I don't understand what Jesus dying by crucifixion has to do with the resurrection claim. The fact this is trotted out as Fact #1 in the minimal facts argument seems bizarre.
Habermas likes to invoke scholars; however, the same scholars recognize Mark as the first Gospel. The scholars also accept that the original manuscripts of Mark say nothing of Jesus' post burial activities; no appearances, no conversation with disciples and no ascension. As I recently mentioned in another thread, I cannot fathom these events being simply overlooked as inconsequential by the author of Mark. It's much more reasonable to conclude that the post death activities of Jesus were later fabricated. This is bolstered by the fact that those in control chose to 'correct' Mark's lack of attention to detail.
I'm confident Habermas doesn't have a reasonable answer for this, but pinning him down for an answer for the above would be the only compelling reason for me to accept your invitation.
Habermas likes to invoke scholars; however, the same scholars recognize Mark as the first Gospel. The scholars also accept that the original manuscripts of Mark say nothing of Jesus' post burial activities; no appearances, no conversation with disciples and no ascension. As I recently mentioned in another thread, I cannot fathom these events being simply overlooked as inconsequential by the author of Mark. It's much more reasonable to conclude that the post death activities of Jesus were later fabricated. This is bolstered by the fact that those in control chose to 'correct' Mark's lack of attention to detail.
I'm confident Habermas doesn't have a reasonable answer for this, but pinning him down for an answer for the above would be the only compelling reason for me to accept your invitation.
