Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Jenny, these are facts that professional NT scholars accept...even those who are skeptics. Now, you can continue to deny them if you like, but these are not the issues that keep the "big boys" up at night. They are accepted as "facts" by the vast majority of NT scholars. In light of that, perhaps YOU might provide some scholarship which shows why we should NOT accept them.

Only two of the items on your list are accepted by the majority of biblical historians:

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...he_Gospels

Gary Habermas has done a longitudinal study of hundreds of publications in multiple languages. Yes, the majority of scholars accept the first four of the minimal facts presented in my OP.

That Paul was first against and then for the Christian movement I'll grant you.

And the crucifixion by Pontius Pilate? Do you grant that, also?

But I will not grant you that Jesus was buried in a tomb.  There is much scholarly disagreement on that point:

N. T. Wright notes that the burial of Christ is part of the earliest gospel traditions.[18] John A.T. Robinson states that the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."[19] Rudolf Bultmann described the basic story as 'an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend'.[20]

John Dominic Crossan, however, suggests that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs as it hung on the cross so that there was nothing left to bury.[21] Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view widely accepted in scholarly literature.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus

It is highly improbable that the Roman's would have allowed the burial of anyone crucified by them.

Crossan's theory is what is truly laughable, Jenny. The Jews had very specific laws concerning the ritual uncleanness that resulted from coming into contact with a corpse. The idea that the Jews would allow dogs to roam the streets of the Holy City of Jerusalem potentially defiling everything they came into contact with is absurd. Pilate agreed to allow a senior member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus in his personal tomb because Pilate wanted to settle the crowd and avoid any more confrontations with the Jews. He had had enough for one day!

1. Conspiracy Theory.


2. Hallucination Theory.


Okay. 1 & 2. Both of these theories have solid refutations which I will post later today.


But why, Jenny? James was a skeptic for three years...Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead...allegedly. But none of that moved James to believe that Jesus was anything special. And then something changed. Scripture records that James saw Jesus after the resurrection. Scholars accept that as a known fact.

But you know better. So, what is your explanation for James' conversion?


Laughably? We'll see who's laughing once the evidence is examined.

So, who was it, Jenny? Who took the body? You're chuckling, so you must have a theory....

The point is not that anyone can show what happened other than resurrection but rather that there is insufficient evidence that resurrection happened.

You mean other than the testimony of the eyewitnesses (you know, the early Church)?

Other than the four written accounts which are included in the Bible?

Other than the testimony of the converted enemy of the Church, Paul?

You have no plausible explanation for these, Jenny...just your desire to ignore them to avoid the implications.

All of the things I suggested including the highly unlikely event of a hundred men entering into an elaborate conspiracy are less unlikely than resurrection.  It isn't necessary to prove any of them to demonstrate that the resurrection is more unlikely in this case because all of those things have demonstrably happened somewhere to some one and all are physically possible.   Mass hallucination have happened.  The British managed an enormous conspiracy called Fortitude South during WWII.  I'm sure I can come up with others.   People have stolen bodies both to properly bury them and to dishonor them, and to create the impression that the person is still alive.  

Resurrections have never been demonstrated.  Not once.

And the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the one example of a supernatural event that you're looking for.