Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Longhorn]

It doesn't matter even if some are convinced, though I doubt there are many.

What I'm pointing out is not that your arguments are not convincing, but that they have a fundamental flaw: they were all formed with the presupposition that god exists and that the conclusion they reach is true. They are made through working your way back from the conclusion, which was never reached by critical thinking. To the contrary, if critical thinking is applied the conclusion cannot be reached.

These arguments were all invented much, much after faith came to exist. They are not the main reason people believe. They're the excuse made for believing. The presupposition they were formed with makes them invalid.

Do you have any counter-arguments to show that the evidence I have presented - the evidence accepted as true by the vast majority of scholars teaching at major universities throughout the Western world - is false?

Ignoring things won't make them go away Randy. Repeating myself is really tiresome, even if you never get enough of it.

[Randy Carson]

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


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.


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.

You are straying far, far, from your minimal facts. 

True. I thought we were sort of filling in the blanks. Am I restricted to the five only in this discussion with you? If so, okay.

You claim Pilate had Jesus cruxified.  I agree, that is most likely. 

Yay. Take one step forward.

But, you haven't proven anything about what anyone said to Pilate.  That's the point.  We don't know what happened and the Biblical narrative is highly unlikely and not reliable in the details.  It's unlikely Pilate would have executed anyone for blasphemy against the Jews. Sedition is probably the answer (or theft of a donkey ).  

Agreed. Pilate would have released Jesus because he knew the Jewish leaders were simply jealous, but he was finally persuaded by the charge of sedition.

It's unlikely Pilate would have allowed anyone to bury Jesus because that's not what the Romans did with crucified bodies. 

Always? Everywhere? Every time? Without exception? This is speculation unless you have ancient sources to this effect. I'd love to read anything you may have from Tacitus or someone proving that the Romans NEVER allowed a family to bury a crucified loved one.

And it's unlikely if that if Pilate thought the Jews would claim he had risen that Pilate wouldn't have just had the body rehung for all to see.  When worried about the possibility of a pretender, that's the classic answer, exhibit the body.

Why is that 150 years later, the ONLY charge that was still making the rounds was that the disciples had STOLEN the body? I gave you a plausible explanation as to why Pilate acted as he did. One attested to by an ancient source. All you have is your own speculation as to what Pilate may or may not have done.  

And your "what-ifs" still don't account for Facts 2, 3 & 4, Jenny. Paul hated Christians, applauded the stoning of Stephen and was going from village to village arresting Christians. Why did he suddenly become a believer? And why did James suddenly become a believer?

You have not accounted for these conversions by means of Pilate.

The thing that amazes me about your arguments over and over is your innablility to accept "we don't know and never will know" as a possible answer. 

That's because we do and can know what happened. If not with 100% certitude then with more certainty that you care to admit.

When it comes to events that happened yesterday that is often the real answer.  When it comes to events that happened 2000 years ago, it's most often the only honest answer.

That's not the voice of a professional historian speaking, is it?

[Randy Carson]

Do you have any counter-arguments to show that the evidence I have presented - the evidence accepted as true by the vast majority of scholars teaching at major universities throughout the Western world - is false?

Ignoring things won't make them go away Randy. Repeating myself is really tiresome,  even if you never get enough of it.

Ignoring things won't make them go away, Nemo.

Please prove a point by point explanation of the five facts I have presented in this thread.

I'd like to evaluate the explanatory scope and power of your theory compared to mine.

[IATIA]

Q is bullshit.  Actually they are all bullshit but at least the others have manuscripts.

Isn't that the guy from Star Trek Next Generation.

[Pizza]

Q is bullshit.  Actually they are all bullshit but at least the others have manuscripts.

Isn't that the guy from Star Trek Next Generation.

Q resurrected Jesus and did all that other stuff.

[Minimalist]

Randy does not understand the burden of proof.

That is typical of dumbasses.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 died 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 dramatically and 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 the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead just as he had promised.

"He is risen!" (Mk 16:6)

... except every one of those points has been shot full of holes by flak that would make an 88 look like a peashooter.

You're shitting on the chessboard and strutting, pigeon.

[Jenny A]

You are straying far, far, from your minimal facts. 

True. I thought we were sort of filling in the blanks. Am I restricted to the five only in this discussion with you? If so, okay.

Yes, having started the thread that way you are.

You claim Pilate had Jesus cruxified.  I agree, that is most likely. 

Yay. Take one step forward.

Hardly.  It's where I began. Next?

But, you haven't proven anything about what anyone said to Pilate.  That's the point.  We don't know what happened and the Biblical narrative is highly unlikely and not reliable in the details.  It's unlikely Pilate would have executed anyone for blasphemy against the Jews. Sedition is probably the answer (or theft of a donkey ).  

Agreed. Pilate would have released Jesus because he knew the Jewish leaders were simply jealous, but he was finally persuaded by the charge of sedition.

I don't think so.  That Pilate executed him for sedition yes.  That he was worried about the jealousy of Jewish leaders?  Probably not.  Romans soldiers and Pilate were not generally in Jerusalem.  They came in during the Passover, because Passover itself was thinly veiled sedition.  The symbolism of Passover was not wasted on the Romans.

It's unlikely Pilate would have allowed anyone to bury Jesus because that's not what the Romans did with crucified bodies. 

Always? Everywhere? Every time? Without exception? This is speculation unless you have ancient sources to this effect. I'd love to read anything you may have from Tacitus or someone proving that the Romans NEVER allowed a family to bury a crucified loved one.[/Quote]

Almost without exception. Therefore, the exception would require explaination.

And it's unlikely if that if Pilate thought the Jews would claim he had risen that Pilate wouldn't have just had the body rehung for all to see.  When worried about the possibility of a pretender, that's the classic answer, exhibit the body.

Why is that 150 years later, the ONLY charge that was still making the rounds was that the disciples had STOLEN the body? I gave you a plausible explanation as to why Pilate acted as he did. One attested to by an ancient source. All you have is your own speculation as to what Pilate may or may not have done.

Because the Romans didn't much notice Jesus at all for quite some time.  There are few references to Christians early on and none to the "threat" of Jesus.

And your "what-ifs" still don't account for Facts 2, 3 & 4, Jenny. Paul hated Christians, applauded the stoning of Stephen and was going from village to village arresting Christians. Why did he suddenly become a believer? And why did James suddenly become a believer?

You have not accounted for these conversions by means of Pilate.

I haven't accounted for alien abductions, Joseph Smith's witnesses, or the ascension of Augustus, or the miracles of Hindu priests either. People believe and claim to believe the oddest things.  And when we can investigate those things they turn out to be false every time.  Therefore when such claims are made and we cannot test them, I see no reason to believe they are true.  No historical document will ever convince me of a miraculous event.

The thing that amazes me about your arguments over and over is your inability to accept "we don't know and never will know" as a possible answer. 

That's because we do and can know what happened. If not with 100% certitude then with more certainty that you care to admit.

No we really can't.

When it comes to events that happened yesterday that is often the real answer.  When it comes to events that happened 2000 years ago, it's most often the only honest answer.

That's not the voice of a professional historian speaking, is it?

Actually, it's a paraphrase of Ehrman, several of my professors and who know who else, all of them professional historians.  What we can know about the past has limits.  Historians know that.  (Guess my major?)

[Minimalist]

Since the asswipe is ignoring me one of you guys can pick this up and shove up his stupid ass without him knowing.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.co...pologetic/

This apologetic takes a variety of forms [4], but William Craig’s variation used in his debates about the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps the most popular. Craig claims that there are “four facts” about Jesus’ resurrection (taken from his website here):

1. After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
   
2. On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
   
3. On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
   
4. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
   

Craig uses the term “facts,” in order to treat these premises as non-negotiable. The reality, however, is that his first two facts are not even accepted by many mainstream scholars. Scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, for example, doubt the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. For a good read on Ehrman’s case against the historicity of Joseph’s tomb, you can consult his blog series “Did the Romans Allow Decent Burials?.” Likewise, Ehrman also doubts the discovery of the empty tomb by women, which he discusses in his article “The Women and the Empty Tomb.”

Fuck him over good, boys.

[Randy Carson]

True. I thought we were sort of filling in the blanks. Am I restricted to the five only in this discussion with you? If so, okay.

Yes, having started the thread that way you are.

Okay. But YOU personally need to recognize that although I am willing to have one hand tied behind my back for the purposes of this thread (and no one has laid a glove on me yet despite that), professional scholars do not. And they know, as Ehrman pointed out, that the NT is of significant historical value. therefore, YOU cannot ignore it in the privacy of your own room when you're alone with God.

Yay. Take one step forward.

Hardly.  It's where I began. Next?

I was joking. Sheesh.

Agreed. Pilate would have released Jesus because he knew the Jewish leaders were simply jealous, but he was finally persuaded by the charge of sedition.

I don't think so.  That Pilate executed him for sedition yes.  That he was worried about the jealousy of Jewish leaders?  Probably not.  Romans soldiers and Pilate were not generally in Jerusalem.  They came in during the Passover, because Passover itself was thinly veiled sedition.  The symbolism of Passover was not wasted on the Romans.

The Sanhedrin came in demanding that Jesus be executed. You don't think Pilate was able to get up to speed quickly on the politics?

It's unlikely Pilate would have allowed anyone to bury Jesus because that's not what the Romans did with crucified bodies. 

Always? Everywhere? Every time? Without exception? This is speculation unless you have ancient sources to this effect. I'd love to read anything you may have from Tacitus or someone proving that the Romans NEVER allowed a family to bury a crucified loved one.

Almost without exception. Therefore, the exception would require explaination.

Almost? Gee, God almost never performs miracles defying the laws of physics or biology, either. But sometimes...

But I have a plausible explanation for the exception. You don't have a body on a cross or in a tomb. If Jesus was rotting away on the cross, then on the third day, why did the women even go to the tomb???

And when word of the disciples claims of resurrection got out, why is it that no one pointed out across the Kidron Valley to Jesus' rotting corpse still hanging between two thieves?

Why is that 150 years later, the ONLY charge that was still making the rounds was that the disciples had STOLEN the body? I gave you a plausible explanation as to why Pilate acted as he did. One attested to by an ancient source. All you have is your own speculation as to what Pilate may or may not have done.

Because the Romans didn't much notice Jesus at all for quite some time.  There are few references to Christians early on and none to the "threat" of Jesus.

Heh...the only charge made by the JEWS was that the body was stolen. That's what I'm referring to...not the Romans.

And your "what-ifs" still don't account for Facts 2, 3 & 4, Jenny. Paul hated Christians, applauded the stoning of Stephen and was going from village to village arresting Christians. Why did he suddenly become a believer? And why did James suddenly become a believer?

You have not accounted for these conversions by means of Pilate.

I haven't accounted for alien abductions, Joseph Smith's witnesses, or the ascension of Augustus, or the miracles of Hindu priests either. People believe and claim to believe the oddest things.  And when we can investigate those things they turn out to be false every time.  Therefore when such claims are made and we cannot test them, I see no reason to believe they are true.  No historical document will ever convince me of a miraculous event.

And we can take each of those one at a time at some point in the future, if you like.

But for the purposes of THIS thread, what theory do you propose as an explanation of the five facts?

That's because we do and can know what happened. If not with 100% certitude then with more certainty that you care to admit.

No we really can't.

Yeah, Jenny, we can. People just as smart as you have been looking at the same facts and arguments for 2,000 years. The resurrection is the most plausible explanation of ALL of the facts we know about Jesus.

That's not the voice of a professional historian speaking, is it?

Actually, it's a paraphrase of Ehrman, several of my professors and who know who else, all of them professional historians.  What we can know about the past has limits.  Historians know that.  (Guess my major?)

Limits? Sure. As you well know, history major, our knowledge of the past is all about probabilities.

Jenny, I have Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? on the desk here as I type. I suspect you have read it since the outline of what you believe about Jesus that you gave previously followed very closely what he said in his introduction.

Ehrman is unambiguous. Jesus existed. We can and do know certain things about him and there are numerous independent sources for this information including the gospels which are historically valuable.