tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post5348147288385379540..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Empty Tomb Doesn't Matter?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-65570934286851569482010-11-28T07:14:50.447-05:002010-11-28T07:14:50.447-05:00"Minimal facts" is a strangely appropria..."Minimal facts" is a strangely appropriate name for this style of argument. <br /><br />One of the questions I have been thinking about recently is this: Let's suppose that these are the five (or three or eleven) facts that historians agree about. As a point of historical methodology, is there any reason to think that the agreed facts are more significant than the disputed facts?<br /><br />Suppose I were sitting on a jury and the only three undisputed facts were that the victim was dead, the defendant had a motive to kill the defendant, and the defendant was seen near the victim's house at the time he died. Suppose on the other hand that the cause of death was disputed. Could there be anything more absurd than convicting the defendant without knowing the cause of death?<br /><br />I am also hesitant to describe any of Licona's points as facts or to concede that they are undisputed, but were I to do so, I would still think the approach to be maximum crap. What Ehrman raises are issues upon which the evidence is insufficient for historians to reach a definitive conclusion. Any one of these would be sufficient to completely destroy the plausibility of the resurrection as a historical explanation (assuming that it had any in the first place).Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com