McCulloch wrote:
Realworldjack wrote:So then, it really does not matter what our definition of faith may be, or the meaning of a particular verse, the question becomes, what did these men ask their audience at the time, to base their beliefs upon? Did they asked them to simply have faith that there was a Resurrection? Or did they actually point to, an empty tomb?
You see, if they were simply appealing to faith, then there would be no reason to point to an empty tomb, as EVIDENCE. But the empty tomb is not the only evidence that we have, there is far more than that.
By the time of the writing of the gospels, there was no empty tomb. In the decades between the time Jesus is said to have died and the writing of the Gospels, there was an active Jewish war against the Romans. It did not go that well for the Jews. Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple destroyed.
John 20:24-29 wrote:But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!� But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.�
After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.� Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.� Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!� Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.�
The writers of the New Testament, knowing that the evidence was lacking, portray a Jesus who praises the exact type of faith that I'm talking about.
By the time of the writing of the gospels, there was no empty tomb.
First, you are assuming the scholars have it right as far as when the Gospels were written, because there is no way to actually know. So then, the fact of the matter is, I have not claimed to know when they were written, but you seem to claim to know, so what evidence do you have that the Gospels were written decades after the events, without referring to the opinion of the scholars, because there are those scholars who would disagree?
Next, it would not be uncommon at all for these things to have been written decades after the events. Lets take a look at the author of Luke. There is very little doubt at all that this author spent a number of years, along with Paul on his missionary journeys, and there is extremely strong evidence to suggest that this is the case.
This author is clearly with Paul, all the way to Rome, as Paul stands trial, and even seems to be with Paul, through 2 years of Paul's imprisonment. When we think about the fact that most of Paul's journeys would have been by foot, and those that were not were some sort of other primitive transportation, then we can clearly understand how it could be decades, before the author of Luke could actually sit down to write the two letters that he wrote to Theophilus.
Now lets think about the "decades" you speak of would have been more than likely 20 years at the most, but it sounds much better for your case to say, "decades", right? The point is, if the journeys of Paul would have lasted 20 years, or longer counting his imprisonment of 2 years, then it would not be very strange at all for the author of Luke to have written his two letters, 20 years later, after his excursions with Paul.
If this is the case, (and there is strong evidence that it is) then this author would have just finished his journeys with Paul, and would have all that Paul said and done, fresh in his memory, along with all that pertained to the life of Jesus, since this had been his whole life for a good number of years.
You then go on to claim, that there would not have been an "empty tomb" by the time that this author wrote his account. Oh really? Well who would have been in this tomb, at this point? Would it have been Jesus? Are you suggesting that there never was a claim of an empty tomb, and this guy decades later, along with others, simply bring this into the equation decades later?
If this is what you are attempting to sale, then you have a lot of questions to answer. But we will wait to see if this is what you are suggesting.
In the decades between the time Jesus is said to have died and the writing of the Gospels, there was an active Jewish war against the Romans. It did not go that well for the Jews. Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple destroyed.
Here you are suggesting that the Gospels were written some 40 years after the death of Jesus. So what evidence do you have to support such a thing? And please remember, the opinion of the scholars is not evidence. I have read their opinions, and can easily refute them.
But lets think about this. First there is very little doubt at all, that Paul wrote his letters before this time, because he was writing them while on his missionary journeys, and even wrote while he was under house arrest.
Next, you would certainly think that if these letters would have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, then there would be some sort of mention of such a traumatic event in these letters, but we find none, other than Jesus predicting it to occur.
But the main point here is, there is evidence that the letters were written by those they were attributed to, but there is really no way to tell the exact date they were written. All one can do is to examine the evidence, and come to the best conclusion one can make. This is the truth of the matter, and for there to be those to claim to know when, or when they were not written, would be far less than honest. It would be one thing to provide evidence, (other than the scholarly opinion) that may support your conclusion, it would be quite another to claim to know.
The writers of the New Testament, knowing that the evidence was lacking, portray a Jesus who praises the exact type of faith that I'm talking about.
Okay, so these men leave a mountain of evidence behind, and you focus on one passage that seems to you, to back up the sort of faith you are describing. Did you notice that Jesus simply said,
“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.�
What is Jesus, talking about seeing? "ME". Therefore He is speaking of those who believe, and have not seen Him in the same way as the Apostles. He is not saying, "Blessed are those who believe, without any evidence at all."
But again, it is sort of strange how you have yet to deal with the words that these men used, in describing the events, and it may be really good to take a look at Peters first sermon as recorded by the author of "Acts." Take a look at it, and tell me, was he pointing to evidence? Or was he simply asking the audience, to have faith in what he said?
