Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

I'll answer this too since you've asked it of me in various ways.

The short answer is:  there isn't enough evidence to know what happened.  You seem to have a problem with "We Don't Know."  Christians in general seem to have a problem with we don't know.  But when it come to questions like: what came before the Big Bang; was there really a Homer and did he write the Iliad; was there an Atlantis and what happened to it; and many many others, the answer is we don't know.

If you want to know what I think of the Jesus story I'll tell you, but it's limited and hardly certain:

Jesus was a Jewish preacher or rabbi. He was baptized by John the Baptist.  Baptism was to was away sins and was supposed to be performed by a moral superior.  That is so far from the Jesus myth that it must have happened to be included at all.  Jesus preached around Galallie which is such a backwater it's hard to believe anyone made it up.  He preached the coming of the kingdom of god on earth within a short period of time.  He had some followers though not necessarily twelve and he was opposed to some sects of Judaism namely the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  Neither were a dominant Jewish sect. He wasn't fighting "the man" just disagreeing with other schisms. 

He went to Jerusalem where he attracted some notice.  The Romans crucified him for treason because the kingdom of god on earth sounded very much like inciting the Jew to revolt from their prospective.  And indeed Jesus expected the Roman Empire to fall.

After that some followers of Jesus claimed to see him resurrected.  And they preached that the kingdom of god on earth was coming soon.

The Jews generally rejected the idea that Jesus was the messiah because he was crucified.  That was Saul's opinion.  Saul had an experience of some kind that convinced him Jesus was resurrected and was the messiah.

When the kingdom of god didn't come, apologetics began.  And they've never stopped.

I give my theory about 35% probability.   So not more likely than not, just the best explanation.

I give resurrection about .0000000000000000000000000000000000001%

I give the chance that current christian doctrine about the kingdom of god on earth has much of anything to do with what Jesus actually preached about .001% chance.  I'm really sure he was an apolitical preacher.  Too much that is hard to explain any other way remains in the gospels.

Some of what you have written is correct, Jenny, so props for that.

But I'm guessing it's been awhile since you read the NT. That's more than you would really need short-term, so while I'm reading Bart Ehrman to learn what [some] atheists think, how about you read Luke and Acts? That's more than a fair trade in terms of word count.  

Waddya say?

I've read Luke and Acts more times than I can count.

[Minimalist]

And why on earth would anyone want to read that shit again!

[Spooky]

I disagree.  While our data set is incomplete (I agree on that point), that doesn't make it inferior.  Yours is inferior as it is based neither in reality nor can you provide any facts for the data you present. Incomplete data with factual support > Complete data based on mythology and magic.

Oh, I'm sure you disagree.

That's why we're here.

Well...your turn.

[Randy Carson]

Some of what you have written is correct, Jenny, so props for that.

But I'm guessing it's been awhile since you read the NT. That's more than you would really need short-term, so while I'm reading Bart Ehrman to learn what [some] atheists think, how about you read Luke and Acts? That's more than a fair trade in terms of word count.  

Waddya say?

I've read Luke and Acts more times than I can count.

Recently?

[Minimalist]

I doubt that they have become any less bullshitty with time.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, I'm sure you disagree.

That's why we're here.

Well...your turn.

um...it's MY thread.

That's what this is all about.

[Jenny A]

I've read Luke and Acts more times than I can count.

Recently?

Within the last year.

[Spooky]

Well...your turn.

um...it's MY thread.

That's what this is all about.

Then explain to me exactly how your Data is superior. 

[Randy Carson]

The short answer is:  there isn't enough evidence to know what happened.  You seem to have a problem with "We Don't Know."  Christians in general seem to have a problem with we don't know.  But when it come to questions like: what came before the Big Bang; was there really a Homer and did he write the Iliad; was there an Atlantis and what happened to it; and many many others, the answer is we don't know.

I don't know is a fair position, but you don't often sound like someone who hasn't made up her mind. Why is that?

If you want to know what I think of the Jesus story I'll tell you, but it's limited and hardly certain:

Let's see how much we agree on. Me in Blue.

Jesus was a Jewish preacher or rabbi. Yep.

He was baptized by John the Baptist.  Yep.

Baptism was to was away sins and was supposed to be performed by a moral superior.  John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. Jesus set an example for us even though he did not need to repent.

That is so far from the Jesus myth that it must have happened to be included at all.  Yep.

Jesus preached around Galallie which is such a backwater it's hard to believe anyone made it up.  Yep.

He preached the coming of the kingdom of god on earth within a short period of time.  This is less certain. The early church believed that Jesus would return soon but it is not clear that this is what Jesus actually meant.

He had some followers though not necessarily twelve and he was opposed to some sects of Judaism namely the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  Yep. He certainly had a lot more than twelve - remember him sending out the seventy in Luke? And that was just the men. And what about the Romans and Pharisees who were also believers?

Neither were a dominant Jewish sect. He wasn't fighting "the man" just disagreeing with other schisms.  Okay. I think.

He went to Jerusalem where he attracted some notice.  Yep. Multiple visits, actually.

The Romans crucified him for treason because the kingdom of god on earth sounded very much like inciting the Jew to revolt from their prospective.  Not so much. The Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy and they trumped up charges for which Pontius Pilate finally had him crucified, but I don't think Pilate took Jesus' claim to be a king very seriously.

And indeed Jesus expected the Roman Empire to fall. Why do you believe this?

After that some followers of Jesus claimed to see him resurrected.  Yep.

And they preached that the kingdom of god on earth was coming soon. Yep. At least at first!

The Jews generally rejected the idea that Jesus was the messiah because he was crucified.  So did the Romans.

That was Saul's opinion.  Saul had an experience of some kind that convinced him Jesus was resurrected and was the messiah. Yep.

When the kingdom of god didn't come, apologetics began.  Actually, I think it might be fair to say that "explaining and defending" the Christian faith began on the day of Pentecost, Jenny. Peter encourages apologetics in his first epistle.

And they've never stopped. Yep.

I give my theory about 35% probability.   So not more likely than not, just the best explanation. Interesting.

[Randy Carson]

um...it's MY thread.

That's what this is all about.

Then explain to me exactly how your Data is superior. 

Start with the OP of this thread. Find all the posts like FACT 1, FACT 2, etc.

Take a look at the "Historical Reliability of the NT" thread. Start with the OP...follow me on down.