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]

This is quite clear - it is the basis of Christian argument - the Bible and its' claims are true until disproved. This is wonderful for the believers as it gives them what the god - claim does not: the burden of proof is on the atheist.

You misunderstand. In this thread the stated premises is, “these minimal facts Christians do not believe many events actually happened.” This does not address the truth of the scriptures themselves. It is a (unsupported) claim about what these Christians believe.

If their beliefs are accurate or not is a separate discussion. This thread has, somewhat uncharitably, suggested that “minimal facts Christians” think that many of the beliefs they claim to hold have been proven false.

You misunderstand me. I already said that you appear to be trying to make that point (unsupported in a survey or poll perhaps, but supported by what we have seen many say they believe or don't) and in any case, trying to make a one shot win out of that is invalid apologetics, at the best. You also appear to misunderstand that the real argument is about the truth of the scriptures themselves and that is done from inside and outside the actual text. But - and this is what you also seem to misunderstand - it can't be ignored (except that you ignored me when I posted it) that Christians (in their own view) do say they do not believe this or that part of the Bible. How many or whether it is ALL Christians (though as I recall I said...have you ignored everything I posted? there must be bits that ALL believers wave away) or not is not the point, only that Christians themselves disagree about what is true and what is a mistake, metaphor or misunderstood. It is a valid point no matter what you take 'minimal facts' to mean. Not that I credit that argument much from what I read. It is either trying to pile up bad evidence to make good evidence or making the claim work as evidence. Either way, 'minimal facts' is a bad apologetic.

[POI]

I'm updating this thread. Let's try another approach to possibly increase Christian interaction....

If some of the OT stuff were to be debunked to your own personal satisfaction, you would likely still believe. Why? All that really matters is that Jesus came, died for us, and resurrected. Which is not falsifiable, BTW, so your belief is safe from any true scrutiny.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, obviously I'm going to say that it IS falsifiable, at least as regards probability, reasonable doubt and the most probable explanation that fits the data.

I use as a test the credibility of the crucifixion:

All four (details apart) agree it.
Paul confirms it
If it had been invented, there would have been no Romans involved at all. The Jews would have arrested, tried, convicted and stoned Jesus and no Romans involved at all - apart from leaning on their spears and watching (1).



Contrast that with the resurrections:- sure, the basic claim is the same. And Paul confirms that a resurrection was believed, but Corinthians I shows it was NOT along the solid body walking story of the Gospels but a gradual faithclam starting with Cephas and gradually spreading to a half thousand deluded Christian crowd all having a collective vision. Which is what Paul finally gets - a vision of Jesus in heaven, and he makes no distinction between that and the visions of the 12 and other apostles.

But the early gospel - writers didn't know, so they developed their own story to Prove the resurrection. First with an empty tomb. With just Mary Magdalene finding it open and empty. John has no angel, and no reason why she even went there. That is the baldest of Bald empty tomb claims.

The original synoptic gospel just added an angel parked outside the tomb like a tour guide to explain what they are seeing, just in case the audience don't jump to the right conclusion. But Mark has nothing more. They run away and say nothing. Well, plainly that wouldn't do, so Matthew has the disciples troop off to Galilee to see Jesus as instructed, just so he can tell them what he told the women to tell them when he appeared in front of them, when he could just have appeared and told the disciples himself.

But as has been noted before, Matthew ain't the sharpest knife in the box. Luke is a bit sharper, and he, in collating his notes and records (as he brags about in both the Gospel and Acts), he sees Paul say that Jesus appeared to Simon, 'and then' to the others. So the synoptic version had to have Jesus appearing first to Simon slipped in there. But ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, this isn't credible. It was the witness amending the originally agreed story after being tipped off it was lacking an important bit. This is fabricated testimony on several levels and should be chucked out, in a way the crucifixion can't be.

The minimal facts argument, even if we give it more legs than it deserves, itself chucks out the Resurrection on the basis - they do not agree in what happened. Sure, there are common elements, but the basic 'minimalist' fraud - the claim is made evidence for the claim - fails as does the angelic element. John picks up the tale of 2 angels in the tomb, but they do and say nothing of use. Just as John picks up the evening appearance, or the editor of John as I read that the last pages of John were added later, like the Freer logion, or the Luke addition about the disciples running to look at the tomb, which later addition (glossed in my Bible as 'some authorities have' which is Gobbledespeak for 'this was added later') plainly borrows from John. And the John 'addition' even has a pointless trip to Galilee to pick up their fishing job (when the beloved disciple was hardly a fisherman to start with) and fiddled in the netful of fish which tale Luke picks up for his calling of disciples.

It is pretty clear to see the accretions and fiddlings of bits of story and claims being fiddled into an original simple Jesus story. (see also the dubious efforts to give a reason for the women going to the tomb at all). I think this conclusion appears to have been missed, and maybe the experts don't want to admit they never thought of it. But I have Faith, that it will be understood, accepted and 'yep - that is what the writers did', as sure as I think the Exodus will be finally accepted as an 'origin story' concocted in Babylon during the exile.

To claw back to topic. 'Major shift' is just some of the grubby old tricks like' 'new atheism', 'New, new atheism' and probably new, new New atheism, as though they could dent it any more than old, old, old atheism. In short, it's a crafty trick of repackaging mouldy old Christian apologetics excuses as though they were shiny and new.

(1) I used a shorter clip but it was tempting to use the longer one from the Beatitudes. There's a Dissertation yet to be written or at least a Video (Like comment and subscribe) on the logical and historical flaws of the Life of Brian, with especial reference to the similar flaws in the Gospels. For instance, it says Judea, but the sermons (both of them, in different places) were both in Galilee. LoB implies they only need to walk downhill to arrive in Jerusalem for a Sanhedrin stoning.

[bjs1]

I'm updating this thread. Let's try another approach to possibly increase Christian interaction....

If some of the OT stuff were to be debunked to your own personal satisfaction, you would likely still believe. Why? All that really matters is that Jesus came, died for us, and resurrected. Which is not falsifiable, BTW, so your belief is safe from any true scrutiny.

Yes, if I were convinced that Jesus died and rose from the dead then that would be sufficient evidence that much of what he taught was true, and Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus (through the Apostles).

If I were also convinced that some events recorded in OT did not take place, I would still consider Christianity to be on the whole true. Christianity is based on Jesus, and the value of the Old Testament is primarily ethical and spiritual.

All that said, we cannot separate one Christian doctrine from the rest of the religion. It all, so to speak, hangs together. The resurrection only matters because of the other stuff Jesus said and did, and the other stuff he said and did only has validity because of the resurrection. If I knew that some guy name Jesus rose from the dead and new nothing else about him, then that would not be meaningful or useful knowledge.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a valid observation that much of the validity of the teachings of Jesus rests of the claim of the resurrection. If that didn't happen, then it is just the opinion of one person. It isn't the circular argument it appears to be - the Gospels' validity depends on the resurrection, not the resurrection on the teachings of the gospels. I would suppose that how much of the OT is included depends on the person in the Christian cafeteria. And maybe not everyone would be as willing to credit the contents of the Bible if the Resurrection was shown to be likely not true.

[POI]

I'm updating this thread. Let's try another approach to possibly increase Christian interaction....

If some of the OT stuff were to be debunked to your own personal satisfaction, you would likely still believe. Why? All that really matters is that Jesus came, died for us, and resurrected. Which is not falsifiable, BTW, so your belief is safe from any true scrutiny.

Yes, if I were convinced that Jesus died and rose from the dead then that would be sufficient evidence that much of what he taught was true, and Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus (through the Apostles).

If I were also convinced that some events recorded in OT did not take place, I would still consider Christianity to be on the whole true. Christianity is based on Jesus, and the value of the Old Testament is primarily ethical and spiritual.

All that said, we cannot separate one Christian doctrine from the rest of the religion. It all, so to speak, hangs together. The resurrection only matters because of the other stuff Jesus said and did, and the other stuff he said and did only has validity because of the resurrection. If I knew that some guy name Jesus rose from the dead and new nothing else about him, then that would not be meaningful or useful knowledge.

Going back to the OP, are the claims about Jesus even falsifiable for the skeptic? If so, how?

[TRANSPONDER]

Is falsifiable even relevant? Since history is not (in events) repeatable, we can't test it scientifically, but like detection work. And Colombo knows, forensic information clues plus deductive reasoning is enough to get convictions (or dismissal) of a case. Probability is valid since nobody gets sent to Jail, and the falsification (you can't prove it 100%) card is invalid, especially if the argument that, 'if you can't credit the Roman army praying to the rain god then you have to dismiss the whole history' only means, 'if the resurrection -story fails, the whole of the gospels fail' doesn't do their case any good. though they may settle for losing any kind of valid argument and make it a Faith matter in the end - which is certainly simpler than trying to wriggle out of the problems.

I have proposed apologetics of the 3 kinds
1. argue on the evidence
2. fiddle the evidence
3. Sauce.

That is to say, argue logically, evidentially, scientifically, since they have bought into the various claims asnd assurances that the Christian case is scientifically, historically and logically not only valid, but undeniable.

2. Is the wriggling when it falls apart quickly.Then the arguments about epistemology, semantics and what is 'evidence'. This is the 'How do we know what we know/'package and is effectively related to faithbased science -denial (where it can't be used to support the Bible). I've done that one before.

3 Sauce, cheek, or various ways to score a cheap final point as they run away is also known. Like i say, the mental method behind the Bible apologetics case is even more fascinating than the problem. Parthian shot Sauce or cheek (includes start a fight) is also an interesting one. Denial is more common but sauce or cheek methods are also most interesting like endless dickering to wear the other side out, endless denial of everything and...no not misdirection (we saw a religious debate quickly become political but while goalpost -trundling, changing the Point (1), drop one failed argument and try another, plus 'going Rogue' or on the attack is all part of Winning, Political is now part of religious apologetics (has been since tea party science denial party). Not just about saving the Christmas tree or the Constitution is Biblical, but 'taxes is slavery' and legislating sexual reactionism is now part of the religious apologetics.

(1) Bill Burr did a special on how women argue. It isn't just women, but anyone trying to win whatever it takes. 'I'm always Right' like theist-think and cult-think 'goes rogue' because getting to the truth doesn't matter, only winning for 'being Right', and Bill Burr despite having the best argument ends up doing the dishes again. NY resolution..mist lookup whether Niah finally crashed his plane.

[William]

When reading the accounts mentioned in the OP there is a distinction between both the attributes of the form and the associated assumptions re the resurrection phenomenon.

None of which can be easily explained with current known science apart from machincal/staged performing perhaps along the lines of holographic use of light and imagery projection.

Such an option by way of possible explanation nonetheless would go against the grain of the fundamentals of Christian belief in that such can be deemed "deception", which of course is the department of the Christian devil, so rock and hard place in that regard.

If the choices if Christianity lead to this point in history, what use were those choices?

This is most likely why so many Christians argue for the existence of " the supernatural", something which doesn't wash with today's knowledge of the power of machnical illusions.

[TRANSPONDER]

When reading the accounts mentioned in the OP there is a distinction between both the attributes of the form and the associated assumptions re the resurrection phenomenon.

None of which can be easily explained with current known science apart from machincal/staged performing perhaps along the lines of holographic use of light and imagery projection.

Such an option by way of possible explanation nonetheless would go against the grain of the fundamentals of Christian belief in that such can be deemed "deception", which of course is the department of the Christian devil, so rock and hard place in that regard.

If the choices if Christianity lead to this point in history, what use were those choices?

This is most likely why so many Christians argue for the existence of " the supernatural", something which doesn't wash with today's knowledge of the power of machnical illusions.

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.

[William]

[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.