Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Well as they say, one is rarely convinced by the arguments while actually engaged in discussion but I hope the readers will notice the takeaway; namely that the probability a historical Jesus didn't exist is just as likely if not more than the probability that he did. In any case I stand by my OP in this thread when stating that because of the lack of good evidence for minimal facts for existence one can't even move past the first point to the resurrection. At this point we will just be talking past each other. I believe Jesus was fictive and you believe he wasn't. At any rate, this has been a pleasure Randy.

---

Thank you for the good discussion.

Ah. You are a Jesus Myther. A discredited position that even most atheists and skeptics reject.

Here a just a few of the quotes that I have been collecting from atheists and others on the question of the historical Jesus. Since you are a fan of the Jesus Seminar, you'll love the one from its founder, John Dominic Crossan!

Atheists & Skeptics on the Historical Jesus

Bart Ehrman

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” (Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)

“It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection” The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.276).

Gerd Ludemann (Atheist)

“Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” (Ludemann, Gerd, The Resurrection of Christ, Pg 50.)

Michael Martin (Atheist)

“Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of the biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus’ existence is a myth. Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers.” (Michael Martin, “Skeptical Perspectives on Jesus’ Resurrection”, in Delbert Burkett’s The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, Oxford: Blackwell, 2011), 285.)

John Dominic Crossan (The Jesus Seminar)

Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.” (John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145.)

Marcus Borg (The Jesus Seminar)

“An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with ‘theology’ and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis”–Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright “A Vision of the Christian Life”, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007), 236

Robert J. Miller (The Jesus Seminar)

“We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE” (Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999, p. 38.)