Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[shunyadragon]

Fortunately I never argued that my position was true by virtue of being held by scholars.

Fortunately nor unfortunately, you did refer to the conclusions of scholars in your argument.

How do you define "verifiable by objective evidence" in this case? I'm not trying to go into a definition loop, but I want to know what your actual argument is.

No problem, the testimony someone presents can be independently with evidence other than their testimony that something took place or that something exists.

-happy now?

I have already read most of what tektonics has to say concerning this argument and find it adds noting new to the argument.

Most if not virtually all historians acknowledge Jesus was tried and crucified for rebellion against Rome, like others, and this fact contributes nothing to the assertion that the physical Resurrection took place as a historical fact.

The assertion that, because Christianity was successful contributes nothing to the argument that it is true. Islam grew very fast and is very successful, and likewise, this is no basis that the claims of Islam are true. Nothing is incontrovertible here, simply an assertion based on the belief that it is true.

Naked assertion.

Naked assertion. this gets you nowhere quick.

I didn't want a vague question-begging appeal like this, I want to see actual explanations. Because once you overcome the skeptical bias in such a view you'll see every Naturalistic explanation falls on its face!

There is no indication that naturalistic explanations fall flat on their face. If you claim this you can assert that Napolean won the Battle of Waterloo.

As I described Vermes concludes that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Resurrection is a historical fact, clearly leaving it open for the possibility of natural explanations for the events. Nothing here falls on any ones face.

Vermes does:

Point is despite your assertions most skeptical scholars do not conclude that the facts listed are true nor false.

It's the same basic principle, and I write these on short timeframes so I can't access the work of scholars now, if and when I get the chance I will give quotes. Besides, I was giving those numbers as hypothetical examples to refute your claim that just because the majority of skeptical scholars affirm these facts that one of the naturalistic explanations accounts for them all, which just above you gave an even more ready explanation for - that they presuppose the improbability of Christian explanations!

Please do not make such assertions until you can support them.

[GioD]

Fortunately nor unfortunately, you did refer to the conclusions of scholars in your argument.

Yes, because I was pointing out what any skeptical take on the resurrection facts must reduce to.

No problem, the testimony someone presents can be independently with evidence other than their testimony that something took place or that something exists.

Would this include additional testimony or methods of analyzing their testimony?

The assertion that, because Christianity was successful contributes nothing to the argument that it is true.

However, because of the many shameful and inconvenient elements of Christianity combined with its success we have good reasons to suspect its truth claims are true.

Islam grew very fast and is very successful, and likewise, this is no basis that the claims of Islam are true.

Islam was also spread politically and militarily during the key points where it needed to be spread to survive.

There is no indication that naturalistic explanations fall flat on their face. If you claim this you can assert that Napolean won the Battle of Waterloo.

As I described Vermes concludes that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Resurrection is a historical fact, clearly leaving it open for the possibility of natural explanations for the events. Nothing here falls on any ones face.

Again: I asked for a specific naturalistic hypothesis which accounts for all the facts, not the possibility of such a hypothesis. Since we brought it in, that hypothesis would also have to account for Christianity's spread at key early points in its history in spite of having numerous shameful and inconvenient elements.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

"a statement purporting to be factual can deny another statement purporting to be factual, but then at least one of those statements has to be false. "

sure it can facts can contradict each other.: Night and day are both facts and they contradict each other. Perhaps you meant to say something else. Perhaps you mean a thing can't be both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same respect, but that is different than what you said.

[shunyadragon]

All of these except possibly 5 can be inferred from Paul's Letters, which are among the earliest and most reliable sources of information. Their reliability is agreed upon by both secular and Christian scholars.

Problem here, scholars consider some of the letters 'reliable' to reflect what Paul believed, but not that what Paul believed is necessarily true.

When Paul said "spiritual body" he meant a physical body that was enhanced by the power of the Holy Spirit. The earliest Christians did believe Jesus' crucified body was raised.

It does not work to say what Paul meant when he did not say that.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, because I was pointing out what any skeptical take on the resurrection facts must reduce to.

They do not necessarily reduce to what you claim. Nonetheless you cite them as supporting at least some or all of the events were believed to be historical facts. You are also citing Christian apologist sources in your argument.

Would this include additional testimony or methods of analyzing their testimony?

As Vermes described in law and science, without additional support the testimony is anecdotal.

However, because of the many shameful and inconvenient elements of Christianity combined with its success we have good reasons to suspect its truth claims are true.

Being suspect does not carry any weight beyond those that believe. Personally I do not consider shameful and inconvenient good reasons to be even suspect to be true. The power of Constintin's Roman political and military power was more effective

Islam was also spread politically and militarily during the key points where it needed to be spread to survive.

Christianity's main spread was through the political and military power of Rome and European political and military power.



A

gain: I asked for a specific naturalistic hypothesis which accounts for all the facts, not the possibility of such a hypothesis. Since we brought it in, that hypothesis would also have to account for Christianity's spread at key early points in its history in spite of having numerous shameful and inconvenient elements.

this does not wash, because Christianity's main spread was through the political and military power of Rome and Europe.

[Tassman]

How is it "special pleading"? Secular scholars attest to most if not all of these facts too.

Secular scholars assemble as many facts from as many sources as possible. But apologists using the Minimal Facts Method exclude all but the essential components of the faith. Thus it’s Special Pleading in favor of Christian scholarship and beliefs. What secular scholars agree upon is not the probability of the alleged miraculous facts, but what was believed by the faithful.

All of these except possibly 5 can be inferred from Paul's Letters, which are among the earliest and most reliable sources of information. Their reliability is agreed upon by both secular and Christian scholars.

What is agreed upon by “both secular and Christian scholars” is the authenticity of Pauline authorship and his beliefs, not necessarily the reliability of those beliefs.

When Paul said "spiritual body" he meant a physical body that was enhanced by the power of the Holy Spirit. The earliest Christians did believe Jesus' crucified body was raised.

This is an unsupported assumption. There is considerable evidence that Paul (and probably the early Jerusalem Church) regarded Jesus’ resurrection as spiritual i.e. the resurrection of an incorruptible spiritual body, which discarded the corruptible mortal body as one discards an old garment.

1 Corinthians 15:39-50 “…… It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body…..”

The concept of Jesus’ fleshly body physically rising was most probably the embellishment of the earlier beliefs by the gospel writers writing decades later.

[GioD]

They do not necessarily reduce to what you claim. Nonetheless you cite them as supporting at least some or all of the events were believed to be historical facts. You are also citing Christian apologist sources in your argument.

Fair enough. Let's leave this to the ability of explanations to account for the facts rather than a case for the facts, because this is quickly becoming a case of "cite the most scholars".

As Vermes described in law and science, without additional support the testimony is anecdotal.

I asked, would additional testimony or methods of analyzing testimony make it objectively verifiable? This didn't answer my question.

Personally I do not consider shameful and inconvenient good reasons to be even suspect to be true.

That's not the argument. The argument is that because Christianity was viewed as shameful and inconvenient, the only reason anybody would convert to it was because the evidence supported it.

The power of Constintin's Roman political and military power was more effective

First of all Constantine didn't use military or political power to spread Christianity. He converted to Christianity but didn't force others to. Second this was a little under 300 years after Christianity started. Christianity would have had to secure converts the entire time between coming into existence and Constantine's conversion. If nobody converted because they didn't want to or didn't think the evidence supported it, Christianity would have died before Constantine heard of it.

[GioD]

Problem here, scholars consider some of the letters 'reliable' to reflect what Paul believed, but not that what Paul believed is necessarily true.

Irrelevant. The point was these facts could be obtained from much less controversial primary sources than the Gospels. Paul still may be ultimately wrong, but he is much less controversial than the Gospels in terms of dating and authorship, and largely reliability.

It does not work to say what Paul meant when he did not say that.

What? This is incoherent.

[GioD]

But apologists using the Minimal Facts Method exclude all but the essential components of the faith.

Analyzing the primary sources for only key doctrines and facts is used all the time in historical analysis, outside of the resurrection.

What is agreed upon by “both secular and Christian scholars” is the authenticity of Pauline authorship and his beliefs, not necessarily the reliability of those beliefs.

See what I said to shunyadragon:

Irrelevant. The point was these facts could be obtained from much less controversial primary sources than the Gospels. Paul still may be ultimately wrong, but he is much less controversial than the Gospels in terms of dating and authorship, and largely reliability.

This is an unsupported assumption. There is considerable evidence that Paul (and probably the early Jerusalem Church) regarded Jesus’ resurrection as spiritual i.e. the resurrection of an incorruptible spiritual body, which discarded the corruptible mortal body as one discards an old garment.

There's only "evidence" if you have a modern literalistic interpretation of the text. This view of the resurrection was completely absurd, literally self-contradictory to 1st century Jews, and furthermore all the evidence suggests that the interpretation I offered above is correct.

1 Corinthians 15:39-50 “…… It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body…..”

Did you even read the whole set of verses? 1 Cor 15:42 clearly states "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable". When Paul says "spiritual body" he means the same physical body that is enhanced by the Holy Spirit! This is exactly what I said, and you didn't even challenge it!

The concept of Jesus’ fleshly body physically rising was most probably the embellishment of the earlier beliefs by the gospel writers writing decades later.

Evidence please?

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough. Let's leave this to the ability of explanations to account for the facts rather than a case for the facts, because this is quickly becoming a case of "cite the most scholars".

No, I am citing specific well accredited scholars in the field as to the 'ability of explanations to account for the facts,' and not 'cited by most scholars.' There is no problem with 'Naturalist causes for these events to explain them. This may or may not be true, but yes, a naturalist explanation does work as a probable option. I am not saying the Naturalist explanation is the best nor the only explanation, but represents a probable explanation.

I asked, would additional testimony or methods of analyzing testimony make it objectively verifiable? This didn't answer my question.

It would require objectively verifiable other sources confirming Paul's testimony in the letters. Paul's testimony in the letters remains anecdotal and personal to what Paul believed happened. At present all we have is Paul's testimony of some of his letter's which scholars believe reflect what Paul; believed. We have no other sources to confirm what Paul believed would be considered factual.

That's not the argument. The argument is that because Christianity was viewed as shameful and inconvenient, the only reason anybody would convert to it was because the evidence supported it.

That is a significant part of the argument. Rome's political and military power are significant factors in the rapid growth of Christianity. The traditional apologetic claim of being 'shameful and inconvenient' does not account for the rapid growth under Rome.

The early paid growth of Islam in the Middle East in the first 50 to 100 years was neither political nor military. In fact they were initially persecuted and driven out of Medina.

The growth of the Baha'i Faith in Persia and the Middle East in the 19th century was indeed shameful and inconvenient facing persecution in the Islamic world. This no more makes the claim for its validity and be the way miracles that are better documented by outside sources than Christianity.

First of all Constantine didn't use military or political power to spread Christianity. He converted to Christianity but didn't force others to.

False, big time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire. There is a great mystery in how this happened -- how such an extraordinary reversal, that begins with Jesus who is executed by the Romans as a public criminal, as a threat to the social order, and somehow we wind up three centuries later with Jesus being hailed as a God, as part of the one, true God who is the God of the new Christian Roman Empire. There is a remarkable progress, a remarkable development in the course of three centuries. ... It's hard to understand exactly how it happened or why it happened, but it is important to realize that we have a progression and a set of developments, and that Christianity by the fourth century is not the same as the Christianity that we see in the first or even the second.

© source where applicable

Second this was a little under 300 years after Christianity started. Christianity would have had to secure converts the entire time between coming into existence and Constantine's conversion. If nobody converted because they didn't want to or didn't think the evidence supported it, Christianity would have died before Constantine heard of it.

I have no problem with this, which is also true in the early years of Islam and the Baha'i Faith. See above for after Constintiine became Christian. The early Muslims and Baha'is faced persecution when they converted and there was no sign of pf political nor military force in this.

[shunyadragon]

Irrelevant. The point was these facts could be obtained from much less controversial primary sources than the Gospels. Paul still may be ultimately wrong, but he is much less controversial than the Gospels in terms of dating and authorship, and largely reliability.

The point is the scholarly view is that some of Paul's letters reflect what Paul believed. They cannot be used to claim that what Paul believed is true.

What? This is incoherent.

No, you are claiming an interpretation of what Paul said, that is not based on anything Paul said.

[GioD]

The point is the scholarly view is that some of Paul's letters reflect what Paul believed. They cannot be used to claim that what Paul believed is true.

They can, if they pass a set of objective criteria for analysis. Besides, my point was, again, not that Paul was right by virtue of being Paul but that we can defend the minimal facts' probability using less controversial sources than the Gospels.

No, you are claiming an interpretation of what Paul said, that is not based on anything Paul said.

Except for his use of vocabulary and the immediate preceding context of the letter.

[Cerebrum123]

The early paid growth of Islam in the Middle East in the first 50 to 100 years was neither political nor military. In fact they were initially persecuted and driven out of Medina.

Not even CLOSE to the kind of persecution early Christians received, and then Mohammed retaliated, not only en masse, but in brutal ways. Not only that Islam became militarily based just after Mohammed got to Medina, and that wasn't even near a hundred years after Islam started. As soon as Mohammed got to Medina, not only was he left alone by the local Jews, but he then destroyed all of them once he got enough power. Mohammed was only a "prophet" for 23 years, so Islam became based on warfare in less than 50 years. In fact, he was only in Mecca for 13 years of his career, and almost immediately after that started his conquest of the nearby settlements. You shuny need to get your information straight before you make ridiculous claims like these. So, Islam went from non-violent to violent, in less than 2 decades, much less than your 50-100 years misinformation.
Perhaps you should actually STUDY the man whom you consider to be a "prophet", rather than make up stuff like that. Islam didn't go through any hard times anything near what Christianity did, or even what the Baha'i have gone through, but since Baha'i have latched onto Mohammed, they are guilty of either being too lazy to know about Mohammed, and just accepting what they are told, or they are criminally negligent for supporting such an evil man.

[Doug Shaver]

Sure, if we presuppose the factuality of certain historically orthodox Christian dogmas. Otherwise, I don't see how that follows.

There's no presupposition involved. The Gospels and Paul's letters can be proved reliable

You say so. I've never seen it done.

[GioD]

I am not saying the Naturalist explanation is the best nor the only explanation, but represents a probable explanation.

Which explanation?! This entire time you've been defending the possibility of naturalistic explanations, but not actually any naturalistic explanation!

It would require objectively verifiable other sources confirming Paul's testimony in the letters. Paul's testimony in the letters remains anecdotal and personal to what Paul believed happened. At present all we have is Paul's testimony of some of his letter's which scholars believe reflect what Paul; believed. We have no other sources to confirm what Paul believed would be considered factual.

You still haven't answered my question: Would additional testimony or objective criteria for analysis count as the evidence needed to verify anecdotal evidence or not?

That is a significant part of the argument. Rome's political and military power are significant factors in the rapid growth of Christianity. The traditional apologetic claim of being 'shameful and inconvenient' does not account for the rapid growth under Rome.

Please stop making an idiot of yourself. The Impossible Faith Thesis clearly refers to Christianity's spread before it was adopted by Constantine. It doesn't matter how it was spread after that.

The early paid growth of Islam in the Middle East in the first 50 to 100 years was neither political nor military. In fact they were initially persecuted and driven out of Medina.

First of all he fled to Medina. Second Muhammad conquered Medina and used it for hostilities against Mecca until he finally conquered Mecca.

The growth of the Baha'i Faith in Persia and the Middle East in the 19th century was indeed shameful and inconvenient facing persecution in the Islamic world. This no more makes the claim for its validity and be the way miracles that are better documented by outside sources than Christianity.

This may be valid, but you gave nowhere near enough information to compare it with TIF.

False, big time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire. There is a great mystery in how this happened -- how such an extraordinary reversal, that begins with Jesus who is executed by the Romans as a public criminal, as a threat to the social order, and somehow we wind up three centuries later with Jesus being hailed as a God, as part of the one, true God who is the God of the new Christian Roman Empire. There is a remarkable progress, a remarkable development in the course of three centuries. ... It's hard to understand exactly how it happened or why it happened, but it is important to realize that we have a progression and a set of developments, and that Christianity by the fourth century is not the same as the Christianity that we see in the first or even the second.

© source where applicable

That wasn't Constantine.That was Theodosius. Besides, even if Constantine spread Christianity by force TIF clearly applies to Christianity between the death of Jesus and being picked up by Constantine, not after.