Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is the classic apologetic put forth most often by WLC and Habermas / Licona.

[...]

Hey, good to see you posting here, TC.

Too much naughty language and meanies. You guys are just a bunch of guttersnipes.

I love that word "guttersnipes".

[dyresand]

Pretty sure jesus if he had existed wouldn't be magic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIy_PfLFWPA

[Catholic_Lady]

The Minimal Facts (4+1)

The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including the skeptic) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the "+1", is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

This is the classic apologetic put forth most often by WLC and Habermas / Licona. It's nothing new and to be honest it has major flaws. To appeal to authority here is absolutely baseless. Just because a scholar says Jesus probably existed doesn't make it true.  And despite your claim that extraordinary claims do NOT need extraordinary evidence, this is simply a false delusion to make your case easier to assemble. 

1.) Jesus died by crucifixion. - Not a provable fact. Actually, there has been much doubt raised that a real historical Jesus even existed at all. Now admittedly there is no single claim that disproves a historical Jesus but there are several oddities that when aligned and added up cause enough doubt to make it difficult to even more forward. 

     A.) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, outside of the the books that were written by alleged christ followers that prove he existed. Rattle off your list because I know you've already got it down: Josephus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Tacitus, Clement, Ignatitius, Polycarp. Yes it looks impressive at first glance but when you start digging in there's nothing. Take time and research each one (Barker does a great job of this in his book Godless) and you will find each source easily discredited. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the NT in the entire first century. The argument from silence is quite damning and gives us serious reason for doubt, not a stage to say his existence is a minimally based fact. 

    B.) The NT stories are internally contradictory. Again, not evidence in itself to disprove Jesus but it does give us reason to pause and consider. Reading the bible in a horizontal fashion comparing the stories of the gospels side by side will help illuminate the inconsistencies....some are small but some are glaring. 

    C.) There are natural explanations for origin of Jesus as a legend: Jesus patterned after a story found in the Jewish Talmud about the illegitimate son of Mariam and Pandora the Roman Soldier. Or, growing out of the pre-Christian cult of Joshua. Or, a fanciful patchwork of pieces borrowed from other religions (Pagan mythical parallels are in copious detail, Attis, Mithra, Dionysus, etc) Again, this gives credence for us to consider that maybe the Jesus character is a myth just like the other pagan sky gods that were abundant in that era. 

     D.) The miracle reports make the story of Jesus non-historical. If a miracle is defined as some kind of violation or the laws of nature, by definition we cannot test that. History is the weakest of all sciences and at best only produces an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all it must adhere to a very strict assumption that natural laws are regular over time. Since the NT contains numerous stories of events that are either outrageous or impossible the story must be considered more mythical than historical. 


Given this information, we cannot even move past the first minimal fact and the remainder of the argument is therefore mute. I would suggest reading Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus, why we may have reason to doubt." He covers an enormous amount of ground using the Bayesian theory of prior probability to show that given the evidence we actually have in hand, including silence, we cannot reasonably say that it is probable a historical Jesus existed.

All I gots ta say about that is....

TC likes red's erections.

[tonechaser77]

Randy,

I don't want to assume that you aren't open to new theories so if you truly would like to learn, apart from common apologetics, I would suggest the following material for you to peruse:


1.) On The Historicity of Jesus, Why we may have reason for Doubt - Richard Carrier
2.) The Jesus Puzzle - Earl Doherty
3.) Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony - Richard Bauckham
4.) Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History - Dale Allison Jr. 
5.) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man - Robert Price
6.) Did Jesus Exist? Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth - Bart Ehrman
7.) The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark - Dennis MacDonald
8.) Get over Christianity - Mark Fulton
9.) Deconstructing Jesus - Robert Price
10.) The Jesus the Jews Never Knew - Frank Zindler

This is 10 books of about 100 that are excellent starters for explanations and theories. 
Don't pre-judge these based on their titles. The body of work and peer review should speak for the author.

Happy reading, friend! 

---

This is the classic apologetic put forth most often by WLC and Habermas / Licona. It's nothing new and to be honest it has major flaws. To appeal to authority here is absolutely baseless. Just because a scholar says Jesus probably existed doesn't make it true.  And despite your claim that extraordinary claims do NOT need extraordinary evidence, this is simply a false delusion to make your case easier to assemble. 

1.) Jesus died by crucifixion. - Not a provable fact. Actually, there has been much doubt raised that a real historical Jesus even existed at all. Now admittedly there is no single claim that disproves a historical Jesus but there are several oddities that when aligned and added up cause enough doubt to make it difficult to even more forward. 

     A.) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, outside of the the books that were written by alleged christ followers that prove he existed. Rattle off your list because I know you've already got it down: Josephus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Tacitus, Clement, Ignatitius, Polycarp. Yes it looks impressive at first glance but when you start digging in there's nothing. Take time and research each one (Barker does a great job of this in his book Godless) and you will find each source easily discredited. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the NT in the entire first century. The argument from silence is quite damning and gives us serious reason for doubt, not a stage to say his existence is a minimally based fact. 

    B.) The NT stories are internally contradictory. Again, not evidence in itself to disprove Jesus but it does give us reason to pause and consider. Reading the bible in a horizontal fashion comparing the stories of the gospels side by side will help illuminate the inconsistencies....some are small but some are glaring. 

    C.) There are natural explanations for origin of Jesus as a legend: Jesus patterned after a story found in the Jewish Talmud about the illegitimate son of Mariam and Pandora the Roman Soldier. Or, growing out of the pre-Christian cult of Joshua. Or, a fanciful patchwork of pieces borrowed from other religions (Pagan mythical parallels are in copious detail, Attis, Mithra, Dionysus, etc) Again, this gives credence for us to consider that maybe the Jesus character is a myth just like the other pagan sky gods that were abundant in that era. 

     D.) The miracle reports make the story of Jesus non-historical. If a miracle is defined as some kind of violation or the laws of nature, by definition we cannot test that. History is the weakest of all sciences and at best only produces an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all it must adhere to a very strict assumption that natural laws are regular over time. Since the NT contains numerous stories of events that are either outrageous or impossible the story must be considered more mythical than historical. 


Given this information, we cannot even move past the first minimal fact and the remainder of the argument is therefore mute. I would suggest reading Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus, why we may have reason to doubt." He covers an enormous amount of ground using the Bayesian theory of prior probability to show that given the evidence we actually have in hand, including silence, we cannot reasonably say that it is probable a historical Jesus existed.

All I gots ta say about that is....

TC likes red's erections.

I thought you said you don't use ad hominem fallacies on this forum CL? 

[Godscreated]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

This is proof of what, maybe your ability not to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

[Godscreated]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

This is proof of what, maybe your inability to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

Oops sorry a double post.

[Esquilax]

So, if I'm not mistaken, Randy's argument runs: "Jesus was crucified, a bunch of people believed he came back from the dead in a book I've already said I wouldn't be relying on as evidence, two people changed personality in a book I've already said I wouldn't be relying on as evidence, and a tomb had nothing in it... therefore magic happened."

Seriously, the guy says he won't be relying on the New Testament, and then four of his five "facts" can be found exclusively in that book.

[Minimalist]

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 problem with that, Tonus, is that you are giving them the proverbial inch.  They cannot be given anything on the basis of their assertions or special pleading.  If Habermas wants to talk about facts then he should be forced to provide evidence for each of those "facts."  They are not "facts" until he does.

[dyresand]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

This is proof of what, maybe your ability not to be able to distinguish reality from the movie screen.

GC

Nope not proof GC.

Proof for jesus has to be in these categories. 

1. Documentations of his existence outside of the bible. 

2. You would have to look through roman records exclude the ones referring with religion.

Apply this to go and you can see how bullshit religion is.

[Godscreated]

I may as well mention (again) that even if Jesus came back to life somehow, that tells us nothing about how or why; and lends no credence to any of his words or supernatural claims about himself. It would just be a very unusual event which we sadly can't investigate. So to a sceptic, ressurection does not lead to Christianity being true.

The magician who just made you think a card disappeared doesn't get to tell you he teleported the card with his mind because you don't have another explanation. Even if he told you beforehand that is how it is done. I believe this is the "truth by cool tricks" fallacy. He still has to provide evidence for his claimed method, not just the predicted result.

How the same way God gave Adam life and for why, a promise to mankind that we could have eternal life. Without the resurrection there would have been a failed promise.

GC