Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Spooky]

Has Randy actually given a clear explanation of the "five facts?"

It's the Habermas shit.  A bunch of theologians looked at the holy horseshit and decides that THEY agree that this shit happened so he calls it a fact without a single shred of non-biblical evidence to back it up.

It's just bullshit.


Originally I think there were more than 5.

My point exactly.  Not facts.

EDIT: This is going to be my response for a lot of posts:

[Pizza]

Here some are minimal facts:
1. Dead bodies don't normally resurrect after three days.
2. Heaven's gate members all died for a falsehood they sincerely believed. So willingness to die for something and religious context is useless criteria for truth.

[Randy Carson]

That is called bias. That is also why Christian [emphasis added] scholars studying and attempting to prove the validity of the Bible aren't taken seriously.

I want to address this particular point again and more fully because I think that there is some misunderstanding among you, Jenny A, and others about who these New Testament scholars that I keep referring to really are. In the quote above, where I have always written the words "New Testament", you have replaced them with "Christian". Your change - whether intentionally or unconsciously done - reveals your own bias and erroneous assumptions very clearly.

Yesterday, I asked if agnostic/atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, one of the world's leading experts on NT scholarship, would fit into the category of "Christian scholars" who aren't taken very seriously. Today, I want to follow up by asking, "Do you think he feels he is the ONLY non-Christian scholar of any academic standing who is studying the New Testament?"

I do hope to get some response from you, Jenny and others to that question. But I'd like to go further by providing some insight from Ehrman himself about the credentials and the conclusions of those scholars - believers and skeptics alike - who study the New Testament professionally. Ehrman writes:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement--all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.

“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty about him.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)

Folks, Ehrman knows what real academic scholarship is and what it requires. He knows who the people are who have paid their dues to earn the title of "scholar". And he knows that he is not alone among those scholars in believing that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

[Minimalist]

And he doesn't buy your resurrected godboy shit so now what do you do?

[Randy Carson]

You get one warning to speak politely and refrain from gratuitous profanity before you go on my ignore list.

This is that warning.

If you want to talk to me, and I don't care whether you do or not, then you will do so like a mature adult.

By the way, I went to Barnes & Noble the other night and bought two books:

Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel.

Guess which one I'm going to enjoy quoting most?  

Nobody cares about your ignore list, Randy. Nobody cares about your dramatic warnings. Nobody cares that the big, primitive gears in your head go "GA-JUN...GA-JUN...GAJUN" to make your thinking parts work.


What we care about are facts. You are pretending things are facts when they are not facts. You are ignoring arguments that crush yours into powder. You are appealing to authority, cherry-picking scriptures and books, and attempting to use rhetorical tricks and emotional arguments to bring "facts" into the discussion as presuppositions without having to prove them (even though the presuppositions themselves are mostly wild, unsupported claims). You also can't seem to get your primitive mind to ingest the fact that no matter how you try to twist things around, you cannot use elements of a claim to prove that claim.


Your facts have to be verifiable by something besides the bible, and nothing you have shown us has been convincing evidence to that effect. That is why nobody takes you seriously, and that is why some people (myself, at least) are getting more and more harsh as you continue to offer us the same destroyed arguments as if we didn't just destroy them on the last page. The only explanation I can come up with is that you really don't understand these arguments you're making well enough to see them for what they are. Besides, I haven't exactly been a picture of politeness thus far when addressing you and your broke-down rhetorical failings.

As I noted in the OP, "this discussion will not consider whether the New Testament is reliable nor attempt to prove that it is. The conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead will not depend upon that argument."

If you have any opposing arguments you wish to make regarding any of the material I have presented, please make your case in response to the appropriate post(s):

Post 1 - My OP
Post 65 - Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
Post 148 - Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
Post 283 - Fact 3: Paul, the enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted
Post 460 - Fact 4: James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.
Coming Soon - Fact 5: Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

Is Bart Ehrman, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a respected NT scholar?

Does he say that Jesus existed as a real person?

If however, you are referring to my claim that professional NT scholars at accredited universities overwhelmingly accept the minimal facts as presented in the OP of this thread, then yes, I am. But not without sufficient reason for doing so.

The tide of opinion among academics has turned in the last 50 years or so, and the atheism that once reigned in the corridors of university philosophy departments is on the wane. This may not have trickled down to the howling masses in the streets, and it may not for other reasons, but it is true nonetheless.

Jesus really existed, and educated people know this to be true.

So, where do you stand?

#1 - Randy, whether or not Jesus actually existed as a real person or not isn't what we're debating, is it?  What is the title of this topic again?  When you make an argument like that pretending to have proved a point when in fact you've deviated from the subject matter altogether, you've only proved that you don't have an argument to make at all.  AGAIN, saying that somebody wrote down and believed in the account of some fantastic story is not sufficient evidence to prove such an incident as fact. There are thousands of stories written and BELIEVED by thousands of people regarding all kinds of fantastic things. YOU don't believe any of them unless they're in your bible. Why is that?  Your assertions are outlandish.

My "assertions" are accepted by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars. Please let me know if you have sufficient evidence to overturn the scholarship of all these professionals.

#2 - YOU have failed to outline the distinction.  You have given no reasonable arguments as to why your god is real and everyone else's is fake. Your god doesn't have the "goods".  The ONLY argument you've been able to make is that if the Greek gods were real, people would still worship them. That is not sufficient and I've already examined why.

Again, if you believe you have sufficient evidence to suggest that we should study the Greek gods for any reasons other than literary interests, please present it.

#3 - I was referring to your multiple posts yesterday inferring that other gods are not real because they're not widely worshiped or popular anymore. You made these inferences JUST YESTERDAY. You're playing dodge tactics, Randy. And it's in poor taste. If you want people to continue to discuss this subject matter with you, you should hold yourself to a higher standard of integrity than that. It's despicable.  Furthermore, I expect you to address ALL of my points in the future instead of picking out what you like. Everything I'm saying has context.

I will address your points in context when and where they interest me and are worth my time. IOW, make good arguments.

Nonetheless, to address your final statements:

Please cite the overwhelming number of accredited scholars who accept the resurrection of a man in the desert based on your so-called "facts".  They don't exist, Randy. There are certainly crack pots in every field and university who say all sorts of outlandish things. That certainly doesn't mean an overwhelming number of scholars share their opinions.

Ehrman destroys your position. See post #523 for full details.

[Randy Carson]

The thing about the existence of a man named Jesus living and preaching in the Middle East 2000 years ago is, it's not outlandish to think it could possibly be true. The less extraordinary a claim is, the less extraordinary your evidence needs to be to convince people of its truth.

Was there a man named Jesus? Probably. Millions and millions of people have been named Jesus.  There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Did a man named Jesus preach Christianity? Probably. Millions and millions of people have preached Christianity. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Did a man named Jesus perform miracles? Probably not. There is no evidence to support these miracles ever occurred.

Was a man named Jesus born of a virgin mother? Probably not.  There is no evidence to suggest conception can occur without insemination.

Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest that a man can be dead for 3 days and then rise to life again.

Religious scholars come from many nationalities and religious backgrounds. The only ones who don't agree with the above statements are the Christian scholars. I suppose that's just a coincidence?  No, that's what we call good old fashioned BIAS.

If all you plan to do is pull facts out of your behind without any citation or evidence to support your claims, then don't bother. Come back when you have something of substance to add.

There's a report about a "teacher or righteousness", dated to before 50BC, which sort of describes such a person...

Addressed by Tim O'Neill in this forum in old threads.

Randy, is it not conceivable that such a leader of people could have existed and sparked the christian myth, which then evolved, passing several people, several retellings, until you get Paul?

No, poca. And the reason is really straightforward: we know how the oral tradition of the Early Church was handed down and enscripturated.

As for a brother called James, aren't all members of a sect "brothers" amongst themselves?

Possibly. But that does not mean that Jesus didn't have a real "kinsman" named James.

[Randy Carson]

But you see Min, he's got this one book.....

This one?

[pocaracas]

Again, if you believe you have sufficient evidence to suggest that we should study the Greek gods for any reasons other than literary interests, please present it.

I think you're missing the point we're trying to make when we bring up the greek gods... or any other gods. But this quote of yours might just help.

If you believe you have sufficient evidence to suggest that we should accept your christ as a god for any reasons other than literary interests, please present it.

[Mr.wizard]

Randy,
Ehrman does not even mention the resurrection in that post, you seem to be arguing that because scholars agree that there was a historical jesus, they also accept that he rose from the dead.