[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I don’t think this calls for a whooosh, but I am pretty sure that the good friar was posting ironically.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, me too. And if I am wrong, I don’t wanna know!
Tris
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I gave you two separate studies, which you (finally) indicate don’t suit you. But not suiting you does not constitute failing as evidence. Despite what you might think, it is not the case that you sit on the Throne of Truth while we bring you our alms to examine for validity. 
[/quote]
You did not present 'studies," you linked to one website which made wild and tendentious speculations about oral tradition but which said nothing about the point you wanted to support. Then you linked to a rather bad argument for the historicity of the empty tomb written from a non-scholarly, religionist perspective. You did not offer an argument of your own or even summarize what you though constituted “evidence” in either of your links (hint: there isn’t any). If you think Craig has any evidence, please cut and paste what it is. I don’t like being asked to respond to urls as if they’re arguments. I posted two rebuttals to Craig (whose apologetics are NOT taken seriously in NT scholarship) but if you really think Craig has a strong point somewhere, please indicate what it is and I’ll be happy to shred it for you.
First of all, I haven’t cited any scholars at all in support of my position. I’ve cited the evidence (or lack of it) instead. You responded by linking to apologists, not scholars. That’s fine, if you want me to respond directly to Craig, I’ll do it. They guy’s arguments are a joke and are easily demolished. Second of all, you don’t seem to understand the difference between scholarship and apologetics. Just because you can find an apoogist to dispute the scholarly consensus does not mean there are two sides to the scholarship or that the apologist ahs any evidence.
I’ve never tried to hide any opposing views. Set 'em up and I’ll knock 'em down. There are opposing views and there are opposing views, though. Not all of them deserve equal consideration. I don’t have a problem with responding to apologists but I’m not going to say they represent an opposing scholarly view because they don’t.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I mean, other than because you find one superior to the other. Nobody cares about that, and no one even knows it’s only your opinion, because you don’t tell anybody that’s all it is. Are you afraid that other people might choose the opposing view if you reveal it?
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that Dio already gave some pretty good reasons to not find the “opposing view” to be credible evidence. You need to make a case that it is good evidence before you can charge Dio with being deceptive and ignoring credible views or trying to be the sole arbiter of what is good evidence. The standard YOU are trying to push in its place is no good either. A view is not de facto credible just because you say it is and link to it, and if Dio is right, that the scholarly consensus is against your view, then it really seems like the burden is on you to prove there is any evidence worth taking seriously. He’s given good reasons to take his position seriously, you have not. All the rest is noise.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is all false.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how anyone feels about Karen Armstrong, the religious historian, but the following is from her book Jerusalem, (c) 1997, Balantine Books.
PG 160
PG 163-4
PG 171
Not to sound hostile, but Diogenes, please provide citations in your rebuttal.
William F. Buckley was once asked what he would do if the resurrection were proven false. He replied that he would convert to Judaism.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
I don’t know how anyone feels about Karen Armstrong, the religious historian, but the following is from her book Jerusalem, (c) 1997, Balantine Books.
PG 160PG 163-4 PG 171
Not to sound hostile, but Diogenes, please provide citations in your rebuttal.
[/QUOTE]
You said “for the first 150 years of Christianity.” That was wrong. The 2nd Jewish-Roman War didn’t occur until until 135. That gives early Christians about a century or so to establish sites of veneration.
How about Sophie Neveu? I’d settle for Audrey Tatou
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/
Maybe they could check it against anything they find in the tomb of Pathera in Germany and really piss people off!
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Not just common; the most common. And not even exactly the same.
[/QUOTE]
In Shakespeare’s time, the spelling of names was not an exact science. Was it 2000 years ago? Not that this is an argument for the validity of the tomb, just interested.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
I don’t know how anyone feels about Karen Armstrong, the religious historian, but the following is from her book Jerusalem, (c) 1997, Balantine Books.
PG 160PG 163-4 PG 171
Not to sound hostile, but Diogenes, please provide citations in your rebuttal.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand how your first point is conncected to the second. Do you have any evidence that the Diaspora was connected in any way to Jesus, or what the Jews or Romans did to him? In any case, the temple was not destroyed until over 30 years after the death of Jesus, which would have been plenty of time to set up a shrine at the site of the tomb.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
In Shakespeare’s time, the spelling of names was not an exact science. Was it 2000 years ago? Not that this is an argument for the validity of the tomb, just interested.
[/QUOTE]
The names we have in the NT are all Greek transliterations of Hebrew names so we don’t actually have the names exactly as those individuals (the NT figures) woulkd have spelled them to begin with (assuming they would have been able to spell them consistently at all). I don’t know exactly how the names are rendered on these ossuaries but I suspect they’re either close enough or dead on. Not that I think that proves anything.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t understand how your first point is conncected to the second. Do you have any evidence that the Diaspora was connected in any way to Jesus, or what the Jews or Romans did to him? In any case, the temple was not destroyed until over 30 years after the death of Jesus, which would have been plenty of time to set up a shrine at the site of the tomb.
[/QUOTE]
Color me " 
".
I didn’t intend for the first quote to be linked to the second. They were intended to be independent. If there’s any link at all, perhaps I could have linked the first and third. Really, I guess they’re kinda redundant.
And the Diaspora happened over 500 years before the events in question, after the destruction of the *first * temple.
Diogenes: okay, I see your point. What I should have said was “the 150 years after the destruction of the 2nd temple.” After the destruction of the city, Jews and early Christians were exiled, and set up camp on a mountain to the west, overlooking the city. So you’ve got between 70 and 135 to set up holy sites, but without entering the city.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I guess the question at this point, since we’ve covered this very issue so many times, is … why? Why do you attempt to hide opposing views? I mean, other than because you find one superior to the other. Nobody cares about that, and no one even knows it’s only your opinion, because you don’t tell anybody that’s all it is. Are you afraid that other people might choose the opposing view if you reveal it?
[/QUOTE]
I know exactly what you mean. Frequently have my opponents challenged my insistence that no human or god can match Nature’s simultaneous 4 day rotation in 1 Earth rotation, and my scholarly cite, however oft-repeated, only meets with ridicule.
Thank you for your tireless efforts to safeguard the flame of knowledge from the scuffed snuffer of ignorance.
The point remains:
There is no indication that the Jewish Christians who experienced Christ’s death, nor those practicing Jews that became Christians, would have venerated the tomb, or grave site of Jesus Christ. In fact, the best evidence is to the contrary. Paul et al were careful to avoid any sign of idolatry or mixing with pagan religions.
Even if the veneration was 150-200 years later----and it certainly appears that these perversions were much later; 400-500 years later-----it doesn’t speak to the contemporary Jews, for which there is no record that they venerated his grave.
The fact that hundreds of years later Christians venerated his [alleged] grave site, is no indication that the Apostles would have.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Color me " ".
I didn’t intend for the first quote to be linked to the second. They were intended to be independent. If there’s any link at all, perhaps I could have linked the first and third. Really, I guess they’re kinda redundant.
[/quote]
You said
I assumed that the first and second sentence was connected in some way, and the two Armstrong quotes seemed to bear that out. That’s why I got confused.
The Diaspora also commonly refers to the scattering after the destruction of the second Temple and subsequent revolts. Though it seems that it refers to the Babylonian exile also, I’ve usually heard it refer to the current one, the one I’m a part of.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
In point of fact, there is no good evidence that there were any contemporary rumors of an empty tomb at all. The empty tomb does not appear in any Christian literature until at least 40 years after the crucifixion and there was no traditional site for the tomb until Constantine’s mother “rediscovered” it in the 4th century. The empty tomb story is very likely a Markan invention, especially since the bodies of crucifixion victims were virtually never given over for proper burials. It’s far more likely that Jesus body was either left on the cross to rot or buried in a communal criminal’s grave (generally a lime pit). The whereabouts of his remains were probably unknown to any of his followers even if some of them may have had some kind of visionary experiences or “appearances” after his death. The first claim of physical resurrection of his body is not found until the Gospel of Matthew, some 50 years after the crucifixion. There is actually no direct evidence that any of the disciples ever claimed to have witnessed a physically resurrected Jesus. We have no first hand testimony from any of them and Paul claims only that Jesus had "appeared’ to them (in a different chronology from any of the Gospels), but he does not describe the nature of these appearances, does not mention a tomb and makes no distinction between the the appearances to the disciples and the appearances to himself. Moreover, he claims to have gotten all his information about this directly from Jesus and “not from any man.”
In short, anyone who wants to argue the absence of contemporary Roman or Jewish denials of the resurrection first needs to prove that anyone was claiming such a thing to begin with. I personally don’t believe they were. I believe, at most, that some of Jesus’ followers were only claiming to have had visions of him after the crucifxion (maybe months or years later). Paul at least gives us at least secondary evidence for that. We have nothing at all for an empty tomb tradition before Mark’s Gospel (written by someone who probably never met a disciple).
[/QUOTE]
To quote you Diogenes"There is no direct evidence thqt any of the disciples ever claimed to have witnessed a physically resurrected Jesus"
There are two places in the New testement that would indicate that they did so. I do not remember the exact quote,verse, or chapter, but if memory serves me right, Jesus ate with them and said something about a ghost not eating and drinking, also Thomas was supposed to have put his hand in Jesus wombs to prove that Jesus was as he said he was. If this truly happened or not we have no way of proving but it was written that it happened.
Monavis
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
What do you think is holding *me * back from fornicating, despising my enemies and not turning the other cheek? Seriously, if it’s not too much of a hijack, I’d like an answer.
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t say I’d be an asshole- I don’t think despising one’s enemies, not putting a priority of turning the other cheek & “responsible” fornication is assholish. They are natural human behaviors. Being kind & nice & giving irritating people chances are also natural human behaviors BUT going out of one’s way for enemies and sexual abstinence till marriage are exemplary & somewhat unnatural human behaviors and a person who commands such things better have a Divine authority to do so. If Jesus is not raised, He had no such authority.
[QUOTE=monavis]
To quote you Diogenes"There is no direct evidence thqt any of the disciples ever claimed to have witnessed a physically resurrected Jesus"
There are two places in the New testement that would indicate that they did so. I do not remember the exact quote,verse, or chapter, but if memory serves me right, Jesus ate with them and said something about a ghost not eating and drinking, also Thomas was supposed to have put his hand in Jesus wombs to prove that Jesus was as he said he was. If this truly happened or not we have no way of proving but it was written that it happened.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
That’s not direct evidence. Those are claims made by non-witnesses many decades after the fact. Claims about the disciples are not the same as claims made by disciples. When I say “direct evidence” I’m talking about primary claims made by witnesses or at least by someone who claims to have spoken to a witnesses. We have no primary testimony from any eyewitness of Jesus and the only primary claims we have even for anyone speaking to disciples is the letters of Paul. Paul does not say anything about a tomb, says only that Jesus “appeared” to the disciples, then the “500,” then to “me.” He does not describe the nature of these appearances, does not distinguish between the appearances to the disciples and to himself and elsewhere claims that resurrection occurs with a spiritual body, not a physical one (which shows a lack of knowledge of the three dead bodies which Jesus is supposed to have raised during his ministry, not to mention the mass resurrection of the saints described in Matthew).
We have no testimony from anyone who says either they directly witnessed a physical resurrection or an empty tomb or from anyone who even says that anyone ever told them they witnessed such a thing.
Citing the Gospels themselves is circular since the historicity of Gospel claims is exactly what is being questioned.
Article on scholars who think the tomb thing is bullplop:
Note that:
Read: even the core claims itself is weakass, much less the rest of the strained inferences leading from it.
Though this was amusing:
He wasn’t buried here, no no he was buried in OUR holy shrine, moochers!
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Didn’t say I’d be an asshole- I don’t think despising one’s enemies, not putting a priority of turning the other cheek & “responsible” fornication is assholish. They are natural human behaviors. Being kind & nice & giving irritating people chances are also natural human behaviors BUT going out of one’s way for enemies and sexual abstinence till marriage are exemplary & somewhat unnatural human behaviors and a person who commands such things better have a Divine authority to do so. If Jesus is not raised, He had no such authority.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I understand you better now. So your previous post just semi-wooshed me. I’m cool with your take on it all.
Regarding the empty tomb…
[QUOTE=Liberal]
There is indeed evidence, which I supplied. And here’s more.. You’ve begun this business again of cherry-picking what scholars you prefer, failing to mention any controversies surrounding it all, and presenting what you’ve selected as established truth. It is your failure even to acknowlege controversy that hurts your argument as much as anything.
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Liberal on this matter. There are indeed some scholars (such as John Dominic Crossan) who deny that any tomb existed; however, this is a minority view.
Gary Habermas conducted an extensive survey of English, French and German NT scholarship with regard to the empty tomb. He found that approximately 75% of all the critical scholars accept that there was such a tomb, and that it was found empty. This was not a survey of preachers and Christian apologists, mind you; rather, it was a study of over 1400 publications, dating back to 1975. (German scholarship, for example, is tremendously skeptical when it comes to the Resurrection.) Even skeptics such as Evan Fales and Robert Greg Cavin acknowledge that the tomb existed, and even affirm that the historical evidence suggests that it was found empty. They deny that the Resurrection occurred, but even they accept the empty tomb on historical grounds.