Minimal Facts Approach Proves Jesus is God

[BluePhantom]

dude you need to find a new website to steal from. I am finding the ones you are stealing from far too easily. I know...why don't you post something that comes from YOUR OWN MIND. That will be pretty hard for me to find although I am not sure you have it in you

 

[Parture]

What Do Most Scholars Believe?

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 recorded 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.

Gary Habermas said (2009) on the John Ankerberg Show, "I just did a count recently of what scholars say. First of all you can count guys on one hand of the 2400 sources since 1975 on the resurrection [in] French, German, English...who think apparent death [is true]. When scholars respond they still cite David Strauss. I think we would all like to have that kind of influence in our writings. His critique has been around almost 200 years." Habermas was referring to Strauss's argument that Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah to the disciples all battered and bruised.

Habermas and Licona co-authored the award winning book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004). Historian Paul Maier said the book's response to naturalistic explanations for the resurrection "are the most comprehensive treatment of the subject anywhere." Philosopher J. P. Moreland said the book presented what "may be the most thorough defense of historicity of the resurrection."

Here's the website you stole that from

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

I can do this all night brother. How about this...give me a theological point that I can't find posted by someone else that you are stealing from someone. BTW...stealing is a sin. I am sure you know that but I just wanted to remind you

You're just sinning bearing false witness like Satan that great false accuser.

 

[Parture]

dude you need to find a new website to steal from. I am finding the ones you are stealing from far too easily. I know...why don't you post something that comes from YOUR OWN MIND. That will be pretty hard for me to find although I am not sure you have it in you

I really enjoy watching you shut your mind down and the best you can do is sin bearing false witness. That strengthens the case you are going to Hell.

 

[Parture]

Gary said (see video), "I did a count recently of people who have written from about 1990 to-date [2009]. 75% of scholars today say that resurrection or 'something like it occurred.' Of that 75%, three to one say it is a bodily appearance. Ted Peters had a book that was published by Eerdmans a few years ago, and 20 out of 20 scholars in his book that he edited said 'bodily resurrection.' Higher critical scholars who are in the minority will still usually concede the appearance involved sight and was embodied."

 

[Parture]

In the summer of 2012, Gary wrote in the Southeastern Theological Review, "by beginning with a 'lowest common denominator' version of the facts. If I am correct in holding that this basis is still enough to settle the most pressing historical issues, then it is indeed a crucial contribution to the discussions. We will return below to some ramifications here. Regarding my references to the 'vast majority' or 'virtually all' scholars who agree, is it possible to identify these phrases in more precise terms? In some contexts, I have identified these expressions more specifically. At least when referencing the most important historical occurrences, I frequently think in terms of a ninety-something percentile head-count. No doubt, this is one of the reasons why the concept has gained some attention.

 

[Parture]

"My bibliography is presently at about 3400 sources and counting, published originally in French, German, or English. Initially I read and catalogued the majority of these publications, charting the representative authors, positions, topics, and so on, concentrating on both well-known and obscure writers alike, across the entire skeptical to liberal to conservative spectrum. As the number of sources grew, I moved more broadly into this research, trying to keep up with the current state of resurrection research. He said this again at William Lane Craig's "On Guard" conference, "1 Corinthians is one of six to eight books all accredited critical scholars accept. You can count the exception on two hands, probably one hand. I have 3400 sources in a bibliography from 1975 to the present (2012). When I say you can count the guys on one hand who disagree with this it is not very many. They believe Paul is the best source, and 1 Corinthians is one of the most dependable sources. They allow 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Both are on the accepted list. Bart Ehrman says they are the authentic Pauline epistle. So does most everybody else. Whatever you write, these two books are allowed [indicating Paul's genuine belief]. Paul is writing a mere [no more than] 25 years later. That is incredible. We have no other founder of a major world religion who has miracles reported of him within a generation."

 

[Parture]

 

[BluePhantom]

You're free to shut your mind down and sin bearing false witness, but the evidence is clear Rev. 17 is about religious Rome and Rev. 18 is about political Rome.

But earlier you said it was about the Roman Catholic Church....yes page one of this thread post #10 you wrote..."The whore, of course with her purple tassels, is the Roman Catholic Church that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications so Rev. 17.16 says a nuclear bomb will blow up the Vatican."

But now that I have shown that the whore was a caricature of 1st century coinage and the depiction of the goddess Roma you say Revelation 17 is about religious Rome. You can't even get your own story straight. You are an embarrassment to even the most extreme evangelicals. Which is it? The Roman Catholic Church or religious Rome? And for once provide us with an answer that you didn't rip off from a website and try to pass off as your own.

Now just for clarification I am only continuing this line of discussion because I find it so incredibly funny that I am wait with baited breath to see who you are going to steal from next.

 

[Parture]

You're free to shut your mind down and sin bearing false witness, but the evidence is clear Rev. 17 is about religious Rome and Rev. 18 is about political Rome.

But earlier you said it was about the Roman Catholic Church....yes page one of this thread post #10 you wrote..."The whore, of course with her purple tassels, is the Roman Catholic Church that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications so Rev. 17.16 says a nuclear bomb will blow up the Vatican."

But now that I have shown that the whore was a caricature of 1st century coinage and the depiction of the goddess Roma you say Revelation 17 is about religious Rome. You can't even get your own story straight. You are an embarrassment to even the most extreme evangelicals. Which is it? The Roman Catholic Church or religious Rome? And for once provide us with an answer that you didn't rip off from a website and try to pass off as your own.

Now just for clarification I am only continuing this line of discussion because I find it so incredibly funny that I am wait with baited breath to see who you are going to steal from next.

The Roman Catholic Church is religious Rome.

 

[Parture]

"My bibliography is presently at about 3400 sources and counting, published originally in French, German, or English. Initially I read and catalogued the majority of these publications, charting the representative authors, positions, topics, and so on, concentrating on both well-known and obscure writers alike, across the entire skeptical to liberal to conservative spectrum. As the number of sources grew, I moved more broadly into this research, trying to keep up with the current state of resurrection research. He said this again at William Lane Craig's "On Guard" conference, "1 Corinthians is one of six to eight books all accredited critical scholars accept. You can count the exception on two hands, probably one hand. I have 3400 sources in a bibliography from 1975 to the present (2012). When I say you can count the guys on one hand who disagree with this it is not very many. They believe Paul is the best source, and 1 Corinthians is one of the most dependable sources. They allow 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Both are on the accepted list. Bart Ehrman says they are the authentic Pauline epistle. So does most everybody else. Whatever you write, these two books are allowed [indicating Paul's genuine belief]. Paul is writing a mere [no more than] 25 years later. That is incredible. We have no other founder of a major world religion who has miracles reported of him within a generation."

 

[Parture]

"I endeavored to be more than fair to all the positions. In fact, if anything, I erred in the direction of cataloguing the most radical positions, since this was the only classification where I included even those authors who did not have specialized scholarly credentials or peer-reviewed publications. It is this group, too, that often tends to doubt or deny that Jesus ever existed. Yet, given that I counted many sources in this category, this means that my study is skewed in the skeptical direction far more than if I had stayed strictly with my requirement of citing only those with scholarly credentials. Still, I included these positions quite liberally, even when the wide majority of mainline scholars, 'liberals' included, rarely even footnoted this material. Of course, this practice would also skew the numbers who proposed naturalistic theories of the resurrection, to which I particularly gravitated.

"The result of all these years of study is a private manuscript of more than 600 pages that simply does little more than line up the scholarly positions and details on these 140 key questions....

"[Mike] Licona begins by listing my three chief Minimal Facts regarding Jesus’ fate: (1) Jesus died due to the process of crucifixion. (2) Very soon afterwards, Jesus’ disciples had experiences that they believed were appearances of the resurrected Jesus. (3) Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus also experienced what he thought was a post-resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus."

 

[Parture]

The Minimal Facts Approach is important because it take what most skeptical scholars concede to be true to prove Jesus is God. Therefore, we are all without excuse.