withallyourmind.net

Over 9 previous posts, I have presented Gary Habermas’ Minimal Facts Argument for the resurrection (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9). I first presented 12 facts which are accepted as historical by virtually all scholars who research in this area. Those 12 facts were then pared to 6 minimal facts which are sufficient to establish the resurrection as an historical event. This argument does not depend upon being granted the inerrancy of scripture, divine inspiration of scripture, nor even the general reliability of the Old Testament. Obviously, I do hold to all of the above, but I do not need to depend on those assumptions nor be granted them to establish firm grounds for believing that the resurrection actually occurred.

These are the six minimal facts which are consented to by virtually all scholars. I have discussed each in more details in the previous posts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. The disciples had experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
3. The disciples were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.
4. The apostolic proclamation of the resurrection began very early, when the church was in its infancy.
5. James, the brother of Jesus and a fomer skeptic, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
6. Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

- from The Risen Jesus & Future Hope -

Taken together, these 6 facts refute each of the naturalistic hypotheses concerning the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They also firmly establish a rational basis for believing the resurrection did occur. For example, the hallucination theory (that Jesus was not raised, but that the disciples hallucinated), the swoon theory (that Jesus did not die, but only swooned on the cross), the legend theory (that the resurrection story arose gradually over time) all are refuted by these six facts. That these facts are acknowledged as true across a broad ideological and interdisciplinary spectrum is significant.

Do these six facts absolutely “prove” the resurrection? No, not in the sense of logical necessity. However, we do not usually think of proof in those terms. We accept many things as proven without attaining logical necessity. I believe these facts do establish that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what happened. If one wishes to believe otherwise, he must choose to do so in spite of the evidence. As Habermas concluded:

The minimally known data are sufficient to indicate that Jesus’s resurrection is by far the best historical explanation.