Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

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.

Habermas says surveyed NT scholars most of whom are theologians and who's opinion of whether the book they faithfully believe is true is about as critical as a mother's love.  ("Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included." http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...2_2005.htm)   And even his paper is doesn't find a majority of scholars found that the original twelves saw anything.  What he found was much more limited:

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...05.htm#ch4  And even for that limited consensus Habermas relies primarily on theologions including Reginald Fuller a British angelican priest and theologian;  John Meier, a Catholic Priest, who authenticates the claims of Paul and James but not the disciples of Jesus referred to in the gospels as people who reported having seen Jesus; and James D.G. Dunn, yet another British theologian and again one who relies visions of early Christians, not necessarily your disciples.  

So if the claim is some early Christians had visions they thought were of Jesus, I agree they did.  But that doesn't show the disciples did.

Jenny, I have read that article in the past, and I am quite comfortable with it. I encourage everyone in this forum to spend some time reading it.

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!

If Pilate did that it was while not exactly a first for Romans it was highly unusual and most uncharacteristic. Therefore highly unbelievable.  And it wouldn't have been the Jews throwing the corpse to the dogs, letting it rot on the cross, or burying it in a mass grave, it would have been the Romans.   It was considered part of the punishment.

But is that what happened, Jenny? The Romans buried Jesus?

Mark 15
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

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?

With the exception of Paul, we have no eyewitness.  The gospels are nothing like eyewitness testimony, and saying O YES THEY ARE over and over won't make them eyewitness testimony.  Paul claim a vision.  

Why were the disciples transformed from cowering men in hiding for fear of the Jews to bold evangelists who turned the world upside down?

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

It's an extra ordinary claim and the gospels are much less than ordinary evidence.  They cannot prove the resurrection.

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false.

Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself.

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred (William Lane Craig, “Stephen Law on the Non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth”, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-l...f-nazareth.).

So, no, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence...just like any other kind of claim.