Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Redbeard The Pink]

As I noted in the OP, "this discussion will not consider whether the New Testament is reliable nor attempt to prove that it is. The conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead will not depend upon that argument."

If you have any opposing arguments you wish to make regarding any of the material I have presented, please make your case in response to the appropriate post(s):

Post 1 - My OP
Post 65 - Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
Post 148 - Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
Post 283 - Fact 3: Paul, the enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted
Post 460 - Fact 4: James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.
Coming Soon - Fact 5: Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

Thanks.

I'll gladly destroy all these points. Again. Pay attention this time. Take notes maybe.


It only takes one argument, really. You contradict yourself at the outset, and you have to fix that somehow before moving on.


You claim that your argument doesn't rely on the veracity of the New Testament in an underhanded attempt at discouraging debate on that matter, and then you go on to build your argument on facts that are asserted by the New Testament and supported by little (if any) other evidence.


Furthermore, even if we granted a hypothetical where the five dubious "facts" you named could be justly assumed, you have still failed to demonstrate how a human rising from clinical death is the most likely explanation for any or all of them.


Paul, James and the disciples might have been hallucinating, for one thing. Jesus could have been a gifted con man who fooled even his core followers. The tomb might have been empty because the body was moved. It might not have been empty, but the story still got written that way. The whole story could even be fictional.


Every one of those explanations is at least as plausible as yours, if not more so, and you couldn't disprove those explanations any more easily than we could disprove yours.


Your point, then, comes down to argument from ignorance. It boils down thusly:


"You guys can't prove that your explanations are right, nor that mine is wrong. We don't actually know for sure what happened back then. My magical, unreasonable explanation, however, seems more plausible to me than your mundane, reasonable one, therefore it has to be true."


The truth is that no, your crazy explanation is not the only conceivable one, and nothing says that it HAS to be true, even if all your presuppositions could be granted. You're just picking the answer you like and trying to bend the rules of what evidence is so you can support your asinine claims.