Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[robvalue]

I got another one.

The bible speaks in metaphor a lot, doesn't it? Whenever it says something that is obviously untrue or inconvenient, then somehow we know that must be metaphor.

Well, the resurrection is a metaphor then. It's something that is obviously untrue (for those of us grounded in reality, I'm not alluding to 100% certainty of anything) and so it would be consistent to assume this is a metaphor also.

If it isn't metaphorical, how exactly do we know that it isn't? There are no guides in the text telling us what is and isn't a proper real account. If it's down to "interpretation" then we can't possibly know anyone's particular interpretation is correct.

Let's summarise:

1) God either sends/allows theists here to this forum knowing they will fail to convince us, or is surprised when they fail.

2) The accuracy of the majority of a book does not guarantee the accuracy of the rest of the book (at best it gives us some level of confidence if the rest of the book makes mundane and relatively unimportant claims). To say otherwise is to make the false dichotomy that authors are either 0% or 100% accurate.

3) There's no way to know the resurrection isn't metaphorical, if we allow that any of the bible can be metaphorical.

I'll be reading replies from theists to these points, and I'll reply to any honest attempts to address them.