Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

(Randy, I'm gonna do this bold because I think it makes this color easier to read...I'm not yelling at you   )

Let me try to make this as clear as I can: I've been an atheist for a matter of weeks. Before that, I was a sincerely believing protestant christian who grew up in a preaching household under two very intelligent, well-educated parents. I'm also a borderline genius and an extremely quick study. I have a comprehensive knowledge of the bible (including some bits about the ancient-language versions of the texts), and I have a reasonably sophisticated grasp of what you call "evidential apologetics," enough so that I used to string together my own arguments that were (in my head) miles ahead of the same old Pascal's Wager circular logic bullshit you see most people spouting on the internet.


Example: I used to go around telling people that it was possible to use quantum mechanics to mathematically prove that depending on where you're standing as space-time rapidly expands, 7 days and 14 billion years are actually the same amount of time, meaning the Old-Earth and Young-Earth people are essentially arguing about nothing. Then going to scripture, I'd point out two passages in particular: the one that states that to Jehovah, 1,000 years is like a day and a day is like 1,000 years; and the one that states that Jehovah is so large, he is able to hold the universe in the hollow of his hand.


Now, in general, people will use these two passages to describe the eternity and vastness of Jehovah, and to illustrate the fact that he exists outside time as we understand it. I, on the other hand, saw it as a biblical reference to the complex workings of quantum mechanics and space-time. The argument was essentially this: humans have an inherently limited perspective of time because we occupy a specific, finite location within space-time. Because Jehovah can perceive all of space-time, he can perceive 7 days and billions of years as the same span of time, and so tell us the earth is 7 days old without technically being wrong. We just didn't read the "1,000 years is like a day" passage correctly because it's in a different place than the creation story.


I now realize, of course, that this argument is horse shit and the "science" behind it probably isn't even legitimate. Suffice it to say, however, that I am personally and thoroughly familiar with the kind of mental gymnastics it takes to allow an otherwise rational, intelligent, scientific mind to believe that there's an invisible, benevolent creator in the sky, and that the christian bible is his inerrant word. I can also tell you that there is only apologetics. Evidential apologetics does not exist because, strictly speaking, there is no evidence for the existence of any gods. Apologists attempt to enter various arguments and logical tricks into the discussion as if they were evidence, but the simple fact remains that there is no evidence to suggest that any gods or supernatural things exist, just as there is no observable evidence to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Scripture is not evidence because scripture is the claim.

Well, I should probably be intimidated when dialoguing with someone who is so much smarter than I am, but I do it so frequently that I've grown accustomed to it.  

Given your intellect, I would recommend reading William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith if you have not already done so. He gets a bad rap from folks in this forum, but I don't really think the negativity is deserved. The man is well-educated, highly intelligent and articulate. Even if you don't agree with him, you will undoubtedly enjoy being challenged by him.

All that said, let's get to your points.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that the town/village of Nazareth has not yet been discovered by archaeologists?


Is that sufficient reason to discount the rest of the New Testament and the extra-biblical data concerning Jesus?

Perhaps not. It IS, however, reason to not believe that Nazareth existed until evidence surfaces that it did actually exist. Likewise, it is reasonable to withhold belief in the existence of Jesus Christ and Jehovah himself until evidence surfaces to demonstrate that one or both of those things does exist.

I disagree. Witnesses disagree with one another all the time on various details of a crime or accident that they have witnessed, but they agree on the main points. Whether Nazareth existed or not is not a main point, is it? Certainly it is no where near as significant as whether or not God exists. And on that point, all of the gospel writers agree.

This is because of the way that science looks at questions. The existence of something, say Nazareth for instance, is a non-falsifiable hypothesis; as you pointed out, it's always possible to say "Well, they just haven't found it yet." The non-existence of something, on the other hand, CAN be proven wrong because all you have to do is find one shred of definite evidence that Nazareth existed, and the hypothesis is wrong. Because of the way these two relate to each other, the premise that Nazareth existed is the hypothesis (h1), and the premise that it never existed is the null hypothesis (h0). Because the null hypothesis is the falsifiable claim, it is ALWAYS the default position until it is proven false.

In this case, the default position is that Nazareth did not exist. Until that position is proven false, that is the continued belief because it's the only one that is supported by a complete lack of evidence. That's not to say that it's true, that's just to say that until somebody proves otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the opposite is true: that Nazareth did exist. All the evidence brought forth thus far has been forged and/or misrepresented, so at this time there is no valid reason to believe that the town of Nazareth ever existed.

Let me stress again that scripture is not evidence of the town of Nazareth because it's the actual source of your claim. To support that claim, you must find evidence in the real world rather than within the text of scripture, or at least a secondary, non-christian text that mentions the place.

Why? If I read in a book about the Civil War that a Union soldier recorded in his diary that his men had taken up a position near a farm house AND THAT FARM HOUSE HAS VANISHED AND BEEN PAVED OVER BY A WALMART PARKING LOT, is it unreasonable for me to accept the existence of the farmhouse using the diary as evidence for its existence 150 years earlier?

It's the same with the gods. Until somebody can prove otherwise, non-existence is the default position and the default belief because it's the only one supported by the current level of evidence concerning the question of the gods' existence. 

I agree that the positive claim has the burden of proof.

There is also no "extra-biblical data" concerning Jesus. The bible and the christian writings that didn't make it in are the only data we have, and those (once again) are the claim. If you're talking about Josephus, there is no consensus on how much of that document is forged and how much of it is legit, but historians can definitely agree that those writings have been heavily forged and tampered with. If you're talking about Tacitus, there are two problems with his writings as evidence for Jesus: for one, they were written over 100 years after Jesus is supposed to have lived; the other problem is that Tacitus only briefly mentions a cult who called themselves Christians and who served a crucified lord named Jesus. He could have gotten that information by listening to them preach for 10 minutes or reading one of their texts...this does not qualify as evidence that the character they believed in was a real man.

Wrong on both counts. First, scholars do have a pretty good idea of what they can safely remove from the Testimonium Flavianum and second, there is no dispute over the second passage from Josephus which mentions James, the brother of Jesus. Finally, you might want to check your dates for Tacitus. Tacitus was a contemporary of Josephus.

However, Jesus was a peasant carpenter from an obscure village in a remote corner of the Roman Empire under occupation. How much information about him should we reasonably expect from contemporaneous sources? And yet, we have some, don't we?

So, no...the resurrection of Jesus and His other miracles are not "normal"...but they are "reasonable" given who Jesus is.

I really don't mean to sound trollish here, but you can't have this both ways. Either he was a regular carpenter dude from an obscure place whose mere existence is not an extraordinary claim, or he was a god-sent human sacrifice with magical powers whose mere existence IS an extraordinary claim.

If it's the first one, then sure maybe he existed, but he's not the god-being he's supposed to be, regardless of what people wrote about him later, and there ESPECIALLY isn't evidence to justify the claim that he had magic powers or was somehow walking proof of Jehovah's existence. If it's the second, then there just isn't evidence to justify his own existence at all.

Of course I can have it both ways. Think this through:

1. Jesus was an obscure itinerant preacher from a backwater of the Empire. During His lifetime, he was virtually unknown.
2. His disciples came to believe that He was God (based upon His post-resurrection appearances). They eventually overcame the Roman Empire.

Now, the fact that (1) preceded (2) doesn't create a problem. Jesus began his ministry in Galilee, but today, His teaching is known all over the world. That took time to accomplish.

Aramaic has no word for "cousin". Mary remained ever-virgin; consequently, Jesus' "brothers" were actually kinsmen - not uterine siblings.

Oh, that's right...you're catholic. Ok, listen dude...I hate to break this to you, but if Mary and Joseph really existed and she really gave birth to Jehovah's miracle baby, they fucked like rabbits when that was done. Maybe not right that moment, but soon after, I assure you. Joseph plowed the shit out of that Jew chick. Seriously. Believing a young, healthy, married couple never fucked takes more faith than even the protestants can muster.

What evidence do you have for your position?

And as a hint: Why do you think that Joseph was young when he married Mary?

Joking and stolen movie-humor aside, I'm telling you that this passage does not reference Jesus' earthly family, cousins or otherwise. The phrase "brothers of the Lord" consistently refers to Jesus' followers throughout scripture, and throughout modern colloquialism for that matter (for are not all Christians brothers and sisters in Christ?). Trying to use this passage to argue for historicity might be the strongest leg Jesus' existence has to stand on, and it's still a weak, wobbly leg, my friend.

After 10 years of online apologetics, I can bury you on this point. But I think we have more important issues at hand. We can discuss Catholicism later.

(To be continued...)