Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

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

Do you have a theory about what happened that accounts for all five?

If so, we need to give it careful consideration. Thanks.

Not one of those things is a fact, let alone a minimal one, so I don't need a "theory" about even one. Even if I gave over to all of them as facts, they wouldn't prove anything about the Christ being god. I hope the circle will close itself off when I say you haven't even proven Christ existed, let alone your assertion that he was crucified to begin with, but luckily my hope isn't too great. You're welcome.

I have:

Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar Serapion, The Talmud...Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter...Clement, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Dionysius, Tertullian, Origen...

You have:




<crickets>

[Randy Carson]

"I will hold my position until it is proved wrong."

The argument from ignorance.

It's true, we can't prove you wrong. But that does not in any way mean you are right. [emphasis added]

It's a logical fallacy; broken thinking. This is important for anyone who wants to be taken seriously. The choice is yours.

I have shown not only that Jesus existed but that these five minimal facts are supported FROM HISTORICAL SOURCES outside the Bible. I have also provided commentary from agnostic/atheist Bart Ehrman, a world-class NT scholar, regarding why the gospels are important sources of historical information that cannot be dismissed as such.

Now, don't worry about "proving me wrong". This isn't a contest of winners and losers, rob.

Instead, ask yourself: Does the fact that Christians can actually make a reasonably strong case for the resurrection of Jesus suggest that I should investigate their claims more favorably?

[Randy Carson]

And his only source of "proof" for the supposed "facts".

There are some people who are so far gone that they believe anything. 

Apparently. Like Richard Carrier, for example.

Or worse...their own twisted ideas.

[Randy Carson]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

My God!!!! that was so PERFECT!!

I have to hug you

Stimbo's parody is clever. Although there are some parallels between Lucas' storyline and the Gospels, I suspect that this is overly stated because the plots vary on several points:

Obi-Wan Kenobi did not actually rise from the dead physically. The disciples touched Jesus, watched him eat a piece of fish and he prepared breakfast for them on a beach (cf Jn 21). To the best of my recollection, Obi-Wan Kenobi did not actually appear to Darth Vader. He did not appear to Han Solo.

[Randy Carson]

A lot of people suddenly change. Getting shot in the head will do that. Does that make the gunman God?

That you actually spent time considering this line of reasoning and posting it is astounding.

[Randy Carson]

You're not restricted to "believing". You can experience God's presence in your life, and then you would "know".

Care to tell me how I can do that without any prior belief in the existence of any god?

Sure. Start with the idea that almost everything can be explained by science and human reasoning. Then, when faced with something that cannot be explained naturally after having exhausted all possibilities, ask whether something supernatural may have occurred.

You don't have to have "belief" in God, but you do have to be open to the possibility of God. Those are two different things and the latter is not incompatible with skepticism.

There are examples of miraculous things that have occurred more recently, but you discount them. And here's the thing: you're operating from a hermeneutic of suspicion which seeks to find a way to eliminate any proposed miracle. Now, I agree that others are too quick to believe everything is a miracle, but the correct approach is to find a neutral ground from which the data can be evaluated more objectively.

I'm not sure you could actually do that, frankly.

There are? Oh goodie! Let's have them!
Do keep my pro tip in mind, though.

I'm headed off to work in a few minutes...and this will take a lot longer than I have to cover adequately. More later, okay?

Luke was written earlier than you claim and it was based in part upon Luke's personal investigation as well as his reliance on OLDER written materials (Q, Mark and L as you noted). 80-100? No. This is not the date range of most scholars.

That's the range found on the wiki... and referenced to "Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3."
Is this reference not trustworthy?

Trustworthy? I cannot say. Accurate? I'm skeptical.  

I provided solid reasons for an early dating of the gospels in the Historical reliability thread. In brief, at the end of Acts, Paul is still in prison. Since he was martyred in AD 65, Acts must have been written before that date. And since Acts was volume two of Luke's works, gLuke must have been written much earlier...say AD 55-60...and it was based in part upon even earlier works. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible dates the authorship of both of these works in the early 60's.

ALL of the four gospels were completed within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John.

Care to back that up with something?

I did in the Historical Reliability thread. John died c. AD 95. All of the canonical gospels were completed before that date. The Gospel of Thomas, Peter and others were composed in the second century.

So, I ask again, what is your theory that explains the five facts I have posted in this thread? It sound to me like you are uncertain as to whether Jesus himself ever existed and that consequently, there probably weren't any first century disciples. Is that a fair summary of your view?

1) My theory that explains the five "facts"?... throughout this thread, I've shown how many of those "facts" are riddled with problems and cannot be considered facts. Even if they were facts, any of them can be given several possibilities, before your conclusion is even considered.
-your fact "1. Jesus died by crucifixion": Tons of people died by crucifixion...

Okay. That simply increases the likelihood that the Romans did execute Jesus by what was a common method.

0-1

-your fact "2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them": some guy who got crucified had followers, ok, I'll give you that. But that they believed that person to have resurrected? That, I haven't given you. What you have are later accounts of people claiming that those followers believed thus... As always, too far removed to be trustworthy.

Incorrect. What I have are accounts which are multiply attested that the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. But they are not late nor is there any reason to believe that they are inaccurate. As has been pointed out, 1 Co 15 includes an ancient proto-creed of the Church which Paul learned as early as five years from the resurrection event itself.

0-2

-your fact "3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed": where, apart from his own words and those that came after him, do you find that this person was a "persecutor of the church"? The tale of people suddenly changing religion due to some sudden epiphany is too common to be taken seriously, as it can happen to and from any religion.

Great. All we need now is your explanation of why Paul went from persecuting the Church to building it up and we will have something to discuss.

No points awarded.

-your fact "4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed": The tale can refer to several James; Calling the man a brother does not mean he was born of the same parents; how come his own brother was skeptical? If he was, even after that so-called resurrection, how on Earth am I not expected to be?

As a Catholic, I agree since Mary was ever-virgin. James was a cousin of Jesus...but that is a minor point. James was NOT skeptical after the resurrection because Jesus appeared to him. And you should be skeptical until the facts sink in more clearly. After that....

-your fact "5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty": Was there even a tomb? Or was that a part of the story that got added later? Until that is cleared up, we can't say anything about it being empty of full, can we?

Okay. But that doesn't really take away from Facts 1-4, does it?

I'll pick up on the rest of this later today...time for work.

[Cyberman]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

My God!!!! that was so PERFECT!!

I have to hug you

Stimbo's parody is clever. Although there are some parallels between Lucas' storyline and the Gospels, I suspect that this is overly stated because the plots vary on several points:

Obi-Wan Kenobi did not actually rise from the dead physically. The disciples touched Jesus, watched him eat a piece of fish and he prepared breakfast for them on a beach (cf Jn 21). To the best of my recollection, Obi-Wan Kenobi did not actually appear to Darth Vader. He did not appear to Han Solo.

Doesn't matter. We can split hairs all day. The point is do you have a theory which explains all of these facts?

[pocaracas]

Care to tell me how I can do that without any prior belief in the existence of any god?

Sure. Start with the idea that almost everything can be explained by science and human reasoning. Then, when faced with something that cannot be explained naturally after having exhausted all possibilities, ask whether something supernatural may have occurred.

You don't have to have "belief" in God, but you do have to be open to the possibility of God. Those are two different things and the latter is not incompatible with skepticism.

That's where I'm working... thus far, nothing you've presented, nor anything that I have witnessed, has exhausted all possibilities.
Sure, some things have defied my immediate explanation, but that doesn't mean that it requires magic.

There are? Oh goodie! Let's have them!
Do keep my pro tip in mind, though.

I'm headed off to work in a few minutes...and this will take a lot longer than I have to cover adequately. More later, okay?

That's the range found on the wiki... and referenced to "Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3."
Is this reference not trustworthy?

Trustworthy? I cannot say. Accurate? I'm skeptical.  

I provided solid reasons for an early dating of the gospels in the Historical reliability thread. In brief, at the end of Acts, Paul is still in prison. Since he was martyred in AD 65, Acts must have been written before that date. And since Acts was volume two of Luke's works, gLuke must have been written much earlier...say AD 55-60...and it was based in part upon even earlier works. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible dates the authorship of both of these works in the early 60's.

"Solid"?
You're basing everything on the accuracy of Paul's martyrdom... Let's move up to that level, then... how do you know this AD65 is accurate?

Care to back that up with something?

I did in the Historical Reliability thread. John died c. AD 95. All of the canonical gospels were completed before that date. The Gospel of Thomas, Peter and others were composed in the second century.

I didn't follow that thread... did people generally agree with this detail?

1) My theory that explains the five "facts"?... throughout this thread, I've shown how many of those "facts" are riddled with problems and cannot be considered facts. Even if they were facts, any of them can be given several possibilities, before your conclusion is even considered.
-your fact "1. Jesus died by crucifixion": Tons of people died by crucifixion...

Okay. That simply increases the likelihood that the Romans did execute Jesus by what was a common method.

0-1

aye...

-your fact "2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them": some guy who got crucified had followers, ok, I'll give you that. But that they believed that person to have resurrected? That, I haven't given you. What you have are later accounts of people claiming that those followers believed thus... As always, too far removed to be trustworthy.

Incorrect. What I have are accounts which are multiply attested that the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. But they are not late nor is there any reason to believe that they are inaccurate. As has been pointed out, 1 Co 15 includes an ancient proto-creed of the Church which Paul learned as early as five years from the resurrection event itself.

0-2

"multiply attested"?!
Or multiply repeated?

Did Paul learn that five years after the "resurrection event"? or decades after the Teacher was killed and expected to return?

Not 0-2

-your fact "3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed": where, apart from his own words and those that came after him, do you find that this person was a "persecutor of the church"? The tale of people suddenly changing religion due to some sudden epiphany is too common to be taken seriously, as it can happen to and from any religion.

Great. All we need now is your explanation of why Paul went from persecuting the Church to building it up and we will have something to discuss.

No points awarded.

My foreigner english must be failing... You must first establish that he was a "persecutor of the church".
Weren't the Romans accommodating of every religion and cult within their borders, at this time?

-your fact "4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed": The tale can refer to several James; Calling the man a brother does not mean he was born of the same parents; how come his own brother was skeptical? If he was, even after that so-called resurrection, how on Earth am I not expected to be?

As a Catholic, I agree since Mary was ever-virgin. James was a cousin of Jesus...but that is a minor point. James was NOT skeptical after the resurrection because Jesus appeared to him. And you should be skeptical until the facts sink in more clearly. After that....

Ok, he wasn't skeptical "after" the resurrection... but was skeptical before... even knowing, like the supposed disciples, of all the wonders J.C. was doing. He never went "home" to heal a bruised knee, or anything for his "family"?

Or was this an element of the "brotherhood" that may have been resurfacing the Teacher mythos?

-your fact "5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty": Was there even a tomb? Or was that a part of the story that got added later? Until that is cleared up, we can't say anything about it being empty of full, can we?

Okay. But that doesn't really take away from Facts 1-4, does it?

I'll pick up on the rest of this later today...time for work.

Well, at least, we've managed to get your 5 "facts" down to 4...

Do note that I'm providing potential natural explanations for many of your points... "potential", meaning I have no evidence to back them up with, but, like minimalist told you earlier, any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely, is far more likely than a supernatural one.
And, since we're dealing with very incomplete data, you can't eliminate all possible natural explanations.... no one can. Hence, the natural explanation(s) is(are) still the most likely explanation(s).

[Jenny A]

Start with the idea that almost everything can be explained by science and human reasoning. Then, when faced with something that cannot be explained naturally after having exhausted all possibilities, ask whether something supernatural may have occurred.

Ah, the god of the gaps in all it's glory. The god that was proved by so many things that we we didn't understand but now do. . . oh wait.

The "god of the gaps" is theological reasoning which invokes divine intervention as a way to understand natural phenomena that science is presently unable to explain: Since we don't know how x happens, it is assumed that Goddidit. Of course, scientists and most rationalists would argue that naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible.[1]

The god of the gaps is one way for intelligent and scientifically literate theists to deal with the cognitive dissonance of believing in a transcendent god.

"God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Bringing us once again to what's wrong with "we don't know." Because it beats the hell out of let's pretend.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Randy, that sound you keep hearing is not crickets. It's the squeaking of your fingers rubbing against the wax in your ears.

Everything on that list is you keep mentioning is either a known forgery; a broad interpretation; a christian writing of some variety (biblical or otherwise, christian writings are the claim, not evidence); or the Talmud, which is also a piece of religious scripture and possibly a piece of anti-christian propaganda in spots. Nothing on that list has the kind of historical reliability you need to establish anything on your list as a definite, historical fact.

And AGAIN, even if you could, there are still simpler explanations for every claim on that list, and simpler explanations for that list as a whole. The whole thing revolves around "You don't have an explanation? Then GAUD is the explanation!" It's argument from ignorance, which is invariably the central pillar of the god claim. We are so, SO tired of it.