Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IATIA]

No, I actually don't.

I don't need a theory for the origins of the universe better than 'magic pink unicorn created it' to reject that theory as implausible.

Lol. As you almost found out, there are many things that haunt me, Randy, but resurrection is not one of them.

I don't know, Randy. I'm not even convinced Jesus existed and died, because I don't have enough information to make a judgement.

No, you have enough information. What you lack is the guts to make the decision to accept Jesus.

IF jesus did exist and was crucified and rose.  Who is to say that he was not just in a coma?

There is no proof that ANYONE has ever risen from the dead.  That would require two pieces of information.  Proof they were dead in the first place and proof they were now alive.  It has NEVER been done.  You can rant and rave and hold your breath.  You can provide links to all kinds of bullshit, but there is no proof that jesus was dead and there is no proof that he rose from the dead.  The evidence that he even existed is weak at best.

[Jenny A]

Only two of the items on your list are accepted by the majority of biblical historians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...he_Gospels

Gary Habermas has done a longitudinal study of hundreds of publications in multiple languages. Yes, the majority of scholars accept the first four of the minimal facts presented in my OP.

Habermas says surveyed NT scholars most of whom are theologians and who's opinion of whether the book they faithfully believe is true is about as critical as a mother's love.  ("Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included." http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...2_2005.htm)   And even his paper is doesn't find a majority of scholars found that the original twelves saw anything.  What he found was much more limited:

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...05.htm#ch4  And even for that limited consensus Habermas relies primarily on theologions including Reginald Fuller a British angelican priest and theologian;  John Meier, a Catholic Priest, who authenticates the claims of Paul and James but not the disciples of Jesus referred to in the gospels as people who reported having seen Jesus; and James D.G. Dunn, yet another British theologian and again one who relies visions of early Christians, not necessarily your disciples.  

So if the claim is some early Christians had visions they thought were of Jesus, I agree they did.  But that doesn't show the disciples did.

But I will not grant you that Jesus was buried in a tomb.  There is much scholarly disagreement on that point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus

It is highly improbable that the Roman's would have allowed the burial of anyone crucified by them.

Crossan's theory is what is truly laughable, Jenny. The Jews had very specific laws concerning the ritual uncleanness that resulted from coming into contact with a corpse. The idea that the Jews would allow dogs to roam the streets of the Holy City of Jerusalem potentially defiling everything they came into contact with is absurd. Pilate agreed to allow a senior member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus in his personal tomb because Pilate wanted to settle the crowd and avoid any more confrontations with the Jews. He had had enough for one day!

If Pilate did that it was while not exactly a first for Romans it was highly unusual and most uncharacteristic. Therefore highly unbelievable.  And it wouldn't have been the Jews throwing the corpse to the dogs, letting it rot on the cross, or burying it in a mass grave, it would have been the Romans.   It was considered part of the punishment.

The point is not that anyone can show what happened other than resurrection but rather that there is insufficient evidence that resurrection happened.

You mean other than the testimony of the eyewitnesses (you know, the early Church)?

Other than the four written accounts which are included in the Bible?

Other than the testimony of the converted enemy of the Church, Paul?

With the exception of Paul, we have no eyewitness.  The gospels are nothing like eyewitness testimony, and saying O YES THEY ARE over and over won't make them eyewitness testimony.  Paul claim a vision.  

All of the things I suggested including the highly unlikely event of a hundred men entering into an elaborate conspiracy are less unlikely than resurrection.  It isn't necessary to prove any of them to demonstrate that the resurrection is more unlikely in this case because all of those things have demonstrably happened somewhere to some one and all are physically possible.   Mass hallucination have happened.  The British managed an enormous conspiracy called Fortitude South during WWII.  I'm sure I can come up with others.   People have stolen bodies both to properly bury them and to dishonor them, and to create the impression that the person is still alive.  

Resurrections have never been demonstrated.  Not once.

And the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the one example of a supernatural event that you're looking for.

It's an extra ordinary claim and the gospels are much less than ordinary evidence.  They cannot prove the resurrection.

[Pizza]

Fail #1: The apostles weren't all martyred by Romans. Thomas was martyred in India, but not because the Romans would have killed him "regardless".

Red herring. All that matters is that there is a simple explanation that is consistent with biology and psychology, therefore the explanation is more likely than yours.

Wait...I thought the apostles simply made everything up. Now, you're switching to the legend theory. These are two different things. Are you not sure what really happened?

Did you read what I said. "There, I named two explanations" I was giving two different explanations more likely than resurrection given biological facts about dead bodies. It is more likely that con-men/cult leaders should die for a lie than for a dead man to resurrect three days later and then shoot up into the sky. No matter how unlikely it is more likely than flying dead man.

Fail #2: The proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15 dates to within about five years of the resurrection. Not much time for legend to have sprung up...especially since people who were familiar with the events of Jesus' very public ministry and execution were still alive. Skeptics and believers both, btw.

What is the bold claim based on? It's actually a scientific claim, so where's the evidence for that being unlikely? If it is unlikely because it normally doesn't happen then bodily resurrection would be unlikely on the same grounds.

Fail #3: Yes, we do have a pretty good idea that the gospels were written by the authors whose names they bear. See my "Historical Reliability of the NT" thread for full details.

I'm not going to read every thread you write.
Respected scholar Bart D. Ehrman says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbM3O4YU_s

A better explanation.  

Oh, and clear reasons why your theories don't hold water.

Not really. You haven't really given one explanation with any explanatory virtues like being supported by biological facts. As has been pointed again and again dead bodies don't resurrect is a fact of biology. The facts of biology win, if can't give stronger "evidence" to overturn well known biological facts. Hear say from ancient times isn't enough. Give me biological fact. I've shown there is a shadow of a doubt. That's all I need to do to deflate your case.

How so? In this thread, all I have done is present non-biblical evidence that points to a conclusion.

You're assuming it is likely there is a god that resurrects dead men.

They could argue the same way. And we would demand evidence of them just as you are demanding it of me. Problem is, they don't have any.

Neither do you. Where is the evidence for god resurrecting dead people? You can't point to all these ancient anecdotes and interpret them as strong evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. They aren't because they contradict scientific fact about human biology. It don't matter if they say a dead man walked in the same way it doesn't matter how many people claim that had their penis stolen by wizards. These things don't normally happen and there is no hard biological evidence for things like this happening. It's all a matter of inductive reasoning. This is how most historians study other periods of history. If a holocaust denier produced an a few eyewitnesses claiming the holocaust was a satanic mass hallucination, the mountains of evidence for the holocaust would trump that. There is nothing more to say.

[Pizza]

This is getting harder to proofread and edit.

[Randy Carson]

[quote='Neimenovic' pid='984571' dateline='1436299861']
But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

Of course there has. We're discussing it now.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

And this is your mistake.

Sure, although natural causes should be considered first, a supernatural cause may be considered when all natural theories fail, and there is credible evidence in favor of divine intervention.

You have no credible alternatives that are without objections, and in light of these, the resurrection is the BEST explanation of the information we have to consider.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

I have.

Moreover, the laws of nature would be no match for an omnipotent God who chooses to act by superseding those laws. Thus, the entire naturalistic mindset misses the forest for the trees. The issue here is not whether everything can be explained by the laws of nature. The crucial question is whether there is a God who may have superseded nature by a superior power. Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled by natural processes. God may have stepped in to do something that nature or science cannot explain. Futher, if we had evidence that such an event occurred, this data would actually be superior to the natural working of nature's laws, since that would mean that god performed an act for which nature cannot account. The result of this circumstance is that historical evidence might, for a brief time, actually supersede scientific evidence, since it means that at that very moment, God intervened in nature.

Finally, certain miracles have characteristics that show that they are actually caused by interferences with the laws of nature. Professor Richard Swinburne suggests that the best case for recognizing a miracle would include:

1. It has never happened before or since;
2. the event definitely cannot be accounted for by a current law of nature; and
3. no foreseeable revision of our statements concerning the laws of nature could explain the event in natural terms.

Randy is simply aping what skeptics do.  The problem is that he's placing far more weight on the bible (which is really the claim and not the evidence for it, anyway) than anyone else otherwise would.  Our knowledge of biology certainly trumps heresay and myth, even if they're partially based on real events.  He thinks that varying degrees of historical evidence for places, people and events = divinity.  But that's not how it works.  Especially when the part he wants to prove - the resurrection - has the least going for it.

Your incomplete knowledge of real events causes you to undervalue the evidence for the resurrection.

If the sort of God described in the New Testament exists, there is no reason to reject the possibility of miracles as the explanation of well-attested events for which no plausible natural explanations exist. To say that we should deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the very case for which we have been looking.

[Randy Carson]

Actually, you do. You need to have an explanation that is better than the resurrection; otherwise, the resurrection IS the best explanation of the facts, and knowing this will haunt you because you do not want it to be true.

So, got something?

No, I actually don't.

I don't need a theory for the origins of the universe better than 'magic pink unicorn created it' to reject that theory as implausible.

Lol. As you almost found out, there are many things that haunt me, Randy, but resurrection is not one of them.

I don't know, Randy. I'm not even convinced Jesus existed and died, because I don't have enough information to make a judgement.

But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

This is just another of your beloved god of the gaps argument. [emphasis added] 'You don't have an explanation, therefore he must have risen from the dead'. Nope. Does not work that way.

SECOND REPLY (ON A DIFFERENT POINT)

First, the existence of “God of the gaps” explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs of the past undermine today’s science and medicine. The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorizing in the future.

Second, the criticism that god is simply a way to explain unknown phenomenon commits the informal logical error known as the genetic fallacy which occurs when it is assumed that discovering how a belief originated is sufficient to explain the belief. However, it is a fallacy because it attacks the origin of a view instead of the view itself—a view which may be correct. For example, that some ancient Romans may have thought that Jupiter was responsible for their victory over the Gauls does not nullify the historical factuality of the battle or Rome’s great victory.

Third, what we already know from respected disciplines like medical science, history and psychology is precisely what renders the conclusion of Jesus’ resurrection so compelling. Conversely, these same disciplines disprove natural explanations of this event. Interestingly enough, without a workable opposing theory, the skeptic must be careful not to substitute a “naturalism of the gaps” view. This occurs when critics have little ground on which to oppose the resurrection, yet they conclude that it could not have happened (which is mere denial). Or they simply refuse to believe in spite of not having a viable counter response. We must not suspend judgment when adequate evidence is available upon which to make a decision. The resurrection challenges nature’s laws, and there does not seem to be a way to incorporate it with nature.

Fourth, it is an unjustifiable leap to proclaim that at some future point in time we will find a scientific answer for the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is questioned again at some future date, Christians will research and respond. In the meantime, we should not rule out the possibility of the resurrection without a viable reason.

[Jenny A]

If the sort of God described in the New Testament exists, there is no reason to reject the possibility of miracles as the explanation of well-attested events for which no plausible natural explanations exist.

This is what we call begging the question.  

To say that we should deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the very case for which we have been looking.

Who says any such thing? I say it is an unlikely claim for which truly pitiful evidence is offered. There is better evidence for alien abductions, esp, and Joseph Smith's golden tablets. And there's for from sufficient evidence far any of those things.

[Randy Carson]

No, you have enough information. What you lack is the guts to make the decision to accept Jesus.

IF jesus did exist and was crucified and rose.  Who is to say that he was not just in a coma?

There is no proof that ANYONE has ever risen from the dead.  That would require two pieces of information.  Proof they were dead in the first place and proof they were now alive.  It has NEVER been done.  You can rant and rave and hold your breath.  You can provide links to all kinds of bullshit, but there is no proof that jesus was dead and there is no proof that he rose from the dead.  The evidence that he even existed is weak at best.

Ah, the Swoon Theory.

If a half-dead Jesus, beaten and bloody from head to toe, managed to stagger back to where the apostles were in hiding, do you think that upon seeing him in this condition the Apostles would have called Him "Lord"? Or would they have called him a doctor?

Here are nine pieces of evidence that refute the swoon theory:

1. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.
   
2. The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus' legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (v. 31).
   
3. John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus' pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus' lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this.
   
4. The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42).
   
5. The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even "doubting Thomas," that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor. A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshiped fearlessly as divine lord and conquerer of death.
   
6. How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse? Or by unarmed disciples? And if the disciples did it, they knowingly lied when they wrote the Gospels, and we are into the conspiracy theory, which we will refute shortly.
   
7. How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to keep the tomb sealed: the Jews had the stone put there in the first place, and the Roman guards would be killed if they let the body "escape." The story the Jewish authorities spread, that the guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body (Mt 28:11-15), is unbelievable. Roman guards would not fall asleep on a job like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them. Furthermore, we are again into the conspiracy theory, with all its unanswerable difficulties (we'll deal with this theory in a couple days.)
   
8. If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus' life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.
   
9. Most simply, the swoon theory necessarily turns into the conspiracy theory or the hallucination theory, for the disciples testified that Jesus did not swoon but really died and really rose.
   

[Randy Carson]

No, you have enough information. What you lack is the guts to make the decision to accept Jesus.

IF jesus did exist and was crucified and rose.  Who is to say that he was not just in a coma?

There is no proof that ANYONE has ever risen from the dead.  That would require two pieces of information.  Proof they were dead in the first place and proof they were now alive.  It has NEVER been done.  You can rant and rave and hold your breath.  You can provide links to all kinds of bullshit, but there is no proof that jesus was dead and there is no proof that he rose from the dead.  The evidence that he even existed is weak at best.

There is lots of proof that Jesus was dead including this special report from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ
William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv; Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

[Randy Carson]

Gary Habermas has done a longitudinal study of hundreds of publications in multiple languages. Yes, the majority of scholars accept the first four of the minimal facts presented in my OP.

Habermas says surveyed NT scholars most of whom are theologians and who's opinion of whether the book they faithfully believe is true is about as critical as a mother's love.  ("Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included." http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...2_2005.htm)   And even his paper is doesn't find a majority of scholars found that the original twelves saw anything.  What he found was much more limited:

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_S...05.htm#ch4  And even for that limited consensus Habermas relies primarily on theologions including Reginald Fuller a British angelican priest and theologian;  John Meier, a Catholic Priest, who authenticates the claims of Paul and James but not the disciples of Jesus referred to in the gospels as people who reported having seen Jesus; and James D.G. Dunn, yet another British theologian and again one who relies visions of early Christians, not necessarily your disciples.  

So if the claim is some early Christians had visions they thought were of Jesus, I agree they did.  But that doesn't show the disciples did.

Jenny, I have read that article in the past, and I am quite comfortable with it. I encourage everyone in this forum to spend some time reading it.

Crossan's theory is what is truly laughable, Jenny. The Jews had very specific laws concerning the ritual uncleanness that resulted from coming into contact with a corpse. The idea that the Jews would allow dogs to roam the streets of the Holy City of Jerusalem potentially defiling everything they came into contact with is absurd. Pilate agreed to allow a senior member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus in his personal tomb because Pilate wanted to settle the crowd and avoid any more confrontations with the Jews. He had had enough for one day!

If Pilate did that it was while not exactly a first for Romans it was highly unusual and most uncharacteristic. Therefore highly unbelievable.  And it wouldn't have been the Jews throwing the corpse to the dogs, letting it rot on the cross, or burying it in a mass grave, it would have been the Romans.   It was considered part of the punishment.

But is that what happened, Jenny? The Romans buried Jesus?

Mark 15
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

The point is not that anyone can show what happened other than resurrection but rather that there is insufficient evidence that resurrection happened.

You mean other than the testimony of the eyewitnesses (you know, the early Church)?

Other than the four written accounts which are included in the Bible?

Other than the testimony of the converted enemy of the Church, Paul?

With the exception of Paul, we have no eyewitness.  The gospels are nothing like eyewitness testimony, and saying O YES THEY ARE over and over won't make them eyewitness testimony.  Paul claim a vision.  

Why were the disciples transformed from cowering men in hiding for fear of the Jews to bold evangelists who turned the world upside down?

And the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the one example of a supernatural event that you're looking for.

It's an extra ordinary claim and the gospels are much less than ordinary evidence.  They cannot prove the resurrection.

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false.

Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself.

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred (William Lane Craig, “Stephen Law on the Non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth”, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-l...f-nazareth.).

So, no, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence...just like any other kind of claim.