roadrunner Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Several apologists claim that Jesus' resurrection is more credible since women found the empty tomb. They speculate that since women were such lowly figures why would their accounts be held as valid. Look it up so I don't have to explain this. But, I venture to say that if they will speculate that its true because women found the empty tomb, I say it isnt true because they said women found the tomb. my theory is if you pin it on women and turns out to be false it was only the lowly women who messed up as expected not the males (of course men would have gotten it right). All the other claims are accurate but once upon a time women screwed up about the resurrection. So next time you hear them argue their theory about how women founding the tomb makes it more likely let them know how this could swing either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 What doesn't make sense is that the Gospels don't agree on who and how many and when they discovered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yes, the post-resurrection stories conflict in the NT. And if I recall, Paul's epistles (which were written before the gospels) never really reference a literal resurrection. That, for me, is a stronger argument than what you suggest. No offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Most significant to me is that none of the women witnessed anything - an empty tomb is an empty tomb after all, even a fictional one - who's to say how it got empty, if it ever held anything in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yes, the post-resurrection stories conflict in the NT. And if I recall, Paul's epistles (which were written before the gospels) never really reference a literal resurrection. That, for me, is a stronger argument that either that you suggest. No offense. Of course. But I read an apoloigist making the arguments in the OP and couldnt resist. BTW I am aware of pauls conversion in 34AD after Jesus had already died but that wasnt among the things that were already revealed to him. But thats a completely different post. my point was the absurdity to argue its true because of a sketchy witness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 my point was the absurdity to argue its true because of a sketchy witness Ah. And yes, that's crazy. It's like having a trial with an unreliable witness and argue that because he/she is unreliable, he/she should be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 my point was the absurdity to argue its true because of a sketchy witness Ah. And yes, that's crazy. It's like having a trial with an unreliable witness and argue that because he/she is unreliable, he/she should be trusted. I think its a huge CYA for when the lie blows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Look! I am holding an empty jar. That proves that Invisible Pink Unicorns are real! You have to admit the jar is completely empty. Well, it's got air in it but you know what I mean. The unicorns are not in this jar so they must be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I met this random dude the other day at the hardware store who told me that it was his ancestor's tomb that Jesus was buried in. I shit you not, that's what the guy said. I looked at the guy and said that I didn't believe Jesus ever existed. Paul certainly didn't seem to think he did. Dude also had some other strange ideas. That'll teach me to sit down in a hanging chair at the hardware store and have a think (couldn't find what I was looking for, so I was thinking of a way to make it or get it from something else). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Except women's testimony was acceptable testimony. Josephus repeats the testimony of women more than once without stating that it has no value (I'm too lazy to look for it now). It's simply not true that women held no value in this regard. Of course if you had to choose you'd want men to testify but doesn't make the women of no worth it just means more weight may be given to men. Similar to how more weight may be given to a police officer over an ordinary citizen. It's just perception. Women were not pariah's or outcasts of society so they were fully credible witnesses. Higher class women better than lower class women. The aristocrats over the prostitutes. We still have this essential mindset today whether we like it or not. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Hi roadrunner, we had a thread on this topic a while back. On it I offered what I thought were reasons to reject the Christian apologists' "women's testimony argument." That is, some apologists argue that the empty tomb reports must be true because the gospel writers would not fabricate them using women as witnesses, since Judaism did not value the testimony of women. This apologetic argument claims that rabbinic sources show the inadmissability of women's testimony in the Judaism of Jesus' day. But there is good reason to reject their conclusion. 1) Rabbinic sources are later than the period the Gospels represent; 2) they apply to women's testimony in court; 3) they make exceptions for testimony about events to which only women are witnesses. See link to earlier thread: http://www.ex-christ...ection-account/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Hi roadrunner, we had a thread on this topic a while back. On it I offered what I thought were reasons to reject the Christian apologists' "women's testimony argument." That is, some apologists argue that the empty tomb reports must be true because the gospel writers would not fabricate them using women as witnesses, since Judaism did not value the testimony of women. This apologetic argument claims that rabbinic sources show the inadmissability of women's testimony in the Judaism of Jesus' day. But there is good reason to reject their conclusion. 1) Rabbinic sources are later than the period the Gospels represent; 2) they apply to women's testimony in court; 3) they make exceptions for testimony about events to which only women are witnesses. See link to earlier thread: http://www.ex-christ...ection-account/ Had never seen that thread sorry. Funny thing is who was the first to reply. I knew he'd jump on that. Apologists do admit that women couldn't testify in court. I still do think it is a weak argument because if they are permitted to validate a claim based on speculation that they would have done "X" if it was a lie, we should be able to invalidate using that same logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Paul tends to "forget" about these women and their all so very important testimony by not having no appearances to the women at all. Fortunately, for us, the later narratives remembered to put this embarrassing detail back in so people could be hot and bothered about taking the testimony of lowly women. They probably were getting a lot of complaints from people who knew the "real story" about this missing bit just so they could read it and be upset that these women were being given a place over superior men. Makes sense you'd want that included. But they were proto-feminists or so I'm told to believe. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Paul tends to "forget" about these women and their all so very important testimony by not having no appearances to the women at all. Fortunately, for us, the later narratives remembered to put this embarrassing detail back in so people could be hot and bothered about taking the testimony of lowly women. They probably were getting a lot of complaints from people who knew the "real story" about this missing bit just so they could read it and be upset that these women were being given a place over superior men. Makes sense you'd want that included. But they were proto-feminists or so I'm told to believe. mwc I dropped a lot arguments against paul and how he never spoke of jesus' earthly ministry the other day when I saw 1 corinthians15:3. to me this introduces the "possibility" that he was aware that christ had already come and died. of course just like everything in the bible its as vague as they come and who knows if paul actually wrote that part and when. does anything in mary's lost gospel say anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I dropped a lot arguments against paul and how he never spoke of jesus' earthly ministry the other day when I saw 1 corinthians15:3. to me this introduces the "possibility" that he was aware that christ had already come and died. of course just like everything in the bible its as vague as they come and who knows if paul actually wrote that part and when. does anything in mary's lost gospel say anything about it? Yeah...you mean... 1 Corinthians 15 3 For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me, how Christ underwent death for our sins, as it says in the Writings; 4 And he was put in the place of the dead; and on the third day he came back from the dead, as it says in the Writings; 5 And he was seen by Cephas; then by the twelve; That "gloss" between verse 4 and verse 5? In quotes because we need the gospels to give us the information that gets glossed over concerning the women otherwise there is no gloss here at all. I haven't read the Gospel of Mary in ages but I remember it being Gnostic in nature and not dealing with anything like this at all. It's really short so read it and see for yourself though. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Hi roadrunner, we had a thread on this topic a while back. On it I offered what I thought were reasons to reject the Christian apologists' "women's testimony argument." That is, some apologists argue that the empty tomb reports must be true because the gospel writers would not fabricate them using women as witnesses, since Judaism did not value the testimony of women. This apologetic argument claims that rabbinic sources show the inadmissability of women's testimony in the Judaism of Jesus' day. But there is good reason to reject their conclusion. 1) Rabbinic sources are later than the period the Gospels represent; 2) they apply to women's testimony in court; 3) they make exceptions for testimony about events to which only women are witnesses. See link to earlier thread: http://www.ex-christ...ection-account/ Apologists do admit that women couldn't testify in court. The "women not testify in court" thing is important because it is a limitation on inadmissability of women's witness to facts. The rabbis didn't claim that women in general should not be believed, esp. when they were the only witnesses. Most of the time in life, one isn't in court, and the disciples were not in a court adjudicating the women's claims! So the Christian apologists who cite later rabbinic texts about women's testimony (in court) are giving material that doesn't prove all that they want it to prove for the supposed post-resurrection discussions among Jesus' followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts