4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach

Originally Posted by Parture

So? We still have 45 ancient sources for Jesus, 17 of which are non-Christian within 150 years of his death, far more than for anyone in antiquity. Even if we only had 10 sources that would be more than enough, because Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources.

I am sure you will realise that we can't count evidence without considering it quality. That there are 9 pieces about Tiberius does not make him less believable that your claimed 45 sources for Jesus. the qualities we have to consider are

• The Partiality of the source - i.e. who wrote it and for what reason. An historian like Pliny wrote about things to make a careful record for others whilst Gospel writers had another purpose to try and convince people of a religious truth - in other words they were partial.
• How close the writer was to the event he describes. Pliny the Younger gives some details of Christian worship in his letter to Trajan in the 2nd Century CE but we could not call him a witness to the events of the time of Jesus.#
• How likely it is that the source is original and not an insertion or a modification by someone later. Check out any mention of Josephus and you will find that the passage you would quote was a Christian addition and not Josephus himself.

Finally, for all the sources you mention - ones someone else found for you, Parture, - I would like you to think of what is not there. Jesus performed various miracles of healing and so on. How come there was no Roman who wrote about the healing of Lazarus, no Roman who wrote about the bodies coming out the graves when Jesus died and why none of those who were healed never wrote their own accounts. I would not want to build a case on the basis of the lack of evidence per se but it is very odd that there is nothing at all in these areas.

perhaps you would like to comment on the above to try and bolster what you have said.

Originally Posted by wheels5894

I am sure you will realise that we can't count evidence without considering it quality. That there are 9 pieces about Tiberius does not make him less believable that your claimed 45 sources for Jesus

The 45 sources are of quality just as good or better citing 129 facts of Jesus' life, so the point is if you want to throw Jesus out, you have to throw out all historical figures in antiquity. And I don't know any credible historians who are willing to do that. So anyone who wants to contend this is really making a fool of himself and therefore is considered of no account in our discussions, because you disagree with almost all scholars who concede Jesus was a real person.

Originally Posted by Parture

There is boasting in the flesh, not in faith; salvation is not by works, lest any man should boast.

So in other words, this gives you an excuse to behave like a religious douchebag in the name of christ. Praise the lord! If, as you say, salvation is not by works, then no wonder the weak-minded and the weak-willed love Christianity.

I'm impressed that the other members are being so thorough in responding to you, and actually taking the time to research your claims. I hope that you'll have the courtesy to follow up on your postulations, since you're the one who's imposing your ideas on this forum. If you really care, you would make the effort to back up your claims. But then again, you aren't exactly preaching to the converted. As you said, salvation is not by works...

Originally Posted by Parture

I am not going to copy them out for you, but if you care, you can find them in Gary R. Habermas's 3 books.

If you don't care enough to support your own argument, why would you expect me to make it for you?

Originally Posted by Parture

The proof was already given in the opening post. If you can't overturn it then realize you are going to Hell since obviously, you don't want to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you want to put forward an argument, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's true. If we don't come to a resolution as to whether you've proven your point, then you fail.

Originally Posted by Parture

The 45 sources are of quality just as good or better citing 129 facts of Jesus' life, so the point is if you want to throw Jesus out, you have to throw out all historical figures in antiquity. And I don't know any credible historians who are willing to do that. So anyone who wants to contend this is really making a fool of himself and therefore is considered of no account in our discussions, because you disagree with almost all scholars who concede Jesus was a real person.

Since you won't actually divulge what these 45 sources are, my trust in your so-called evidence can't be any more than my trust in you, and you've given no reason whatsoever for why we should trust you.

BTW - you skipped over a point I raised before: what about the sources that record details of Jesus' life from before Jesus was supposedly born? Does the fact that the Egyptian god Horus was born of a virgin, lived on Earth as a man where he had 12 human followers (including several fishermen), died, descended into the underworld, and ascended into Heaven where he sits at the right hand of his father from where he will judge the living and the dead make you stop and wonder at all? Not even a little bit? After all, if the details of Jesus' life were known before he was ever born, then this means that however many sources "of quality just as good or better" you produce (not that you've actually produced any so far), we can conclude that whatever details they contain, these details came from something other than knowledge of a literal, historical figure in first-century Judea.

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach. William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas records 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection.

Almost all scholars who do their thesis or peer review journal work concede 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, were written by Paul and truly believed by Paul when he said he spent 15 days with Peter and received from Peter, James and John the creed of the "scriptures" of the death, burial and eyewitness resurrection of Jesus.

So most scholars concede these facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Originally Posted by Blondin

This is bullshit. I certainly can reject your claim that the above sample of Tacitus' writings provides any kind of substantiation for the claims of christianity without doubting the integrity of the author or the veracity of his narration.

I wouldn't consider Tacitus' Annals to contain any details of a historical Jesus.

It notes that Christians existed in Rome during the reign of Nero; that's not disputed - we know full well that there were Christians in this era. It (kinda) notes that these early Christians believed that Christ existed; that's not disputed either - we know what the early Christians believed. The question is whether their beliefs were grounded in truth... which Tacitus doesn't shed any light on whatsoever.

AFAIK, there are only a handful of actual accounts of a historical Jesus:

- The Gospels (which are really only two independent sources, not four, since the three synoptic Gospels all draw from the same source)
- Flavius Josephus (and not that medieval forgery the Testimonium Flavianum, but a small, off-hand comment about the trial of a man named James, who Flavius calls "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ")

So... I'm willing to grant Parture three sources. However, two of these are the product of Christians, so can't really be considered to be unbiased, and the other certainly suggests that the source rejected the idea that Jesus was any sort of miracle-worker or God-man. Hardly high-quality sources if you're trying to establish that the Son of God really did walk on Earth.

That leaves 42 more sources to go. Are you willing to actually give us any, Parture? Or can we just dismiss your argument as a bag of hot air with no real substance?

1 Cor. 15.1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

I guess the scriptures refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Originally Posted by Parture

1 Cor. 15.1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

I guess the scriptures refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You guess wrong. The author is referring to the Tanakh... the Old Testament. He's making a claim that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish Messianic prophecies.

Your interpretation makes no sense at all - if the Bible's correct, then Paul wouldn't have to rely on any sort of written work to know about Christ.

Not to mention that when 1 Corinthians was written, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wouldn't have even existed. 1 Corinthians is normally dated to 54-57 CE, which places it about a decade before the normal range of authorship of even the earliest gospels: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

And a four-gospel Canon wasn't even suggested until Iraneus put the idea forward after Paul had been dead for almost a century.