Minimal Facts Don't Cut it! ✂️ Resurrection Fail. 🤷‍♂️

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Channel Wish-List

Paulogia Merch

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

Send me cool mail!

Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada

[cuzned]

I love that he gives a pretty lucid takedown of the minimal facts approach, and then goes on (later) to champion an even sillier idea.

[SupremeSquiggly]

Atleast McLatchie didn’t rage quit this time.

[SpaceLordof]

We have a list of “facts” that, I as a skeptic, could agree on for the sake of the discussion. But those facts are woefully inadequate to point to a guy being raised from the dead. So, even though this argument is not a syllogism, I can possibly accept the “argument”, but reject the proponent’s conclusion as unjustified.

[KeytarKris]

Speaking real fast to Christians believers and telling them “we don’t have facts” is how they control their kind.

[maskedsaiyan]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[MarkAhlquist]

Speaking of resurrection fails, all my attempts so far have been abject failures.

[FishHeadSalad]

Using the Bible to prove the Bible. How quaint and over rated. I bet Dr. Jon's favorite shape is a circle.

[goldenalt]

The problem i have with the minimal facts is that it excludes other facts that historians also agree on like the gospels are written by anonymous non-eye-witness authors who both copied heavily but also changed the stories for theological reasons.

[bengreen]

absolute proof that he knows the minimal - and supposedly most crucial - 'facts' about the resurrection simply aren't convincing. That's why he has to assert that all the other unconvincing 'facts' are true - justified purely on his desire for them to be true.

[djbare]

And I thought I drank too much coffee.

[timq]

the final nail in the palm for me was when Josephus (yes, the very same roman historian that christians quote as confirmation of the gospel even though it was written 63 years later) spoke of an instance he personally knew of in which a person survived a crucifixion only to die a month later. Almost like the story of jesus was patterned after that with added mysticism thrown in.

[jrskp]

But this wasn't an event they "saw", Mr excuse artist...
No one seen the alleged event supposedly transpiring. Only an empty tomb was found and the Romans well, they just didn't investigate at all. For no apparent reason.🤨

And this story is supposed to be credible without credibility 😅🤷🏼 what?

[jjasonMitchell]

CPR OBE Emt Coma. These never happened? 😮

[Ken_Scaletta]

Saying "we don't know what the resurrection experiences were like" still assumes that anyone ever claimed such experiences in the first place. There's no evidence that anyone even CLAIMED to have seen a dead body come back to life and I don't think anyone ever did, , but such claims were common as dirt in antiquity anyway. They still are, actually. I can't recommend Richard C. Miller's book on resurrection enough. I already knew that translation stories were not uncommon in antiquity but I had no idea how utterly ubiquitous they were, including claims of eyewitnesses and solid bodies. Meeting supposed dead people on the road was incredibly common. Vanishing bodies were ridiculously common and there are scores of stories about people arranging to have their bodies disappeared after their deaths in order to give the illusion they had gone to Heaven. There is not one detail or story component in the Gospels stories that doesn't have DOZENS of analogues in not only Classical mythology but official histories.
It isn't even necessary to posit anything like grief hallucinations. Saying a person had ascended to heaven or turned into a god was just a normal ending to any story about an extraordinary individual either mythical or historical. It's hard to find popular historical figures who did NOT get some sort of translation or deification, catastorization (turned into a star), apotheosis, etc. That happened even with Jewish heroes like Moses and Elijah.

You can do "minimal facts" arguments with Pythagoras and Julius Caesar and any number of other figures who had been seen by eyewitnesses walking around in physical form after death.

Richard C. Miller "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity." It's a game changer. It's not cheap but search for his interviews on Mythvision or elsewhere. That book makes minimal facts look downright childish.

[alexanderweddle]

“What resurrection experiences are supposed to have been like?” sure seems like post hoc rationalization, even touting confirmation bias. It’s not in the realm of theory-> hypothesis/prediction-> controlled experiment at least because whether any past expression of expectation is considered a prediction now is based at least in part on whether a certain event occurred after the expressed prediction. Just post hoc rationalization.

[qcontinuum]

Specific issues:
1. Why are there no writings about the resurrection event by the Romans?
2. Were such an event to happen during the time of Roman occupation, would the Romans not worship a resurrected person as a deity?

[qcontinuum]

Let's start with one story. "The multitude and miracle of loaves/fish."
Criticism of that one story:
Given the magnitude of that event, why are there no contemporary, extra-biblical writings about the event?

[EatHoneyBeeHappy]

Now if only McLatchie could step into the shoes of a non-believer who doesn't believe every word of every book that says it comes from a god.

[WayWalker]

No actual account of witnesses to the resurrection in the gospels i.e. no one actually saw him rising from the dead. It's just a belief.

[bpdrumstudio]

Funny that they want Absolute Concrete evidence for everything else in life accept something as damning as believing in Jesus or not, they want very little or no evidence other than what is in a damn book that can't be substantiated in any way if I'm not mistaken you can do the same damn thing with Spider-Man