Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Bob Kelso]

Yet more unsupported assertions.  
If you were trying to make religious people appear fools, you couldn't do better than you already are.

Just because you have decided they weren't true doesn't change the fact they are.

GC

Fact (noun)- something that truly exists or happens: something that has actual existence: a true piece of information

Just in case you were confused on what this word actually meant as it seems you do not. 

Also, a set of definitions you may need:

Evidence (noun)- something that shows that something else exists or is true

Faith (noun)- strong belief or trust in someone or something: belief in the existence of god

Belief (noun)- a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

[abaris]

Not even close try again, this time try to be serious for a change.

GC

Sorry, but when it comes to Adam and Eve, I can't do serious. It goes with the territory, since the whole topic is a joke.

[tonechaser77]

Exactly. You don't have anything.

[Cyberman]

You and I obviously set the bar on what constitutes sufficient at polar opposites.

Yeah you trip over it all the time my friend.

GC

Hardly, when my bar for sufficiency is set far higher than yours.

Incidentally, why are you acting like such a petulant little bitch lately, GC? Concerned, inquiring minds really want to know.

[Longhorn]

The irony in his posts making his blood thick?
God not answering prayers?
Nasty evolutionists bugging him with their pesky evidence?
Your guess is as good as mine

I preferred when he talked about puppies :c

[robvalue]

Here's the problem with expecting other people to take your "personal experience", and nothing more, as evidence:

1) People can be mistaken
2) People can make shit up
3) People can misinterpret events
4) People can fail to properly express events

With no way to verify what is being said, we can't possibly tell which of the above may cause the anecdote to be invalid. Even if the person truly believes they are telling the truth, that is no use to us.

Try this out for comparison:

"I just had an experience with God. He said Christianity is false. Then he disappeared."

How many Christians will accept this "personal experience" as evidence, and believe this really happened, if I present no additional evidence? Let's see... none. Yet some Christians expect us to just believe what they say, in exactly the same way. I can say, "But it really, really happened" as much as anyone else can. Can't have it both ways.

[ignoramus]

No-one will be believe you Rob unless you're a regular paid up church member with references from the minister.
And then he'll want a quiet word with you in the back room first.

[Randy Carson]

Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

The fact that Jesus’ followers really believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them can be established from evidence that suggests two points: 1) the disciples claimed that after the resurrection, Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them and 2) after Jesus’ resurrection appearances, the disciples were transformed from fearful individuals who denied they knew him and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord, and they remained steadfast in their belief in the face of imprisonment, torture and martyrdom.

The minimal facts approach relies on those things about which there is virtually unanimous agreement among scholars; however, the skeptic who is less familiar with the evidence might be tempted to ask, “How do you know the disciples weren’t lying?” This is a fair question, and it may be answered without the need to defend the historical reliability of the four Gospels by looking at what other ancient sources tell us about the claims and beliefs of the apostles.

They claimed it.

The disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. This conclusion can be reached from nine early and independent sources that fall into three categories:

1. the testimony of Paul about the disciples
2. the oral tradition of the early Church
3. the written works of the early Church.

Paul. Paul provides very strong evidence for the resurrection claims of the original apostles. He claimed for himself the authority of an apostle, and this claim was supported by a number of Apostolic Fathers shortly after the completion of the New Testament—two of whom probably were themselves disciples of the apostles. Paul knew several of the apostles personally including Peter, James and John. He played a major role in the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 (cf. Acts 15). As a result of Paul’s personal knowledge of the apostles, what he has to say about the beliefs of the other apostles is important.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes:

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.

There are two important phrases in this passage which must be highlighted. First, notice that Paul says clearly “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day”. This is unquestionable evidence of the belief of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is the second point that ties this belief directly to the Apostles: Paul writes, “For what I received, I passed on to you…”.

Paul tells us that what he is about to say is something that he himself had “received” from others. Who were they? And when did he receive it? Paul learned the details contained in 1 Co. 15:1-8 from the apostles themselves during his visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus, Paul is telling us of the core belief of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead.

At this point, the skeptic may object that this is using the Bible to prove the Bible. This objection will not stand. The minimal facts approach does not rely on the inspiration of scripture nor on the general reliability of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament is viewed for what it is: an ancient volume of literature containing 27 separate books by multiple, independent authors written over a period of roughly 50 years. From this volume, only those facts were are accepted by a majority of scholars – including the skeptical ones – are taken into consideration. Paul is one of those independent sources, and he confirms that the apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. If Paul did indeed receive this from the apostles during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, then he may have heard the resurrection of Christ preached as early as five years after the resurrection took place. This leaves those skeptics who argue for the embellishment of the “legend” or “story” of Jesus with a very small window in which that embellishment could have taken place!

Oral Tradition. The passage from 1 Corinthians 15 brings us to the second category of evidence that the apostles believed in the resurrection: the oral tradition of the Church. At first, it might seem that the oral tradition of the Early Church is not knowable since we cannot actually hear what the Early Church was preaching with our own ears. How can we uncover this early gospel message?

In an age when technology for recording what someone said did not exist, it was important for speakers to phrase their messages in ways that could be easily memorized. In the Church, the statement of belief are known as creeds. Examples include the “Apostles Creed” and the “Nicene Creed”.

Based on its language and structure, scholars believe that 1 Co. 15:1-8 was an early creed of the Church which Paul himself had “received” from the apostles and memorized for use in his own preaching of the gospel. Thus, it is an early example of the Oral Tradition of the Church that was also captured in written form.

In addition to this early creed, there are in the Gospels what appear to be summaries of the actual preaching of Jesus and the possibly the disciples themselves. The reason scholars consider these written sermons to be summaries is that most sermons last longer than five minutes. Yet, most of the sermons in the New Testament can be read in less than five minutes. Consequently, they are thought to be written summaries of a much larger sermon given orally. Admittedly, it cannot be proved that the preaching of the resurrection in these sermons came directly from the lips of the apostles themselves. But if we are not there, we are surely very close.

Written Tradition. Finally, we come to the written tradition of the Early Church. To begin, we do have the witness of the four gospel writers themselves, and they cannot be ignored as early, independent works which report the resurrection. The four gospels (as well as the book of Acts) were all completed within 70 years of the resurrection at the latest, and all of them report that the disciples believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. But for the sake of this argument, we will set them aside and consider what other written tradition may tell us.

In fact, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers provide additional evidence of the faith of the apostles. These fathers are a distinct subset of the Early Church Fathers, and they are designated as “Apostolic” because of their close personal knowledge of and interaction with the Apostles. They were either known to the apostles and instructed and appointed by them, or by someone who was very close to the apostles.

One such Apostolic Father was Clement of Rome (c. AD 30-100) who may have been the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus and Tertullian both attest to Clement’s association with the apostles, especially Peter whom Clement ultimately succeeded as Bishop of Rome.

Clement confirms the apostles’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus in his “Letter to the Corinthians.” He writes:

Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.” (Clement, First Letter to the Corinthians, 42:3.)

Irenaeus also tells us of Polycarp (c. 69-c. 155) who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus writes,

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed from this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4)

Polycarp, hearer of the apostles, also confirms their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Writing to Philippian Church around AD 110, Polycarp says of the apostles:

“For they did not love the present age, but him [Jesus] who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.” (Polycarp, To the Philippians, 9.2)

Overall, Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Jesus five times in this letter.

From all of the above, we can see that there are nine sources of information in three categories which attest to the belief of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead. These are:

1. Paul
2. Oral Tradition (early creed, sermon summaries)
3. Written Tradition (four gospels, Clement, Polycarp)

[Cato]

Not according to Mark they didn't.

[abaris]

I asked you that before and you waved away it's relevancy: Do you know anything about church history besides what your church claims to be history? Do you know how a church, if you want to call it that - in Rome of all places - really looked like at that time? Do you know that the title "bishop of Rome" didn't even exist outside the minds of those, who came at a much later point in time? If for no other reasons than that there was no church as you understand it today. There were just people handing down oral traditions and legends, divided amongst themselves over what they actually should believe.

But I guess I could just as well speak to a wall, since you obviously have some difficulties to distinguish between fact and say so.