Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 27, 2025, 8:54 am

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(July 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Pizza Wrote: Because ancient people know better than modern biologists. I agree science must be mute and historians can talk all they want. No limits for them because.....magic. Historians use magic all the time as explanations. Historians never appeal to science.

Modern biologists know more about biology, but they aren't any more capable of recognizing a dead body when they see one than Jesus' contemporaries were. In fact, come to think of it, there is one fact recorded in the gospel of John that your modern science can explain...and that proves John was actually telling the truth.

When the Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side, John records:

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

It turns out, this little detail which would have made NO SENSE to John or his readers, is very factual. People in Jesus' day would not have been able to explain why "blood and water" flowed from Jesus' side, but modern medical experts can. Can you?

Quote:
Quote:"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."

We know Jesus performed miracles because ancient sources say so, fuck science, fuck common sense. Also fuck inductive reasoning and the principle of analogy. We needs them? I love Jesus.

Exactly. We can say that Jesus probably performed miracles because eye-witnesses say so. This is not an affront to science; science simply cannot account for things outside the natural realm.

As for inductive reasoning, are you sure of this? An inductive argument would be:

P1. In my entire life, I have never seen a person resurrected from the dead after two or three days of being dead.
Conclusion. Therefore, Jesus did not resurrect from the dead after two or three days of being dead.

However, if someone who has abilities beyond the ordinary human being's ability to give life chooses to raise that person from the dead, does the fact that we ordinarily wouldn't expect it (and, in fact, in the ordinary course without intervention by an outside power would find it to be impossible) mean that it can't happen?

When speaking of God -- who is outside of our physical universe, who created everything we see, and who gives and sustains life -- it is not unreasonable to note that His involvement can disrupt the strongest of inferences as to what should happen and would happen in 99.99999% of all cases.

Quote:
Quote:"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."

Because god is resurrecting people like all time. Just the other day I walked down the street and tripped over a resurrected person. It's a well known fact of biology these happen. Last Tuesday god turn me into a newt....I got better.

Not much better, apparently. You still think like a newb.

God doesn't need to resurrect people "all the time" to conquer death and free us from sin. Which WAS the whole point of the incarnation.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach - by Randy Carson - July 8, 2015 at 5:57 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 4790 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 13049 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 26402 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 20029 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 15244 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 46729 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 34764 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 23386 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 464380 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 8683 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)