Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[pocaracas]

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

Sure. Start with the idea that almost everything can be explained by science and human reasoning. Then, when faced with something that cannot be explained naturally after having exhausted all possibilities, ask whether something supernatural may have occurred.

You don't have to have "belief" in God, but you do have to be open to the possibility of God. Those are two different things and the latter is not incompatible with skepticism.

That's where I'm working... thus far, nothing you've presented, nor anything that I have witnessed, has exhausted all possibilities.
Sure, some things have defied my immediate explanation, but that doesn't mean that it requires magic.

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

I'm headed off to work in a few minutes...and this will take a lot longer than I have to cover adequately. More later, okay?

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?

Trustworthy? I cannot say. Accurate? I'm skeptical.  

I provided solid reasons for an early dating of the gospels in the Historical reliability thread. In brief, at the end of Acts, Paul is still in prison. Since he was martyred in AD 65, Acts must have been written before that date. And since Acts was volume two of Luke's works, gLuke must have been written much earlier...say AD 55-60...and it was based in part upon even earlier works. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible dates the authorship of both of these works in the early 60's.

"Solid"?
You're basing everything on the accuracy of Paul's martyrdom... Let's move up to that level, then... how do you know this AD65 is accurate?

Care to back that up with something?

I did in the Historical Reliability thread. John died c. AD 95. All of the canonical gospels were completed before that date. The Gospel of Thomas, Peter and others were composed in the second century.

I didn't follow that thread... did people generally agree with this detail?

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...

Okay. That simply increases the likelihood that the Romans did execute Jesus by what was a common method.

0-1

aye...

-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.

Incorrect. What I have are accounts which are multiply attested that the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. But they are not late nor is there any reason to believe that they are inaccurate. As has been pointed out, 1 Co 15 includes an ancient proto-creed of the Church which Paul learned as early as five years from the resurrection event itself.

0-2

"multiply attested"?!
Or multiply repeated?

Did Paul learn that five years after the "resurrection event"? or decades after the Teacher was killed and expected to return?

Not 0-2

-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.

Great. All we need now is your explanation of why Paul went from persecuting the Church to building it up and we will have something to discuss.

No points awarded.

My foreigner english must be failing... You must first establish that he was a "persecutor of the church".
Weren't the Romans accommodating of every religion and cult within their borders, at this time?

-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?

As a Catholic, I agree since Mary was ever-virgin. James was a cousin of Jesus...but that is a minor point. James was NOT skeptical after the resurrection because Jesus appeared to him. And you should be skeptical until the facts sink in more clearly. After that....

Ok, he wasn't skeptical "after" the resurrection... but was skeptical before... even knowing, like the supposed disciples, of all the wonders J.C. was doing. He never went "home" to heal a bruised knee, or anything for his "family"?

Or was this an element of the "brotherhood" that may have been resurfacing the Teacher mythos?

-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?

Okay. But that doesn't really take away from Facts 1-4, does it?

I'll pick up on the rest of this later today...time for work.

Well, at least, we've managed to get your 5 "facts" down to 4...

Do note that I'm providing potential natural explanations for many of your points... "potential", meaning I have no evidence to back them up with, but, like minimalist told you earlier, any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely, is far more likely than a supernatural one.
And, since we're dealing with very incomplete data, you can't eliminate all possible natural explanations.... no one can. Hence, the natural explanation(s) is(are) still the most likely explanation(s).