Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Normally, he wouldn't. Because crucified people normally stay dead.


The Jews pointed out to Pilate that Jesus had promised to rise from the dead, and collectively, they recognized that word of a risen Jesus would have spread quickly creating enormous problems for both the Jews and the Romans.


Look at the sequence of events in Mt 27, Jenny. Pilate had already granted permission to Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus in his family tomb BEFORE the problem of the resurrection claim was brought to Pilate's attention.

You are straying far, far, from your minimal facts. 

True. I thought we were sort of filling in the blanks. Am I restricted to the five only in this discussion with you? If so, okay.

You claim Pilate had Jesus cruxified.  I agree, that is most likely. 

Yay. Take one step forward.

But, you haven't proven anything about what anyone said to Pilate.  That's the point.  We don't know what happened and the Biblical narrative is highly unlikely and not reliable in the details.  It's unlikely Pilate would have executed anyone for blasphemy against the Jews. Sedition is probably the answer (or theft of a donkey ).  

Agreed. Pilate would have released Jesus because he knew the Jewish leaders were simply jealous, but he was finally persuaded by the charge of sedition.

It's unlikely Pilate would have allowed anyone to bury Jesus because that's not what the Romans did with crucified bodies. 

Always? Everywhere? Every time? Without exception? This is speculation unless you have ancient sources to this effect. I'd love to read anything you may have from Tacitus or someone proving that the Romans NEVER allowed a family to bury a crucified loved one.

And it's unlikely if that if Pilate thought the Jews would claim he had risen that Pilate wouldn't have just had the body rehung for all to see.  When worried about the possibility of a pretender, that's the classic answer, exhibit the body.

Why is that 150 years later, the ONLY charge that was still making the rounds was that the disciples had STOLEN the body? I gave you a plausible explanation as to why Pilate acted as he did. One attested to by an ancient source. All you have is your own speculation as to what Pilate may or may not have done.  

And your "what-ifs" still don't account for Facts 2, 3 & 4, Jenny. Paul hated Christians, applauded the stoning of Stephen and was going from village to village arresting Christians. Why did he suddenly become a believer? And why did James suddenly become a believer?

You have not accounted for these conversions by means of Pilate.

The thing that amazes me about your arguments over and over is your innablility to accept "we don't know and never will know" as a possible answer. 

That's because we do and can know what happened. If not with 100% certitude then with more certainty that you care to admit.

When it comes to events that happened yesterday that is often the real answer.  When it comes to events that happened 2000 years ago, it's most often the only honest answer.

That's not the voice of a professional historian speaking, is it?