Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[KevinM1]

"No rebuttals"

*notices the previous 114 pages. Snorts, loudly*

[Chas]

I'll be checking the thread periodically from now on, but unless something substantive is posted, there won't be any further need for me to respond.

Thank you all for your non-participation. It has been most instructive.

Oh, and when you go to bed tonight (and you don't forget to NOT say your prayers to a non-existent God), while you're lying there in the dark, just remember that you have no rebuttals for these five facts which point to the resurrection of Jesus.

Sweet dreams.

Do you even read the posts?  Or are you so delusional that you can't understand them?

[Pizza]

[robvalue]

Here is the big problem, and one of the reasons you're not being taken seriously Randy:

You assume that there is any truth in the bible, beyond what can be independently verified. I don't, nor do most others here. It's a story book, very very loosely based on reality and history. A little bit of accuracy here and there is not license to just assume whatever else you want is also true; not if you wish to maintain any integrity.

If I started asking you why Buffy the Vampire Slayer would keep fighting vampires if there was no Hellmouth in reality, you would laugh in my face, and rightly so. What you're failing to grasp is that your questions about the motivations of characters we have no reason to believe actually existed are just as ridiculous.

[Crossless2.0]

For the skeptic, it is insufficient to merely ignore or deny this evidence—a position which is on par with denying the holocaust or that men landed on the moon.

It seems that Randy has unwittingly put his finger on everything that is wrong with this thread. We are dealing with someone who thinks Biblical claims are on an even footing with the evidence we have for the Holocaust or the Apollo missions. That Randy can't see the difference is the difference, an insurmountable difference that renders further conversation moot.

[pocaracas]

I'm assuming that somebody already told this guy that some of the earliest copies we've uncovered of the New Testament never made any mention of a ressurection, right?

The following passage of Paul's first Letter to the Corinthians contains a "proto-creed" of the early Church which Paul probably learned from the apostles within five years of the resurrection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15
15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The letter was written before the gospels.

Hope this helps.

So... the story was already existent (scriptures), but the new version (Jesus, Teacher, Apollonius, etc...) was retrofitted to align with that story.
No matter how undocumented and unconfirmed this hypothesis is, it is still way more probable than magic-man-comes-back-to-life-after-being-certainly-dead.

[abaris]

Now all you need to do is open some books, learn a few ancient languages, spend 20 years studying the texts...and then, maybe, you will be in a position to even attempt to refute Ehrman & Co.

But you don't have 20 years, do you?

Now you might just explain why your beating Ehrman like the literal dead horse. Is it because he claims to be an atheist and think that may earn him some brownie points among us unbelievers? Or is it because he's about the only one actually fitting your narrative? He's still a theologian, not a historian, and it shows in his work.

[robvalue]

You've also been conflating historical and magic jesus since the minute you signed up, and you're still doing it despite everyone pointing this out.

[Cyberman]

"Sweet dreams" are all he's got.

[Crossless2.0]

You've also been conflating historical and magic jesus since the minute you signed up, and you're still doing it despite everyone pointing this out.

What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them.  It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts".  It's his starting point.