Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Fail #1: The apostles weren't all martyred by Romans. Thomas was martyred in India, but not because the Romans would have killed him "regardless".

Red herring. All that matters is that there is a simple explanation that is consistent with biology and psychology, therefore the explanation is more likely than yours.

Uh, no, you're going to have to account for ALL of the evidence that is available to us in your explanation.

Wait...I thought the apostles simply made everything up. Now, you're switching to the legend theory. These are two different things. Are you not sure what really happened?

Did you read what I said. "There, I named two explanations" I was giving two different explanations more likely than resurrection given biological facts about dead bodies. It is more likely that con-men/cult leaders should die for a lie than for a dead man to resurrect three days later and then shoot up into the sky. No matter how unlikely it is more likely than flying dead man.

And both explanations fail to account for all of the information that we have at our disposal.

Simply saying, "Gee, people rise from the dead a whole lot less frequently than con men die for a lie" doesn't really cut the mustard. First, we're talking about a dozen of these con men and not one of them cracked. How likely is that? Second, Paul would not have been converted by the mere stories of con men when he was already putting believers into jail and had seen the stoning of Stephen, the first con man to die for his faith.

So, no, you really haven't accounted for ALL the evidence by your two theories.

Fail #2: The proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15 dates to within about five years of the resurrection. Not much time for legend to have sprung up...especially since people who were familiar with the events of Jesus' very public ministry and execution were still alive. Skeptics and believers both, btw.

What is the bold claim based on? It's actually a scientific claim, so where's the evidence for that being unlikely? If it is unlikely because it normally doesn't happen then bodily resurrection would be unlikely on the same grounds.

It's not a scientific claim; it's a historical claim made by eye-witnesses or those who had access to eye-witnesses.

Fail #3: Yes, we do have a pretty good idea that the gospels were written by the authors whose names they bear. See my "Historical Reliability of the NT" thread for full details.

I'm not going to read every thread you write.

Your loss. Truly.

Oh, and clear reasons why your theories don't hold water.

Not really. You haven't really given one explanation with any explanatory virtues like being supported by biological facts. As has been pointed again and again dead bodies don't resurrect is a fact of biology. The facts of biology win, if can't give stronger "evidence" to overturn well known biological facts. Hear say from ancient times isn't enough. Give me biological fact. I've shown there is a shadow of a doubt. That's all I need to do to deflate your case.

I agree that under normal circumstances, dead bodies don't resurrect. Okay, so what?

All that biology can tell us is that a person is not going to rise from the dead by natural causes. But this does not apply to Jesus’ resurrection, since we are not claiming that Jesus came back to life naturally. The writers of the New Testament asserted that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. Science must be mute on this point.

Additionally, the resurrection is not an isolated event; it occurred in the religious context that gives it meaning. This context includes such facts as Jesus’ personal claims to divinity, his deeds that appeared miraculous in nature, and possibly even his predictions concerning his resurrection. Within this context, Jesus’ resurrection is right at home.

How so? In this thread, all I have done is present non-biblical evidence that points to a conclusion.

You're assuming it is likely there is a god that resurrects dead men.

The evidence shows that a man named Jesus rose from the dead as He promised to do. If true, then His other claims (including His claim to be divine) are worth serious consideration.

They could argue the same way. And we would demand evidence of them just as you are demanding it of me. Problem is, they don't have any.

Neither do you. Where is the evidence for god resurrecting dead people? You can't point to all these ancient anecdotes and interpret them as strong evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. They aren't because they contradict scientific fact about human biology. [emphasis added]It don't matter if they say a dead man walked in the same way it doesn't matter how many people claim that had their penis stolen by wizards. These things don't normally happen and there is no hard biological evidence for things like this happening. It's all a matter of inductive reasoning. This is how most historians study other periods of history. If a holocaust denier produced an a few eyewitnesses claiming the holocaust was a satanic mass hallucination, the mountains of evidence for the holocaust would trump that. There is nothing more to say.

Oh. I don't have any evidence because you say I don't. And you say I don't because your science cannot explain the supernatural. But rather than admit that limitation, you insist that God does not exist because you have no evidence. And you rule out the evidence that can be shown because it is your belief that God cannot suspend the laws of nature (which He made, btw) in order to provide a miraculous sign - the very evidence that you demand of his existence.

On the other hand, if miracles are possible and if a God does exist, then the resurrection is far more plausible; in fact, in light of the testimony of the gospels, it is probable.