Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

I did not say that all the stories are true. I said that some [legitimate] miracles may have occurred because God desires all men to come to know him.

If "stories" were simply made up "God of the gaps" fashion, that would not be action on God's part, now would it?

And herein lies the problem. You will only accept stories as fact or credible if they align with your preconceptions for how things should be according to your gospel.

Anything that doesn't coincide with what you believe (without evidence) can be dismissed as fictitious at your discretion.

That is called bias. That is also why Christian scholars studying and attempting to prove the validity of the Bible aren't taken seriously.

And let's not forget, your dismissal of stories that don't align with your beliefs allows me the same luxury to just as easily dismiss all of your so-called facts that you posted in the OP as just stories that were invented strictly for the sake of telling a good story.

Edit: ^ This is what all of that back and forth was leading up to. But you didn't get to find that out because you attacked me on a separate train of thought before you continued the conversation. Nice try, Randy, but no dice.

Is Bart Ehrman, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a respected NT scholar?

Does he say that Jesus existed as a real person?

The idea that Jesus is no different than the 2,000+ gods of ancient history who have been largely forgotten may make it easier for you to discount Christianity (without actually thinking), but it's not a legitimate argument. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other so-called gods lack any real substance.

Regardless of the "alleged parallels" (which CAN be argued quite coherently, but that doesn't actually matter for the sake of this topic), you can not deny the teachings of another religion if you're going to assert that your god exists and all the proof you need is that somebody wrote it down thousands of years ago.

With that I'll reiterate IATIA point (which you so eloquently overlooked), the very reason you reject all other gods in human history is the same reason we reject yours. There is no subjective evidence to support their stories and the stories aren't credible.

Oh, I have not doubt that the reason is the same. The difference is that one God has the goods and the others don't. And you have failed to make that distinction.

All that ping-pong back and forth just to build up to that zinger?

I'm underwhelmed.

You're trying to assert that popular opinion = fact. An underwhelming statement generates an underwhelming response. (Let's face it, the Vikings aren't around anymore because England had bigger armies. War doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong, only who is left)

I hope you can do better than that, Randy.

If you're referring to my post to Neimenovic some time back where I said that there are approximately 2 billion Christians...then, no, I wasn't appealing to numbers, and this has just been pointed out to Neimenovic in a post made by me moments ago.

If however, you are referring to my claim that professional NT scholars at accredited universities overwhelmingly accept the minimal facts as presented in the OP of this thread, then yes, I am. But not without sufficient reason for doing so.

The tide of opinion among academics has turned in the last 50 years or so, and the atheism that once reigned in the corridors of university philosophy departments is on the wane. This may not have trickled down to the howling masses in the streets, and it may not for other reasons, but it is true nonetheless.

Jesus really existed, and educated people know this to be true.

So, where do you stand?