make the statement that his claims are strictly based on biblical information, he would be more respected." Well, for crying out loud, Pink, the biblical record IS the focus of his presentation. But (and this is where you're either deliberately twisting his remarks or you are incapable of understanding him)...

Dr. Craig is pointing out that the BIBLE (or, in his focus, the New Testament) is itself a set of ancient documents. With me?

Okay...the New Testament is a set of ancient writings. What is the source material for the New Testament? Craig is not taking a 'fundamentalist' or religious tack here and saying: "God inspired the New Testament, so back off." He's not saying that. He's walking his audience through what the mainstream scholarship community has established...

1. Mark is the earliest Gospel, and Mark utilized source material that pre-dates even his own Gospel -- material that goes back to within 7 years of Jesus' crucifixion

2. That the account of the empty tomb (and other facts surrounding the resurrection story) are "independently and multiply attested." This is not "junk science," Pink. It's the truth. If you want to play with the Big Boys and Girls in the scholarship community, then you can't look at the Bible as just one Big Book. If you do, then YOU are being anti-intellectual. Not Craig. So, you have multiple sources attesting to certain facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.

These sources can't just be waved aside: "That's the Bible. It's just a religious book." And they can't be dismissed as "bull roar." Now, you and Migisi have the FREEDOM to do that. But you can't do that and claim to be intelligent or intellectual.

Pink, neither Craig nor I are asking you to embrace the Bible as God's Word. Not in this context. We're simply saying that you have to treat it as a collection of ancient writings. And, as such, you have to engage those writings with the same standard that historians bring to bear when analyzing documents of antiquity. Craig's point is that when historians analyze the New Testament documents in the same manner and in the same way that they analyze OTHER ancient documents (like the writings of Julius Caesar, Suetonius, Plato, etc.), then the evidence for the resurrection is quite compelling. It's only when you REFUSE to do so that you can call it "bull roar" or "junk science." That's your right, but you lose any credibility to tell anyone else that they're being "anti-intellectual."