Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Crossless2.0]

CONCLUSION: JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

In this thread, we have examined five "minimal facts" that are almost universally accepted by New Testament Scholars - believers and skeptics alike.

Fact 1: Jesus did by crucifixion. Jesus was killed by experienced, professional Roman soldiers under the orders of Pontius Pilate. He did not survive the crucifixion.

Fact 2: The disciples were transformed by their firm conviction that they had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Many of them suffered greatly and endured martyrdom rather than deny their belief.

Fact 3: Paul, the deadly enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted and became Jesus' greatest evangelist. Paul endured great hardships, endured much suffering, and became a martyr rather than deny his belief.

Fact 4: James, the skeptical brother who doubted Jesus for years, was suddenly converted and became the leader of Jesus' followers in Jerusalem. James served the Christian Church valiantly, endured much suffering, and became a martyr rather than deny his belief.

Fact 5: The tomb of Jesus was found empty. And the only theory put forth by anyone for hundreds of years afterward was that proposed by his enemies; namely, that the disciples stole the body - a theory which provides independent enemy attestation that the tomb was empty.

Summing up, we see that the gospel narratives are well-supported by non-biblical sources. Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. Subsequently, Jesus' own followers, his enemy, Paul, and his unbelieving brother, James, all claimed to have seen him, and these appearances transformed them all irrevocably. These appearances, coupled with the fact that Jesus' tomb was found empty, indicate that Jesus' appearances were physical in nature and not mere hallucinations or visions. As a result, the theory that provides the best explanation of the five facts is that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead just as he had promised. "He is risen!" (Mk 16:6)

"Anticlimactic" doesn't even begin to cover the fucks I don't give about your conclusion.  Still, I hope you enjoyed yourself.

[Longhorn]

So......Your finale grande is just a reassertion of what you've already said multiple times in this thread?

Color me unsurprised with a hint of le sigh

[Randy Carson]

To avoid the spread of false rumors.

Matthew 77
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Mathew is written too late to be taken as good evidence on such odd proceedings.


Not beyond all recognition in less than 72 hours. Jesus wounds, after all, were very unique.

You are limping around on your worst arguments.  Why on earth would Pilate have cared about guarding the tomb? 

Normally, he wouldn't. Because crucified people normally stay dead.

If, and it's a big if, he decided to go against all precedent and allow a decent burial would he have cared if the tomb were guarded?  And why would anyone guard it?  The Romans weren't expecting a miracle.  Or a theft.  Why would they?  Pilate was not a Jew. 

The Jews pointed out to Pilate that Jesus had promised to rise from the dead, and collectively, they recognized that word of a risen Jesus would have spread quickly creating enormous problems for both the Jews and the Romans.

If he thought there was a possibility there would be claims of resurrection, he would have left that body to rot publicly on the cross.

Look at the sequence of events in Mt 27, Jenny. Pilate had already granted permission to Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus in his family tomb BEFORE the problem of the resurrection claim was brought to Pilate's attention.

[Randy Carson]

When I mentioned Paul, I had in mind his report of his own experience of the risen Christ, which is clearly not physical in nature.  As for his memorized formula, at the risk of nit-picking, there is nothing there that necessitates an interpretation that he is speaking of a bodily resurrection -- of a person literally walking out of a tomb.  It merely states that Jesus was buried and raised on the third day before appearing before a number of witnesses.  For all we know, these 'appearances' could have been 'spiritual' in nature as Paul's alleged experience seems to have been.  He doesn't really say there was an empty tomb.  The empty tomb stories we have are from the Gospels, which come later.

The gospels were WRITTEN a few years later based upon the testimony of men who had seen Jesus risen from the dead BEFORE Paul wrote. Those were the men Paul conferred with when he traveled to Jerusalem around AD 35-36.

Do you think that Peter, James and John just left out the part about Jesus being alive (and his tomb being empty) during Paul's visit?

[Longhorn]

You know what the problem with your arguments is, Randy? They didn't convince you. You did not come to believe a purportedly magical Jew came back from the dead by the minimal facts approach. You were taught to believe that, so you do. All this *dramatic hand gesture* is just an excuse you make before rational people for believing what you believe, but it doesn't hold water. To find it valid, you need to already believe it to be true. It's making your way back from the conclusion, a big fat presupposition you can't erase, and without it your argument falls to pieces.

The question is....How do you expect your reasoning to convince us, if it didn't even convince YOU?

[Minimalist]

Bravo, Nemo.

[Iroscato]

My, you're boring.

[Randy Carson]

Pliny is a terrible reference, he should have known all about the christians, if we're to believe their stories - and yet he doesn't...further, he doesn't act in the manner that we are led to believe (again by christians) the roman state would act confronted with their christianity.  If you want Pliny, you'll have to abandon parts of your jesus story.  Be my guest.  The reliability of Pliny is directly proportionate to the unreliability of christian sources.  Fiddle with that slider and tell me when you find a comfy balance?

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of the province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor (now Turkey). In that province, a law had been passed that made it illegal for people to gather in social groups. The purpose was to prevent political gatherings that might lead to uprisings. However, this had created an unexpected problem: the law applied to every group, including fire brigades. As a result of the prohibition, fires were breaking out and villages were burning. Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan about the problem.

In the course of that letter, Pliny also mentions another group that was gathering illegally - the Christians. Pliny's description of them is brief, but it is unmistakable evidence that Christianity had spread to Asia Minor by the early second century and that its presence was known to the Roman officials.

Why do you believe Pliny should have known "all about the Christians"?

Regardless, in Pliny, we have indisputable proof of the presence of the followers of Jesus from a hostile witness.

[Cyberman]

The fact that 2 billion people can watch a video and agree that the Death Star blows up is not evidence that there ever was a death star to blow up.

Notice we still haven't had a coherent answer to the resurrection of Obi-Wan Kenobi, using the same minimal facts criteria as those for the godboy.

[IATIA]

Why do you believe Pliny should have known "all about the Christians"?

Apparently, no one knew about them until the book came out 400 years later.