Major Shift in Christian Apologetics

[POI]

I'm starting to see this more and more.... Some Christians appear to adopt the idea of the 'minimal facts' approach; as quoted here:

"but one should look at the minimal facts argument by Garry Habermas".

Without getting into the weeds here, I'm going to issue a hypothesis.

For Debate:

All that matters is whether or not a resurrection actually happened. The rest is of little concern. This is because many of these believers now realize much of the claims, which are actually falsifiable in the Bible, have been falsified even to their own satisfaction. Hence, stick to the unfalsifiable, like a claimed rotting corpse rising from his grave, 2K years ago. It's a safe haven for the Christians to stay, and is free from falsification, (contrary to the Biblical claims they now too see as being falsified).

Is this a fair hypothesis? I'm open to adjustment.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29]

Obviously I don't think kit's even that. It wasn't misunderstanding or misidentification of an event by the disciples, but a fiction made up later based on a single original belief - claim. But you are making a point that is a good one as - if the event had happened (which I doubt was the case) a natural explanation makes more sense than the supernatural one. Succinctly, the Lazarus resurrection (which I also think never really happened) could have acted as the basis for a fake resurrection of Jesus. They had done it one - maybe twice or even three times (Son of Nairn, Jairus' daughter) so supernatural isn't even the go -to hypothesis. It is simply faithbased.

I can imagine cries of incredulity by the believers 'what a crazy conspiracy theory'. But what is crazier than believing a dead body waking up again supernaturally and (even skipping the comedy skit contradictions) walks about with the war -wounds still painted on for identification -purposes. The Gospel story is a hoot, but because it has been sold as powerfully (and dishonestly) as the nativities, people swallow it and are even awed and moved by it. That doesn't make it the correct version of what happened.

Yes. Point being, supernatural explanations are unnecessary...unless one is a Bible-worshipper.

I think I follow that. But as I recall I explained elsewhere, the non - supernatural explanation is that Jesus was never actually dead...if one credit the event as having happened at all, which i don't. Not because of the supernatural element but because there are terminal contradictions, showing that each story was made up, which is shown by Mark not even having one.

So, if we agree that no supernatural explanation is needed for a fairy story that never happened, the next step is to wonder what parts of the gospel story can be credited at all?

[William]

Jesus never having actually died has its problems re those accounts mentioned.

Those accounts contributed to Christianity becoming popular along with force of rule.

My points were simply to take whatever mythology is employed in the storytelling and account for it with what we currently know about through science.

Such possibilities are hard/perhaps impossible for literal-believers to integrate for obvious reasons.

[TRANSPONDER]

Jesus never having actually died has its problems re those accounts mentioned.

Those accounts contributed to Christianity becoming popular along with force of rule.

My points were simply to take whatever mythology is employed in the storytelling and account for it with what we currently know about through science.

Such possibilities are hard/perhaps impossible for literal-believers to integrate for obvious reasons.

Probably true in the context of the forum as it's either true or it isn't.