Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[KevinM1]

Stop.  Stop right there.  This is you trying to twist what evidence exists of the events at the time to support a conclusion that you already believe in without consideration of the evidence itself.  This is how creationists work: "We know god exists, now let's compile evidence for it."  It's a completely fallacious, intellectually dishonest means of 'inquiry'.  And that's the main reason you've been taken to task.  The scholars that you have no problem quoting?  They don't work that way.

You also continue to prop up the claim - the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection - as evidence of itself.  It also doesn't work that way.  You need corroborating evidence.  And there's very little.  Most of it is in the form of, "This is what these people in the ancient middle east actually believed, and here's some actual history providing context for some of the oddities/events/whatever."  There is nothing at all that suggests that the resurrection actually happened.  Nothing at all to suggest divinity in action.  Except in your bible.

Moreover, the bible as the claim is suspect itself since the gospels aren't direct evidence.  They're not even direct eyewitness testimony.  They were written, what, 50+ years after the fact?  And contain conflicting accounts of Jesus' life?  The claim is literally hearsay, compiled and written by people with a vested interest in selling their messiah to the masses.  It cannot be taken with nearly the seriousness you demand.

You want to talk about presupposition?  You're exhibiting it in spades.  And stomping your feet while repeating the same thing with new quotes from various scholars (often bereft of context and not actually saying what you think they're saying) is not an argument.

If this is the best you can do after a decade of online apologetics, consider me unimpressed.

Only since May 13 with atheists, but I'm coming up to speed pretty quickly on the arguments and tactics.

However, in this thread, I'm defending five minimal facts.

What refutation have you offered to any of them?

Did you even read what I wrote?

You continue to conflate the claim for evidence of the claim.  The claim itself is incredibly weak, given it's hearsay.

Your 'facts' are mostly assertions.  Others have given you plenty of point-by-point refutation, so I don't feel the need to regurgitate what they have already said.  I'm not a Christian apologist; I understand that simply repeating the same thing in different ways doesn't strengthen my position.