Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[KevinM1]

Did you even read what I wrote?

You continue to conflate the claim for evidence of the claim.  The claim itself is incredibly weak, given it's hearsay.

Your 'facts' are mostly assertions.  Others have given you plenty of point-by-point refutation, so I don't feel the need to regurgitate what they have already said.  I'm not a Christian apologist [emphasis added]; I understand that simply repeating the same thing in different ways doesn't strengthen my position.

Neither are Tim O'Neill and Bart Ehrman.

Okay?  You do realize I was referring to you, Steve II, Drich, and every other apologist that has come on here and acted as though rearranging the deck chairs of their favorite argument somehow significantly altered it?

I get that you're trying to be cute, but it'd be nice if you actually addressed what I wrote if you think it deserves a rebuttal or ignored it otherwise.

[KevinM1]

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."

Fuck you, Randy.  You can make rules for yourself.  No one else.

Especially when the reliability of the NT is at the very heart of the matter.  You can't expect one to take your attempts at proving the resurrection via historical accounts if the history surrounding the creation of the gospels - the claim you're trying to prove - is off limits.

You can't just say "For this exercise, we'll assume it happened" if you want to be taken seriously at all.

[Minimalist]

Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath

While you have your head up your ass why don't you see what other shit you can pull out of there.

Breaking the legs was an act of mercy to hasten death.  The Romans didn't give a flying fuck about the sabbath.
They didn't take the bodies down for a proper burial. If your godboy were crucified he would have been left up there until his body rotted away and then would have been tossed onto a garbage heap.

The Romans were not a bunch of sentimental assholes like xtians.

But there is no evidence that it happened.  At all.

[Jenny A]

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.

Jesus died by crucifixion  He certainly was crucified, but he was determined dead after a fairly short time for a crucifixion.  It's possible, though unlikely he wasn't dead.  But the likelihood of his not being dead is considerably higher that that he rose from the dead. Many people have been pronounced dead and woken up in the morgue.  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...kolkiewicz

Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.  Your evidence is primarily Paul in I Corinthians 15. 

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[a]: 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,[b] 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.

I don't think "received" means anything like spoken to in this context.  That he "received" the information does not mean he had it from the apostles lips.  In fact, he makes it clear in Galatians that for three years after his conversion the only apostles he saw were Peter and James:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Galatians 1:18-20

As he wrote Galatians after Corinthians, I don't see how Corinthians can be used to claim he talked to the disciples personally.  He must mean something else.  Second hand news is all he could have had.  Further, Paul said Jesus appeared to the twelve, a rather odd statement in light of Judas don't you think?  Obviously, he did speak to Judas who is supposed have killed himself.

For the rest you refer to the oral tradition of the church, which only slightly better than nothing.

The earliest gospel Mark noticeably neglects to include any appearance of Jesus to anyone.  Clement was born too late, about the year Jesus died, and Irenaeus is even later. 

Verdict, certainly possible, not not rock solid by any means.

But supposing they did believe they'd seen Jesus resurrected?  A ridiculous number of people think they've abducted by aliens.  Simple eyewitness testimony is insufficient to prove such a claim.  And in this case, not only can we not cross-examine the disciples about their experience, but we only have third, fourth, or more news of it.

Paul, the enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted  This really comes down to who cares?  Many people suddenly convert to all sorts of religions all the time.  This has essentially no probative value.

James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.  See above.  Second, you only have Mark saying his family were skeptical at one early point; and John who is so late and describes a Jesus rather differently than the one described in the synoptic gospels.   Any later martyrdom, is of little if any probative value.  People do die willingly for false things.  If you don't think so, I suggest you because a follower of Islam immediately as we seem to have a slew of recent suicide bombers for the faith.

[Randy Carson]

Neither are Tim O'Neill and Bart Ehrman.

Okay?  You do realize I was referring to you, Steve II, Drich, and every other apologist that has come on here and acted as though rearranging the deck chairs of their favorite argument somehow significantly altered it?

I get that you're trying to be cute, but it'd be nice if you actually addressed what I wrote if you think it deserves a rebuttal or ignored it otherwise.

What you wrote was, "Your 'facts' are mostly assertions."

I've quoted ancient, non-biblical sources. Show me my assertions.

"Others have given you plenty of point-by-point refutation, so I don't feel the need to regurgitate what they have already said."

Not of the minimal facts, they haven't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You didn't add any substance to the argument whatsoever except to continue to repeat the same talking points over again. You failed to address my arguments in any fashion.

As far as I'm concerned your proofs are completely invalid and with no reasonable argument I have no choice but to settle with that conclusion.

Jesus Mythers are idiots, and both theists and atheists alike know this.

Now that we have that out of the way...

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.

None of that demonstrates any resurrection; it is only evidence of your inability to reason soundly.

[Pizza]

No, they don't, but that doesn't mean that they cannot

It's a statistical syllogism. Most cats don't speak human language. Spot is a cat. Therefore, it is likely Spot cannot speak human language. People don't get to merely proclaim there are a few cats that speak "supernaturally" to dodge this.

...particularly if the type of God described in the Christian scriptures exists.

No, you haven't shown this.

If so, there is simply no reason to reject the possibility of a miracle

We are talking about likelihood not mere possibility, moron.

as the explanation of a well-attested event for which no plausible natural explanation exists.

The plausibility of the explanation is low for straightforward reasons (ex.facts about biology.) I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

As I've said about your whole approach:

Has Randy actually given a clear explanation of the "five facts?" All I'm hearing is "god did it" but not "this is how god did it." I'm also confused as to what he's trying to explain. Is it the "five facts" or is it the resurrection? First he says he's trying to support the resurrection claim with the "five facts" then he's trying support the "five facts" with the resurrection claim. When it is pointed out that resurrection contradicts known facts about biology, he claims "God caused a resurrection to happen." What a question begging mess. I still don't know why deists and other non-Christian theists are to take this seriously, let alone atheists and agnostics. Isn't the whole point of proving the resurrection happened is to prove the Christian god exists?

To simply deny Jesus' resurrection, no matter how strong the evidence, is to be biased against the possibility that this could be the one case for which we have been looking to prove the supernatural and God exist.

Oh, that's rich coming from the guy starting with the premise "Christian gawd exists, Jesus resurrected." If you're trying to convert the irreligious you're doing a shit job of it.

Sure. People die for a belief all the time.

How often do people die willingly for something that they know is a lie? Not "believe", KNOW to be false.

"Christian beliefs are true and have good reasons for them, therefor Christian beliefs count as knowledge."

[Catholic_Lady]

Even though I pretty much disagree with everything Randy types, you have to give him credit for trying.

It's a lot better than, "It happened because the bible said it happened.  The Bible is the word of god, because the Bible says it is!"

Absolutely!

Randy is a good guy and he definitely knows his stuff!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus Mythers are idiots, and both theists and atheists alike know this.

Now that we have that out of the way...

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.

Some interesting stuff I had never thought of before, Randy. Thanks!

It demonstrates nothing. Even if all five points are to be granted -- not that I do, mind you, but for the sake of argument -- it is still a logical leap to argue that they demonstrate the truth of any resurrection.

According to the thread title, that is Randy's goal here. You may not have thought about this stuff before, but plenty of others have, and not one has found a way from any one of those points to any resurrection.

Certainly your god can find a better defender than this half-baked charlatan who cannot string together a cogent line of reason.

[Randy Carson]

Fuck you, Randy.  You can make rules for yourself.  No one else.

As we can all see, Minimalist is having a melt-down because the "minimalist facts" approach has him flummoxed. Sweet!

Especially when the reliability of the NT is at the very heart of the matter.  You can't expect one to take your attempts at proving the resurrection via historical accounts if the history surrounding the creation of the gospels - the claim you're trying to prove - is off limits.

You can't just say "For this exercise, we'll assume it happened" if you want to be taken seriously at all.

We're assuming nothing. That's kinda the whole point.

And as you can see from the OP, the reliability of the NT is not necessary to make the case that Jesus rose from the dead.