Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

Okay. But YOU personally need to recognize that although I am willing to have one hand tied behind my back for the purposes of this thread (and no one has laid a glove on me yet despite that), professional scholars do not. And they know, as Ehrman pointed out, that the NT is of significant historical value. therefore, YOU cannot ignore it in the privacy of your own room when you're alone with God.

You made the rules Randy, and whether YOU recognize it or not, you've proven nothing and got beat up here.  Those five "facts" do not prove anything.  Sorry, but it's true. 


Secondly, I certainly admit the gospels and Paul's letters have historic value.  That's not the same as saying they are eyewitness accounts or generally accurate.  Reliable facts can be teased out of them, but they are few and far between.  The Jesus lived, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached around Galilee, and was crucified are about it.  We can make educated guesses about those events and about what he preached.  But that's about it.

I don't think so.  That Pilate executed him for sedition yes.  That he was worried about the jealousy of Jewish leaders?  Probably not.  Romans soldiers and Pilate were not generally in Jerusalem.  They came in during the Passover, because Passover itself was thinly veiled sedition.  The symbolism of Passover was not wasted on the Romans.

The Sanhedrin came in demanding that Jesus be executed. You don't think Pilate was able to get up to speed quickly on the politics?

He understood the Passover was a sign of hope for people who felt oppressed.  He understood that other Jews had claimed to come in order to rescue the Jews and that that was dangerous.  

Almost without exception. Therefore, the exception would require explaination.

Almost? Gee, God almost never performs miracles defying the laws of physics or biology, either. But sometimes...

But I have a plausible explanation for the exception. You don't have a body on a cross or in a tomb. If Jesus was rotting away on the cross, then on the third day, why did the women even go to the tomb???

And when word of the disciples claims of resurrection got out, why is it that no one pointed out across the Kidron Valley to Jesus' rotting corpse still hanging between two thieves?

We don't know when the disciples really, if ever claimed Jesus rose from the dead.  We only know that some people claimed he'd risen some indefinable period in the next ten or twenty years. And we have no proof that this god character exists let alone performs miracles.

Because the Romans didn't much notice Jesus at all for quite some time.  There are few references to Christians early on and none to the "threat" of Jesus.

Heh...the only charge made by the JEWS was that the body was stolen. That's what I'm referring to...not the Romans.

Yes, because the Romans DID NOT NOTICE.  Perhaps because there was nothing to notice?

I haven't accounted for alien abductions, Joseph Smith's witnesses, or the ascension of Augustus, or the miracles of Hindu priests either. People believe and claim to believe the oddest things.  And when we can investigate those things they turn out to be false every time.  Therefore when such claims are made and we cannot test them, I see no reason to believe they are true.  No historical document will ever convince me of a miraculous event.

And we can take each of those one at a time at some point in the future, if you like.

But for the purposes of THIS thread, what theory do you propose as an explanation of the five facts?

Sure, it's the same as for the alien abductions:  the disciples or others after them thought they saw Jesus resurrected.  They didn't, but they thought they did.  That's it.  When we test modern cases like alien abductions that's what we find. I'm certain if we could go back in history that's what we'd find about ALL the miracles Christian, Jewish, Roman, and Egyption.   And make no mistake, they all claim miracles.  

No we really can't.

Yeah, Jenny, we can. People just as smart as you have been looking at the same facts and arguments for 2,000 years. The resurrection is the most plausible explanation of ALL of the facts we know about Jesus.

I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time keeping a straight face here.  And my politeness is wearing thin.  It is the least probable explanation.  About a billion to one or more improbable.

And I don't think it's because I'm smarter, but I am more dispassionate about it and more educated than people were a thousand years ago.  And not surprisingly, the more educated people are, the more likely they are to be atheists.  It's training in logical thinking that does the trick.

I really don't care what the IQs of people claim who claim god exists are.  I do care what their arguments are.  That is true for any claim.  Appeals to authority are wasted on me.  You must make their arguments or your own.

I may not be the very smartest cookie there is, but the kinds of tests that tease out the ability to ignore emotion when weighing evidence put me in the upper .01%.  It's a skill I know I have.  It served me well when I was in practice.  And it's one you appear to lack, though you may well be more intelligent than I am in other ways.  So far your arguments fail.

Actually, it's a paraphrase of Ehrman, several of my professors and who know who else, all of them professional historians.  What we can know about the past has limits.  Historians know that.  (Guess my major?)

Limits? Sure. As you well know, history major, our knowledge of the past is all about probabilities.

Jenny, I have Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? on the desk here as I type. I suspect you have read it since the outline of what you believe about Jesus that you gave previously followed very closely what he said in his introduction.

Ehrman is unambiguous. Jesus existed. We can and do know certain things about him and there are numerous independent sources for this information including the gospels which are historically valuable.
[/Quote]

Sure he most likely existed, though the chances he didn't are more like one in a thousand than impossible.  But that doesn't even scratch the surface for proving he was resurrected.  Elvis existed.  You think his death was faked?  Existence and miraculous claims are very different.

[Randy Carson]

Okay. But YOU personally need to recognize that although I am willing to have one hand tied behind my back for the purposes of this thread (and no one has laid a glove on me yet despite that), professional scholars do not. And they know, as Ehrman pointed out, that the NT is of significant historical value. therefore, YOU cannot ignore it in the privacy of your own room when you're alone with God.

You made the rules Randy, and whether YOU recognize it or not, you've proven nothing and got beat up here.  Those five "facts" do not prove anything.  Sorry, but it's true. 

1. I did make the rules.
   
2. I have shown them clearly to people who might not have known of them otherwise. Check the "views" on this thread, Jenny. Not bad.
   
3. I have been "beat up" in one sense, but the facts themselves are untouched. No one has even TRIED to make an argument against them. Except for some wimpy complaint about Pliny as I recall.
   
4. The facts do not "prove" anything. They give us reason to consider that the resurrection is plausible.
   
5. Sorry, but that is true.
   

Now, I will read the rest of your post, but I won't respond tonight for sure.

Goodnight, Jenny. Goodnight, Jason. Goodnight, MaryEllen. Goodnight, John Boy....

(you may be too young for that)

[Pizza]

Don't shift the burden of proof. Give an argument that there is in fact a god that does " suspend laws." You can't just assume Christianity is true.

Let's go slower.

Was Jesus a real person?

Give an argument that there is in fact a god that does " suspend laws." You can't just assume Christianity is true.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

[Minimalist]

Regardless, in Pliny, we have indisputable proof of the presence of the followers of Jesus from a hostile witness.

Somebody tell Shit-fer-brains that Pliny never heard of anyone named jesus.  Moreover, what he does say is that

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

The bolded part is certainly not the bullshit story that the church put out.

[Jenny A]

Goodnight, Jenny. Goodnight, Jason. Goodnight, MaryEllen. Goodnight, John Boy....

(you may be too young for that)

*sigh*  I was ten when the premier aired.  But goodnight, Randy.   Wake up willing to look at your evidence with the eyes of an outsider.

[Randy Carson]

Let's go slower.

Was Jesus a real person?

Give an argument that there is in fact a god that does " suspend laws." You can't just assume Christianity is true.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

Have you stopped to consider that the resurrection of Jesus IS evidence that there is a God? Or that coming to the conclusion that the resurrection makes sense is a step toward faith in God?

[Longhorn]

Ignoring things won't make them go away Randy. Repeating myself is really tiresome,  even if you never get enough of it.

Ignoring things won't make them go away, Nemo.

Please prove a point by point explanation of the five facts I have presented in this thread.

I'd like to evaluate the explanatory scope and power of your theory compared to mine.

Sigh.

I'm done repeating myself. Have fun patting yourself on the back. Too bad you're not here to discuss.

[pocaracas]

Because reality is devoid of magic.

Why do you believe that supernatural miracles do not occur?

If they do occur, why should I have to "believe" that they do occur? Why Am I restricted to "believing"?
Why are they so secret that people must become aware of them through writings or tales by other people?

AS others have told you in the past: put aside your moldy miracles and bring forth some new ones.
(pro tip - cures for as-yet not fully understood conditions, like cancer, do not count; but human limb regrowth without any exterior aid does count)

---

To be fair, maybe it wasn't Luke, the writer, who made stuff up... but someone most likely did and he wrote that.

So, I can put you down as being in the Conspiracy Theory Camp?

The disciples made up the whole thing and conspired to spread what they knew to be a lie. That's your view?

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I wrote.
Luke was not a disciple, nor was Paul.
Concerning "Luke's" contribution to the NT, the wiki says something interesting:

The majority view is that Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, was not the author of Luke-Acts.[5] The anonymous author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source;[6] the most probable date is around 80-100 CE, and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

Whoever wrote this "Luke" did, most likely, lie or was induced into lying by the content on which he(or they) was based.

The disciples... could be extras on the story, for all we know.
The very existence of a Jesus that was crucified is barely supported... the existence of that person's disciples, on the other hand, seem to be assumed by you. Why?
Well, someone did perpetuate the tale; someone did spread it as far as modern-day-Turkey and turned into a cult... You can call whoever did that a disciple... but was that accomplished by the people in the tale? Or someone else? Someone unnamed, nameless, unknown, missing... Someone whose relation to the original Jesus is unknown. Someone who may have carried a part of a previous tale with him, so as to make it easier to memorize... the tale of a teacher, perhaps?
Ultimately, it's unknown.

Still, for the relevance it supposedly has, Id' expect a good, caring, powerful god to show people that it's there.
People of every generation (throughout the ages) and every geographical location should be made equally aware of this god.
Unfortunately, reality paints a picture of a very localized (both in time and space) deity. A great hint that it is far from divine, and closer to man-made.

[Cyberman]

Since the asswipe is ignoring me one of you guys can pick this up and shove up his stupid ass without him knowing.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.co...pologetic/

This apologetic takes a variety of forms [4], but William Craig’s variation used in his debates about the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps the most popular. Craig claims that there are “four facts” about Jesus’ resurrection (taken from his website here):

1. After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
   
2. On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
   
3. On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
   
4. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
   

Craig uses the term “facts,” in order to treat these premises as non-negotiable. The reality, however, is that his first two facts are not even accepted by many mainstream scholars. Scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, for example, doubt the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. For a good read on Ehrman’s case against the historicity of Joseph’s tomb, you can consult his blog series “Did the Romans Allow Decent Burials?.” Likewise, Ehrman also doubts the discovery of the empty tomb by women, which he discusses in his article “The Women and the Empty Tomb.”

Fuck him over good, boys.

It's probably not best practice for someone to quote your post who cannot be ignored, so I at least won't be doing that. Sorry.

[Crossless2.0]

When I mentioned Paul, I had in mind his report of his own experience of the risen Christ, which is clearly not physical in nature.  As for his memorized formula, at the risk of nit-picking, there is nothing there that necessitates an interpretation that he is speaking of a bodily resurrection -- of a person literally walking out of a tomb.  It merely states that Jesus was buried and raised on the third day before appearing before a number of witnesses.  For all we know, these 'appearances' could have been 'spiritual' in nature as Paul's alleged experience seems to have been.  He doesn't really say there was an empty tomb.  The empty tomb stories we have are from the Gospels, which come later.

The gospels were WRITTEN a few years later based upon the testimony of men who had seen Jesus risen from the dead BEFORE Paul wrote. Those were the men Paul conferred with when he traveled to Jerusalem around AD 35-36.

Do you think that Peter, James and John just left out the part about Jesus being alive (and his tomb being empty) during Paul's visit?

Ok, a few things.  First, not that I expect you to agree or grant this any weight, but I find Paul to be a uniquely poor source for much of anything.  Simply put, I don't trust him.  To me, his letters read like the ravings of a fanatic (first a fanatical opponent of the movement and then a fanatical convert).  I suppose you'll wish to know how I account for this change of heart, but the assumption that his conversion is the result of encountering bedrock truth in his alleged encounter with Christ isn't the only possibility, and any additional speculation is simply that -- speculation.  Paul may have been a bit unhinged.  Who knows?  In ancient times, people a few cards short of a full deck were often granted a special status as having a more direct line to the spiritual realm.  He may have been power-hungry and saw an opening within the movement for fulfilling his own needs for power or status.  Again, who knows?  But I refuse to grant special status as a source of truth to a guy who openly says he will be all things to all people in the pursuit of his self-appointed mission.  Paul seems to me to be the religious equivalent of a used car salesman.  Again, I don't expect you or any other believer to agree with me, but don't in turn expect me to swallow Paul's claims about himself wholesale, any more than you would expect me to uncritically buy whatever the car dealer says when I suspect he's trying to sell a lemon.

Second, you ask if I think that Peter, John, and James would forget to mention something like an empty tomb during their encounters with Paul.  It's a fair question.  But again, why the jump to assume that these alleged appearances were physical in nature or that an empty tomb was even mentioned?  Couldn't Jesus' appearances (mind you, I'm simply granting the historicity of these appearances for the sake of argument) have been of a "spiritual" nature?  That would be more in line with a Jesus who passes through walls/doors and ascends into the sky.  You're simply assuming an empty tomb based on later Gospel claims.  And if Peter, el al, had mentioned an empty tomb, why is Paul not explicit about it?  For that matter, if there really was such a meeting or series of meetings between Paul and Jesus' direct followers, why is Paul apparently ignorant of or uninterested in Jesus' actual teachings during his ministry?  Did his closest followers just happen to forget to mention any of that too?

Finally, if Paul is not misrepresenting what happened, how is it that he comes up with a theology (for lack of a better word) that is apparently so diametrically opposed to what we can glean about James based on the epistle that was apparently penned by one of James's followers, if not by the man himself?  Did Jesus' own brother so completely misunderstand what Jesus was about that he needed a guy who never met Jesus to get it right?  Perhaps you find that plausible.  I don't.