Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Tonus]

Minimum facts?  The most "minimum" facts one can have is ZERO!
At least he is being honest this time...

As I understand it, when studying history we often have little information to go on. We may not be able to prove conclusively that a lot of historical figures actually existed, and some (Socrates?) we may never be sure of. Based on that, we can accept that "historical Jesus" existed, in the sense that the stories we read are based on an actual person.

The reason we don't think about this much when it comes to Charlemagne or Genghis Khan is that we understand that these were mortal men. They may have done some great things (and perhaps more, or perhaps fewer, than are attested to) but none of those things included anything we would not expect from a normal person. If there are such accounts, we dismiss them as myth-building. I certainly do not see Christians recognizing Vespasian as an honest-to-goodness miracle worker, even if they accept the idea that those accounts refer to a real person.

Which is why I don't concern myself with whether "historical Jesus" is fact or myth. The question is, are any of the stories attributed to him real? We would have no issue with the idea that a man became famous for preaching his brand of religion, and that his charisma and speaking ability led many to follow him, and that eventually he ran afoul of the local religious leaders, who had him eliminated in a painful and humiliating manner. None of that requires gods or magic. When you get to the parts where he walks on water, cures the blind and paralyzed, brings the dead to life, and finally brings himself back to life before ascending to heaven on a cloud... you need more than written accounts.

Otherwise, you need an altar to Vespasian inside your church, lest you anger god by forgetting one of his chosen messengers.