Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Joseph's Tomb

In response to Cross-posted from Mithras & Christ posted by Migisi:

Migisi, talk about splitting hairs...your post is frankly ridiculous. No offense, but come on. These so-called discrepancies are nothing more than grammatical variations. Matthew uses a personal pronoun, whereas the others do not. But all four accounts make clear that Joseph of Arimathea requested of Pilate and received Jesus' body. And then Jesus is placed in the tomb. The context clearly implies that it was Joseph's tomb or at least that Joseph had authority over the tomb.

» pink101 - Misunderstanding Craig

In response to Misunderstanding Craig posted by BrianTubbs:

.
My references were to Craig's use of the word, scholarly, as though he is speaking of those in secular academia.
.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; but, it is obvious~~at least to me~~that he IS mixing secular academia with biblical scholars--that's apples and frogs or frogs and apples depending on how you look at it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Scholarship

In response to Misunderstanding Craig posted by pink101:

He IS speaking of those in secular academia as well as religious academia.

Another great Christian scholar named Gary Habermas has perfected what he calls the "minimal facts" approach. Habermas has surveyed ALL the academic literature written in the western world (English, American, German, French, etc) in the last 30 years - from liberal, agnostic, atheistic, Christian, moderate, you name it. And he's put together a list of 'minimal facts' - meaning facts agreed to by 95-98 percent of these critical scholars.

This is what I keep trying to get through to you and Migisi, and it's downright frustrating - because you don't seem to get it. The vast majority of scholars - and we're NOT talking simply Christian conservative scholars, we're talking ALL western scholars in this subject area (New Testament studies and related ancient history) - the vast majority of these scholars agree on certain fundamental facts surrounding the life and death of Jesus as well as the resurrection claims of his followers.

Bottom line...William Lane Craig is speaking the truth, Pink. A majority of scholars concede the points that Craig is making in his presentation. Their interpretations may be different than Craig's, but the basic content is conceded.

» Brian Tubbs - Survey of Scholarship

Here, if you have about 20 minutes or so, read this...

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...

» pink101 - Scholarship

In response to Scholarship posted by BrianTubbs:

.
.William Lane Craig is speaking the truth, Pink. A majority of scholars concede the points that Craig is making in his presentation. Their interpretations may be different than Craig's, but the basic content is conceded.
.
My impression after the first viewing was that he was claiming that most scholars were in agreement with him on the resurrection. Maybe I missed something. I guess I'll have to view the video again.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Joseph's Tomb

.
Migisi, talk about splitting hairs...your post is frankly ridiculous. No offense, but come on.
.
I really don't like being called 'ridiculous', but I'm not thin-skinned, so no offense taken.
.
These so-called discrepancies are nothing more than grammatical variations. Matthew uses a personal pronoun, whereas the others do not.
.
'Grammatical variations'? Personal pronouns? That's a stretch. Three say that there was an empty tomb nearby, so they used it. Perhaps they didn't think it important to identify whose it was? Only one identifies the tomb as belonging to Joseph. Why was this distinction so important to mention in Matthew? Or, could this have been an interpolation inserted later by someone else?
.
But all four accounts make clear that Joseph of Arimathea requested of Pilate and received Jesus' body.
.
Agree... all four say Joseph was given authority by Pilate over the dead BODY, and that Joseph took possession of it.
.
And then Jesus is placed in the tomb. The context clearly implies that it was Joseph's tomb or at least that Joseph had authority over the tomb.
.
Joseph had authority over the BODY - not necessarily the tomb. It could've belonged to, and been donated by, any disciple. Three writers don't identify - or even ~imply~ - that the tomb as Joseph's. Read the verses again.
.
Matthew and Mark say that Joseph ~alone~ took down the body, wrapped/spiced/perfumed it, put it in the tomb, and rolled the stone in place that day.
John says Nicodemus was with Joseph and assisted Joseph in the body prep and burial that day.
(Clearly, there was an urgency to complete Jesus' burial ~that day~ - before the Sabbath.)
Luke 23 says that Joseph (again ~alone~) took the body down, wrapped it, and placed it in a tomb. Women followed Joseph, saw the body laying in the tomb, went home to make spices and perfumes, but didn't return to prepare the body for final burial until the day after the Sabbath (Lk 24). Which makes me wonder why the stone would've been rolled in place before the body had been properly spiced/perfumed, per Jewish tradition? Sure nuff, when the women arrived the morning after the Sabbath to do that, no stone was in front of the tomb.
.
Ah, as they say, "the devil's in the details".

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Main Contention

I've watched and listened again to his speech.
.
I stand on my first reaction. In my considered opinion, he discombobulates the truth of the matter and makes it look as though he is speaking for secular scholars; which, of course, he is not.
.
I would like to hear the other side of the debate. Who was that other speaker, Spong?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Main Contention

In response to Main Contention posted by pink101:

I stand on my first reaction. In my considered opinion...

...which is ill-informed. No offense, Pink, but you clearly don't have a grasp of the landscape, when it comes to mainstream New Testament and ancient historical studies. Craig does.

...he discombobulates the truth of the matter and makes it look as though he is speaking for secular scholars; which, of course, he is not.

He is speaking for a majority of scholars when it comes to the basic FACTS surrounding the resurrection debate, and then speaking for himself (and conservative evangelical scholars) when offering his interpretation of those facts. There's nothing dishonest or inappropriate in his doing this.

» pink101 - Main Contention

In response to Main Contention posted by BrianTubbs:

.
You and I are not going to settle the questions involved as long as you remain blind sided to the truth of the matters involved. In no way does Craig speak for the majority of scholars.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Main Contention

In response to Main Contention posted by pink101:
William Lane Craig's claims are similar (not identical) to those of Gary Habermas, who has read and studied EVERYTHING written by noted western scholars in the last 30 years on the Resurrection. Habermas then compared the writings of these scholars (a wide array of scholars that included liberals and conservatives, atheists and Christians, agnostics and deists, etc.). And he calculated that there are certain facts surrounding the resurrection and the life of Jesus agreed to be 95 to 98 percent of these scholars.

So, Habermas can therefore say that virtually all scholars concede that the Apostle Paul is a real, authentic character of history and that he wrote at least 8 books of the NT (perhaps more) and that these books are Romans, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, etc.

He can also say that virtually all scholars - and he, in fact, NAMES the two that don't - admit that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate in about 30 AD.
And on and on and on.

These (and more) are basic facts that are agreed to by an overwhelming majority of experts and scholars who have studied ancient history and the NT period in particular.

What you (and, frankly, to a great extent, Migisi) don't seem to get - probably because you don't WANT to get it - is that there are quite a few facts of ancient history that are conceded and agreed to by the scholarship community.

(The only exception to this would perhaps be those post-modern extremists who challenge the very possibility of truth and knowledge. If you're in that camp, then there's no hope for either of you, frankly, and I have neither the time or the interest in trying to dissuade you of such nonsense - for that is what postmodern extremism is).

So, Pink, it is not me who is blind sided to the truth or who is being anti-intellectual. If you just wave aside what is in this post (without taking the time to investigate it yourself), it is YOU who is being anti-intellectual and obstinate.