tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post8097992232758860852..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Was Jesus Raised: Why Invent an Empty Tomb?AIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-63128738088854909952011-02-28T23:07:23.114-06:002011-02-28T23:07:23.114-06:00AIGbusted, eheffa,
Thanks for pointing all of tha...AIGbusted, eheffa,<br /><br />Thanks for pointing all of that out. Clearly I still have a lot to learn. I'm still digging through the evidence and examining my former faith. It's a fascinating journey so far. Oh, by the way, there's a quote I found that relates to the post here. It's from Maurice Casey's new book, Jesus of Nazareth: "Their [the apostles'] belief did not require an empty tomb for its verification, partly because the normative modes of verification were dreams or visions and scripture... thus we find in our earliest sources that it is precisely resurrection appearances and the witness of scripture that are put forward as proofs... it must be inferred that the story of the empty tomb is secondary."<br /><br />- DanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09374982421288026050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-19116089662347959292011-02-28T05:31:01.420-06:002011-02-28T05:31:01.420-06:00"It's my understanding that when certain ..."It's my understanding that when certain things are multiply attested in the gospels, that means they are likely based on something true."<br /><br /><br /><br />The old , if 4 Scientologists sasys something, then it must be true argument.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-60067438438565877462011-02-24T18:09:00.121-06:002011-02-24T18:09:00.121-06:00Hi asuwakan,
"But, I suppose I'm still w...Hi asuwakan,<br /><br />"But, I suppose I'm still wondering, why would all four gospels mention the empty tomb? And, why does the tomb appear similar in each account?"<br /><br />Why would the tomb be mentioned in all four Gospels? Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source (discussed in White, Scripting Jesus, as well as in many of Bart Ehrman's books), so their mention of an empty tomb isn't so much of a mystery. John is a different case, for many scholars had thought for a long time that John was totally independent. However, as White discusses in "Scripting Jesus" and others have demonstrated, even the author of John was familiar with other gospels (he was familiar with Luke and possibly Mark). See Pages 58-60, Andrew Gregory, The reception of Luke and Acts in the period before Irenaeus, as well as page 54, John Amedee Bailey, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John. <br /><br />"It's my understanding that when certain things are multiply attested in the gospels, that means they are likely based on something true."<br /><br />That's the "Criterion of Multiple Attestation". If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find a pretty decent article on it and the problems with it. I know, I know, Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but the article does a nice job of summarizing the logical issues with the criterion, and it offers some useful references (such as to Stanley Porter's book "The Problem of the Criteria").AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-36785017491420415562011-02-24T17:59:47.253-06:002011-02-24T17:59:47.253-06:00asuwakan wrote: why would all four gospels mention...asuwakan wrote: <i>why would all four gospels mention the empty tomb? </i><br /><br />Because, the unknown author of Matthew had a copy of 'gMark' on his lap when he wrote his version. The unknown author of Luke had a copy of Matthew and Mark as well as Josephus' writings on his lap when he wrote his gentile version and John came even later with his version loosely based on these same primary resources. We know that these are not independent accounts and that they were written for varying political and theological reasons that had nothing whatever to do with the 'real events' they pretend to describe. These are not multiple independent attestations but merely variations on a common literary source.<br /><br />Pious fiction however high-minded is still fiction. <br /><br />-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-11091427355977626922011-02-24T17:45:18.450-06:002011-02-24T17:45:18.450-06:00I'm reading White's Scripting Jesus right ...I'm reading White's Scripting Jesus right now, it's very interesting! If the empty tomb is legendary, then the "evidence" of the empty tomb claimed by Craig, Habermas, and others fails. But, I suppose I'm still wondering, why would all four gospels mention the empty tomb? And, why does the tomb appear similar in each account? It's my understanding that when certain things are multiply attested in the gospels, that means they are likely based on something true. <br /><br />By the way, I'm a long-time lurker on this blog, as well as its parent site. Thanks for providing plenty of information refuting the backwards pseudoscience and blatant lies of creationism!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09374982421288026050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-78921437240666039322011-02-24T15:45:19.676-06:002011-02-24T15:45:19.676-06:00These questions are like asking whether Gandalf re...These questions are like asking whether Gandalf really died or did he just swoon when he fell into the chasm with the Balrog? He must have died. How could anyone survive such a fall? It is clear that the witnesses to his post-Balrog resurrection reliable were quite reliable and there should be no doubt that this was a true resurrection event. On & on it goes...<br /><br />Nevertheless, these are all foolish, nonsensical questions when the whole epic tale was only an elaborate fiction to start with...not like those oh-so reliable historical accounts we call the Canonical Gospels. <br /><br />The whole controversy of whether Jesus was really raised from the dead is just as irrelevant when the only information we have about this putative god-man saviour has all the hallmarks of an elaborate pious fiction. (At least in the case of The Lord of the Rings, we know the identity of the author.)<br /><br />I appreciate that to engage the multiple flaws of the apologist arguments for a literal resurrection event you can grant them some latitude for arguments' sake, but the questionable reliability of the Gospel accounts renders the rest of the discussion unnecessary and moot. Let's not get lost in the minutiae when the primary data is so flawed. Undated, anonymous, heavily redacted evangelical tracts from the second century, do not represent good reliable history.<br /><br />Bayesian probabilities and careful analysis only have relevance when you have good data to start with. The Gospel accounts do not represent good data; therefore, Garbage in - Garbage out. End of discussion.<br /><br />I would suggest that the most solid conclusion we can come to is this:<br /><br />The resurrection never happened, because it is very likely that no other parts of the Jesus story happened either. <br /><br />-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.com