Minimal Facts vs. Maximal Facts Arguments

{Minimal Facts vs. Maximal Facts Arguments} Is a minimal facts argument or maximal facts argument better in presenting the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus?

[clarkemorledge]

The minimal facts argument has the benefit of appealing to those who are on the fence on the resurrection, but who are more inclined to accept the "most scholars say" types of evidence; e.g. Jesus died of crucifixion, the disciples were willing to die for their beliefs, etc., as Mike Winger here points out. The maximal facts argument is difficult in reaching such people, as they will often get stuck on the lack of scholarly consensus regarding many of those additional "maximal facts"; e.g. the Gospels are entirely reliable as historical documents, most the original apostles died a martyred death for their belief in the resurrection, etc. But if someone is willing to accept maximal facts, then hey, why not use it? After all, if someone is convinced of the resurrection, that person will be more generally inclined to accept the maximal facts argument anyway at that point. We should not be fighting over which is the better argument. The better argument is the argument that best reaches the person with the Gospel!

[ethanrichard]

Isn't this copyrighted material? I'm not sure you can clip him and use it without permission, unless it falls under the fair use act, but I'm not convinced.