Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[pocaracas]

I'll try to make this easy...

We have evidence that a guy named Jesus who lived 2,000 ago claimed to be God.

You have evidence that a guy, let's call him Jesus, lived somewhat 2000 years ago, went against some part of the established religious leadership and got nailed.
You have no evidence for any claim of godhood.

And that He predicted that he would die and rise again.

No evidence for this either.
Just a story.

And that some people seemed to think that He pulled it off.

That's part of the same story.

Now, if that is true - the rising again part, that is - then it suggests that maybe He was who He claimed to be and that the rest of what He said might be important. Especially if He's, you know, God.

You are aware that, far before this guy we're agreeing to call Jesus came along, people already believed in the existence of gods?... and, in that particular region, the people believed in the existence of a single deity, but were well aware of other people who believed in pantheons... you are aware of this, right?

Could the belief in a particular god have spawned the story I mentioned above? The story you seem to be assuming is a depiction of reality... but is mostly manufactured.
You never said what bits of historicity Bart Ehrman claims can be extracted from the NT...

Not saying for sure...not committing to anything just yet...but it's probably worth looking into.

So, what I don't understand is indifference and willful ignorance.

What you don't understand is human psychology (which can be safely assumed to be roughly the same now as it was then)