Theism.net Options: home | articles
| books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: j
From:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
One
feature of the Resurrection narratives that indicates they were not late
inventions of the Church is the striking fact that the first appearances of the
risen Christ were not to the apostles but instead to women. As C. F. D. Moule comments:
Further,
it is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and took shape merely
in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to be framed in terms
almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were notoriously invalid
witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence [C. F. D. Moule, editor, The Significance of the Message of the
Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ 1968, p. 9].
If
one rejects the traditional interpretation of the empty tomb as resulting from
the Resurrection of Christ, one is obliged to supply a better alternative. Such
theories have been often discussed-e.g., Frank
Morrison, Who Moved the Stone? (1930, reprinted 1963); Daniel P. Fuller, Easter
Faith and History (1965).
From
my debate with Temy beal at
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
The
historicity of the gospel writers is more reliable than Alexander the Great’s. Non-theistic scholars claim reports about the
disciples arose after sufficient time elapsed to develop legends. In contrast,
historical documentation for Alexander the Great’s existence
appeared nearly 400 years after his death. Nevertheless, scholars agree he
existed. If the gospels were written 150 years after the crucifixion (and some
historians have dated the letters to the churches to under 30 years after the
event), they are more reliable than accounts of Alexander the Great. Scholars
of both theistic mind-sets accept Alexander the Great’s
historicity, but theism versus atheism splits scholars regarding the Gospels.
Other established historical figures include Suetonius,
Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Writings about
them appeared 800 to 1300 years after their existence yet are considered
credible by scholars of either theistic camp. Other than disliking the message,
what is the reason for this split?
e-mail: j
Theism.net Options: home | articles
| books | search | webmaster