On Creationism

The Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image of the front and back of a naked man. Supposedly this is the shroud that was used to wrap Jesus in. From Wiki: The documented history of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it began to be exhibited in the new collegiate church of Lirey, a village in north-central France.Whether the memo was actually sent to the Pope or not, it seems that at least its salient information, that the Shroud was being displayed as genuine when it wasn’t, was known by the beginning of 1390, when Pope Clement issued his very restrictive bull. Ulysse Chevalier dated it at the end of 1389, although Jack Markwardt suggests early August, on the grounds that although it mentions an appeal to the King to get the relic suppressed, it does not mention that the Bailly of Troyes, acting on behalf of the King, had failed to get hold of it on 15 August.  The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, in 1389. ... The m...

 This is a follow up to my last post , regarding the article: Loke, Andrew. ‘ The resurrection of the Son of God: a reduction of the naturalistic alternatives .’ Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009): 570-584. Last time I looked at how he tries to divide up the possible explanations for the resurrection. Now it is the empty tomb we focus on. My view is the empty tomb was made up later - after Paul was writing, given 1 Cor 15. Mark made up the women witnessing tomb, and had them tell no one specifically because they really did tell no one - they told no one because there was no empty tomb. I am going to skip some of his alternatives; I do not find them likely either. (7) Either (7.1), (7.2), or (7.3) is true:  (7.1) There was no crucifixion of Jesus in mid-first- century Palestine, in which case either 7.1.1. or 7.1.2. is true. ...  (7.2) Jesus was crucified in mid-first-century Palestine and he was not buried (Unburied Hypothesis; a possible scenario for this hypothesis i...

A common strategy among apologists is to divide "all possible" explanations for the resurrection into a set number of groups, and then disprove all the ones they do not like to - surprise, surprise - leave the resurrection as the only possible explanation. Greg Bord does it in a series of pod casts (the fourth is here , with links to earlier ones). Boyd says either it was a lie or a legend or it must be as the gospels say. Exactly what the Legend Hypothesis is he keeps vague. Oh, and he assumes the disciples considered Jesus to be divine from the resurrection, and his argument is based partly on how it would take a resurrection to persuade Jews of that time to believe such a thing. Apparently it does not occur to him that they believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a man appointed by God, and adopted as God's son. However in this post I want to focus on an academic publication - if only because it is easier to quote. The article is: Loke, Andrew. ‘ The resurrection of the...