Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Spooky]

I have done so on multiple occasions. 

Provide the links to what you feel are your best arguments, and I will address them again. None were memorable, obviously...

No longer worth my time.  

[abaris]

Prove it. Cite a passage from one of Ehrman's books in which he claims that Jesus only "might have existed." Cause I'm reading his definitive treatment of the subject right now, and he is not waffling or sitting on the fence at all.

I don't need to. If he really claims with absolute certainty, the Jesus of Nazareth existed, he's more of a hack than I believed. He doesn't do that in his lectures. In any case, as your link has proven, he is in fact a theologian and not a historian. He only claims to be one, which already shines a peculiar light on him. So I give you Richard Carrier, a real historian, in reply to Ehrman. Only because he quotes the obvious and lists quite a lot of sources for further study.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

And if you can't make a distinction between supernatural claims and the possibility of a person named Jesus having existed, it's really your problem. That's a very distinct line between even Ehrman's Jesus and the pope's understanding.

[Randy Carson]

Sure. But you do acknowledge that there are holocaust deniers out there, right?

This is a stupid question knowing that I just called out Sungenis for being a Holocaust denier.

It's called a rhetorical question...

Now, just as some idiots deny the Holocaust, there are those who deny that Jesus was a real person.

Not every atheist is a Mythicist and not every member of this forum is a mythicist. But it appears that this forum is over-run by more mythers than may be common among the atheist population at large. (I'd have to do some research to be sure.)

[Randy Carson]

Prove it. Cite a passage from one of Ehrman's books in which he claims that Jesus only "might have existed." Cause I'm reading his definitive treatment of the subject right now, and he is not waffling or sitting on the fence at all.

I don't need to. If he really claims with absolute certainty, the Jesus of Nazareth existed, he's more of a hack than I believed. He doesn't do that in his lectures. In any case, as your link has proven, he is in fact a theologian and not a historian. He only claims to be one, which already shines a peculiar light on him. So I give you Richard Carrier, a real historian, in reply to Ehrman. Only because he quotes the obvious and lists quite a lot of sources for further study.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

And if you can't make a distinction between supernatural claims and the possibility of a person named Jesus having existed, it's really your problem. That's a very distinct line between even Ehrman's Jesus and the pope's understanding.

Been there done that. Ehrman destroys Carrier here: http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Yes, I can and do make the distinction between the claims for Jesus' historical existence and his divinity. Really, I do.

But you can see from the posts in this very forum that BEFORE I can even have an intelligent conversation about Jesus' divinity, I have to lay some foundation for the fact that there EVER WAS A JESUS WHO CLAIMED TO BE DIVINE.

[Cato]

Now, just as some idiots deny the Holocaust, there are those who deny that Jesus was a real person.

I already explained why it would be foolish to equivocate the two positions, but you did it anyway. Amazing.

[Randy Carson]

Now, just as some idiots deny the Holocaust, there are those who deny that Jesus was a real person.

I already explained why it would be foolish to equivocate the two positions, but you did it anyway. Amazing.

Nah...you just assert that I did. My point is well-made.

[abaris]

Second, abaris seems to miss (or conveniently ignore) the point that these FACTS are accepted by men who have far more academic chops than the entire membership of this forum combined.

LOL. Fact equals undisputed. That's what you don't seem to get.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

The above isn't fact for obvious reasons. No stone cold evidence, not one undisputed point.

[Cato]

I already explained why it would be foolish to equivocate the two positions, but you did it anyway. Amazing.

Nah...you just assert that I did. My point is well-made.

Bullshit Randy. You equivocated Holocaust denial and Jesus mythicism. Your point fails for the reason I explained before you made the attempt.

[abaris]

And that's all there is to say about Ehrman destroying Carrier. In his own words.

I have not dealt with all the myriad of things that Carrier has to say – most of them unpleasant – about my book. But I have tried to say enough, at least, to counter his charges that I am an incompetent pseudo-scholar. I try to approach my work with honesty and scholarly integrity, and would like to be accorded treatment earned by someone who has devoted his entire life to advancing scholarship and to making scholarship more widely available to the reading public.

Yes, Bart, you haven't adressed even one of the historical errors, Carrier points out.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Bobby Fisher was one of the greatest chess players of all time. He was also an anti-Semitic nut-job later in life.

Bobby Fischer (notice the correct spelling) never wrote a book asking me to seriously consider his argument. Being antisemitic has fuck all to do with playing chess. Denying The Holocaust does require a serious evaluation of someone's sincerity and loose grasp of reality if I am being asked to consider an argument that is supposed to be based in fact. If someone gets The Holocaust wrong, little of what they report can be trusted.

The holocaust is a classic myth just like the Jesus story is.  People who question either one are made out to be some type of evil nuts who won't see the "truth".  The holocaust myth works because anyone who claims that it's BS is severely punished, even criminally in some places.  That shuts down investigation.  The whole purpose of the holocaust myth was to provide justification for the Jews to steal Palestine and to put the Palestinians into concentration camps.  

When the war started there were fewer than 100,000 Jews in all of Germany.  When the war ended there were still tens of thousands of Jews alive and kicking in Germany.  

The real holocaust happened in the Congo when King Leopold II of Belgium killed up to 12 million black Africans while stealing the area blind.  But unlike the world's favorite holocaust myth there are no holocaust museums showing his crimes against black Africans like the ones littering the world's cities that supposedly show a white guy's crimes against fellow whites.