Gary Habermas, JFK and the second gunman
Gary Habermas writes 'The early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at least implies an empty tomb.' (The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, page 23)
Paul implies an empty tomb?
He doesn't , but so what if he did? How does that get Habermas anywhere when trying to show that Jesus was resurrected and this involved a corpse leaving a tomb?
If I say a second gunman shot JFK, that implies there was a second gun.
Does that mean that sceptics of the second gunman theory now have to explain away the existence of a second gun? That the second gun is now an established fact, and is a point of contention between the parties?
However, if I say that a second gun was found, that implies a second gunman.
And the direct claim of a second gun being found is a much stronger claim to there really having been a second gun found.
It is a much stronger claim to this really having been a point against people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Such a claim of a second gun may not be true, but stating 'There was a second gun, and this implies a second gunman', is a much different claim to saying 'There was a second gunman and this implies a second gun.'
The direction of implication is important.
It is the same with Paul.
If Paul implies an empty tomb, the empty tomb is just an implication, not a fact.
If Paul had stated the empty tomb was a fact, at least that would have been a claim that an empty tomb had been found, and that this was a point of contention.
Habermas' point is useless to him.
And , of course, it was only much later that anonymous Christians began to say that there had been an empty tomb.
Paul implies an empty tomb?
He doesn't , but so what if he did? How does that get Habermas anywhere when trying to show that Jesus was resurrected and this involved a corpse leaving a tomb?
If I say a second gunman shot JFK, that implies there was a second gun.
Does that mean that sceptics of the second gunman theory now have to explain away the existence of a second gun? That the second gun is now an established fact, and is a point of contention between the parties?
However, if I say that a second gun was found, that implies a second gunman.
And the direct claim of a second gun being found is a much stronger claim to there really having been a second gun found.
It is a much stronger claim to this really having been a point against people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Such a claim of a second gun may not be true, but stating 'There was a second gun, and this implies a second gunman', is a much different claim to saying 'There was a second gunman and this implies a second gun.'
The direction of implication is important.
It is the same with Paul.
If Paul implies an empty tomb, the empty tomb is just an implication, not a fact.
If Paul had stated the empty tomb was a fact, at least that would have been a claim that an empty tomb had been found, and that this was a point of contention.
Habermas' point is useless to him.
And , of course, it was only much later that anonymous Christians began to say that there had been an empty tomb.
posted by Steven Carr at 11:56 AM
2 Comments:
Robert Price thinks that the passage in 1 Corinthians is an interpolation.
Christian apologists love to use 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to read everything in all four gospels back into the earliest beliefs of the church.
John Shelby Spong thinks that the usual way to deal with the body of a crucified criminal would have been to throw it in an anonymous mass grave. If this was known to Paul, then encountering the risen Jesus would not imply anything whatsoever about what had happened to the body in the interim.
Post a Comment
<< Home