Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Tonus]

As I understand it, when studying history we often have little information to go on. We may not be able to prove conclusively that a lot of historical figures actually existed, and some (Socrates?) we may never be sure of. Based on that, we can accept that "historical Jesus" existed, in the sense that the stories we read are based on an actual person.

The problem with that, Tonus, is that you are giving them the proverbial inch.  They cannot be given anything on the basis of their assertions or special pleading.  If Habermas wants to talk about facts then he should be forced to provide evidence for each of those "facts."  They are not "facts" until he does.

I understand that. But because the gap between "the Jesus character in these stories is based on a real guy" and "he is god and did all of these magic things and will return any minute now" is so immense as to be impossible to cross, I'm comfortable with giving that inch and seeing how they try to cover the next hundred light-years.

I suppose I'm just tired of the endless conversation that comes from such a worthless point. There were probably a few guys named Clark Kent who lived in the USA in the 1930s. Imagine spending this much time discussing whether any of them really existed, instead of getting on to the part where they try to prove that any one of them was Superman. Or put another way, we can't ask them to strap on a cape and jump off of a skyscraper until we dispense with the formalities...