Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

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.

Yes, having started the thread that way you are.

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

Yay. Take one step forward.

Hardly.  It's where I began. Next?

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.

I don't think so.  That Pilate executed him for sedition yes.  That he was worried about the jealousy of Jewish leaders?  Probably not.  Romans soldiers and Pilate were not generally in Jerusalem.  They came in during the Passover, because Passover itself was thinly veiled sedition.  The symbolism of Passover was not wasted on the Romans.

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.[/Quote]

Almost without exception. Therefore, the exception would require explaination.

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.

Because the Romans didn't much notice Jesus at all for quite some time.  There are few references to Christians early on and none to the "threat" of Jesus.

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.

I haven't accounted for alien abductions, Joseph Smith's witnesses, or the ascension of Augustus, or the miracles of Hindu priests either. People believe and claim to believe the oddest things.  And when we can investigate those things they turn out to be false every time.  Therefore when such claims are made and we cannot test them, I see no reason to believe they are true.  No historical document will ever convince me of a miraculous event.

The thing that amazes me about your arguments over and over is your inability 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.

No we really can't.

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?

Actually, it's a paraphrase of Ehrman, several of my professors and who know who else, all of them professional historians.  What we can know about the past has limits.  Historians know that.  (Guess my major?)