Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Cyberman]

Since the asswipe is ignoring me one of you guys can pick this up and shove up his stupid ass without him knowing.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.co...pologetic/

This apologetic takes a variety of forms [4], but William Craig’s variation used in his debates about the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps the most popular. Craig claims that there are “four facts” about Jesus’ resurrection (taken from his website here):

1. After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
   
2. On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
   
3. On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
   
4. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
   

Craig uses the term “facts,” in order to treat these premises as non-negotiable. The reality, however, is that his first two facts are not even accepted by many mainstream scholars. Scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, for example, doubt the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. For a good read on Ehrman’s case against the historicity of Joseph’s tomb, you can consult his blog series “Did the Romans Allow Decent Burials?.” Likewise, Ehrman also doubts the discovery of the empty tomb by women, which he discusses in his article “The Women and the Empty Tomb.”

Fuck him over good, boys.

It's probably not best practice for someone to quote your post who cannot be ignored, so I at least won't be doing that. Sorry.