Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[pocaracas]

If they do occur, why should I have to "believe" that they do occur? Why Am I restricted to "believing"?
Why are they so secret that people must become aware of them through writings or tales by other people?

You're not restricted to "believing". You can experience God's presence in your life, and then you would "know".

Care to tell me how I can do that without any prior belief in the existence of any god?

AS others have told you in the past: put aside your moldy miracles and bring forth some new ones.
(pro tip - cures for as-yet not fully understood conditions, like cancer, do not count; but human limb regrowth without any exterior aid does count)

There are examples of miraculous things that have occurred more recently, but you discount them. And here's the thing: you're operating from a hermeneutic of suspicion which seeks to find a way to eliminate any proposed miracle. Now, I agree that others are too quick to believe everything is a miracle, but the correct approach is to find a neutral ground from which the data can be evaluated more objectively.

I'm not sure you could actually do that, frankly.

There are? Oh goodie! Let's have them!
Do keep my pro tip in mind, though.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I wrote.
Luke was not a disciple, nor was Paul.
Concerning "Luke's" contribution to the NT, the wiki says something interesting:

Whoever wrote this "Luke" did, most likely, lie or was induced into lying by the content on which he(or they) was based.

The disciples... could be extras on the story, for all we know.
The very existence of a Jesus that was crucified is barely supported... the existence of that person's disciples, on the other hand, seem to be assumed by you. Why?
Well, someone did perpetuate the tale; someone did spread it as far as modern-day-Turkey and turned into a cult... You can call whoever did that a disciple... but was that accomplished by the people in the tale? Or someone else? Someone unnamed, nameless, unknown, missing... Someone whose relation to the original Jesus is unknown. Someone who may have carried a part of a previous tale with him, so as to make it easier to memorize... the tale of a teacher, perhaps?
Ultimately, it's unknown.

Luke was written earlier than you claim and it was based in part upon Luke's personal investigation as well as his reliance on OLDER written materials (Q, Mark and L as you noted). 80-100? No. This is not the date range of most scholars.

That's the range found on the wiki... and referenced to "Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3."
Is this reference not trustworthy?

ALL of the four gospels were completed within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John.

Care to back that up with something?

So, I ask again, what is your theory that explains the five facts I have posted in this thread? It sound to me like you are uncertain as to whether Jesus himself ever existed and that consequently, there probably weren't any first century disciples. Is that a fair summary of your view?

1) My theory that explains the five "facts"?... throughout this thread, I've shown how many of those "facts" are riddled with problems and cannot be considered facts. Even if they were facts, any of them can be given several possibilities, before your conclusion is even considered.
-your fact "1. Jesus died by crucifixion": Tons of people died by crucifixion...
-your fact "2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them": some guy who got crucified had followers, ok, I'll give you that. But that they believed that person to have resurrected? That, I haven't given you. What you have are later accounts of people claiming that those followers believed thus... As always, too far removed to be trustworthy.
-your fact "3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed": where, apart from his own words and those that came after him, do you find that this person was a "persecutor of the church"? The tale of people suddenly changing religion due to some sudden epiphany is too common to be taken seriously, as it can happen to and from any religion.
-your fact "4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed": The tale can refer to several James; Calling the man a brother does not mean he was born of the same parents; how come his own brother was skeptical? If he was, even after that so-called resurrection, how on Earth am I not expected to be?!
-your fact "5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty": Was there even a tomb? Or was that a part of the story that got added later? Until that is cleared up, we can't say anything about it being empty of full, can we?

Facts that need further evidence
1. A person called Jesus existed and he preached a loving-god interpretation of the Torah (:wink: the Teacher)
2. This Jesus had people following him around (:wink: like the Teacher)
3. This person rubbed the established spiritual/secular leaders the wrong way and got himself killed (:wink: like the Teacher)
4. He got killed by crucifixion
5. He was put in a tomb, unlike the usual practice of leaving people there hanging for days
6. He was actually living for a while after that dying ordeal.


2) I'm fairly certain that some such person did exist (:wink: like the Teacher), maybe not in the first century, maybe earlier. If this person was a teacher, then it would stand to reason that he would have apprentices, disciples, people who would learn from him... like Socrates did.
However, the disciples in the tale look a lot like a caricature of real disciples... always amazed at any show of miracle workmanship, always doubtful, always idiots, until after the alleged resurrection and then they start preaching all over -again, an ordinary epiphany-like sudden conversion.... another caricature.

Still, for the relevance it supposedly has, Id' expect a good, caring, powerful god to show people that it's there.
People of every generation (throughout the ages) and every geographical location should be made equally aware of this god.
Unfortunately, reality paints a picture of a very localized (both in time and space) deity. A great hint that it is far from divine, and closer to man-made.

Why is equality of knowledge of God a requirement? God judges people based on what they know of him; we are not accountable for what we do not know. So, South American jungle tribes have less knowledge of God - but not NO knowledge - while Muslims and Jews know more, etc.

Why is this a problem?

Why?... Because he supposedly can... and, yet, doesn't lift a finger to accomplish it.
On the other hand, I see a ton of people trying to convince other people that their view of their god is the right one and that those others should believe in what they tell them.
People, I see people doing what should be god's task. Why do people like you keep butting into god's business? Let him work his magic by himself. Let him convince us.