Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[widdershins]

First, it was from scholars and historians that I GOT most of this. Experts already know this; it's the muddled masses who need to know.

Correction, it's from fringe scholars and historians you got this.  The MAJORITY do not agree with you.  Every scientific field has their fringe nuts.  In evolution it's Michael Behe.  In physics it's Giorgio Tsoukalos.  There are a few with climate change.

The thing is YOU DO NOT GET TO PICK which historians you want to listen to.  Yeah, they can give a convincing argument...to you.  But their argument seem to fall the hell apart when they give it to their colleagues.

Which is why they (and you) feel they need to "take it to the public", a VERY well known way to peddle scientific bunk.  If you can't convince peers because they know better the next best thing is to take it to the "muddled masses".  If you can't prove you're right, well, at least convince a bunch of people who don't know better than you have.  And THAT is what you and your heavily biased "scholars and historians" are doing.

I will make you a bet right now.  NOT ONE of the people you get your information found religion based on their research into history, but EVERY ONE of them is Christian.  That doesn't set up any red flags for you?  That doesn't suggest that maybe this ONE THING they ALL have in common might just be a sign of a serious bias which just might be influencing their opinions?  If not, you're deluded.

Second, are you one of those people who know more about Christianity than I do, widdershins? Hot damn! An atheist I can learn from at last! You have no idea how truly rare someone like you is in forums like this. EXTREMELY rare.

I can't know anything about religion because I'm an atheist?  Actually, many studies have found that atheists ROUTINELY know more about religion than religious people.  That's just an ignorant statement.  And, judging by some of the claims you've made here, especially claiming the the church can trace the line of popes clear back to the beginning, yes, I am very much one of those people who knows more about Christianity than you do.  I was a Christian once and, unlike you, apparently, I looked into the viability of multiple Christian religions with an open mind with the intent of determining, not that it was real, not that it was false, but whether or not it was real.  I didn't talk to any atheists during that 2 year search.  I talked to only Christians of various Christian religions.  And I got insight and perspective from multiple people in multiple religions, plus my own religious experiences, plus all the research I've done besides, plus reading the Bible.  I know, for instance, that the Catholic church can only trace the line of popes back without dispute to, AT BEST, the third century.  Any further back than that is definitely disputable.  You, apparently, think the line is unbroken and ironclad clear back to Jesus.  It is not.  If you don't even know your own church's history how can I NOT know more about Christianity in general than you?

Actually, no. Even skeptics acknowledge the Five Minimal Facts, and they make a powerful argument for the resurrection of Jesus. That's not conjecture, btw, that the result of a longitudinal study (30+ years) of peer-reviewed papers about Jesus published in scholarly journals. Bottom line: the majority of scholars accept these five facts, and they are supportive - not dismissive - of the core Christian message.

No, they don't acknowledge the "Five Minimal Facts".  The first is "Jesus died".  They don't even acknowledge that Jesus was a real historical figure, so how can they acknowledge these stupid "Minimal Assertions"?  In fact, this argument is a method of AVOIDING having to prove that historical accuracy of the Bible.

Those five "facts" are: 1. Jesus died, 2. Disciples believed they saw Jesus risen, 3. James the skeptical brother believed, 4. Paul the persecutor believed, 5. The tomb was empty.  No, scholars and skeptics DO NOT acknowledge those as "facts".  In fact, if you can't even prove that Jesus ever lived then NOT ONE of these "facts" is anything even resembling a "fact".

But let's put that aside.  Let's say that everyone agrees with these ludicrous "facts".  Dude dies + followers believe he rose + another dude believes + another dude believes + the tomb was empty = magic is real????  What the fuck?  Even if your utter horseshit assertion that EVERYONE agrees with these 5 "facts" were true how does a guy dying + people believing he came back + one of the reasons they believed he came back make a "powerful argument" that magic happened?  EVEN IF your idiotic and COMPLETELY FALSE assertion were true the only "powerful argument" it would make is that people were fucking stupid 2,000 years ago.

Actually, we converted both the pagans AND their celebrations and made them Christian. Pretty clever. Sorry if that bothers you somehow.

Actually, the acceptance of their celebrations was the method of conversion.  Well, that, torture, death threats, the usual.

Riiiiiiight. No historical evidence whatsoever. Sorry, but when even atheists like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan acknowledging the existence of Jesus, there's not much credibility for Jesus Mythicism. However, I see that you are saying, "He MAY HAVE existed." So, that's a step in the right direction.

AGAIN with the cherry picking of the EXCEPTIONS from the vast majority!  Do you think finding one atheist scholar who says what you want to hear outweighs 100,000 atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu and other scientist saying what you DON'T want to hear?  PLEASE finally understand that finding a few "exceptions" who agree with you, EVEN IF THEY ARE ATHEIST, does not prove that the MAJORITY are wrong!  I DON'T CARE how many exceptions you can come up with or who they are.  It's the MAJORITY I listen to because that is how science works!  Frankly I'm getting sick of explaining how science works to you because it's the SAME FUCKING EXPLANATION EVERY SINGLE TIME!  It's the MAJORITY which matters, NOT the credentials of each individual fringe.  I don't care if Richard Fucking Dawkins accepts a historical Jesus, if the MAJORITY does not agree with him then HE IS WRONG until they do, THE FUCKING END!

I get all this. I do. But what you may be overlooking is the fact that researchers can admit, "Hey, there are some interpolations here...I wonder what the text looks like without them?" and then get to work sifting through the material.

And you know what, widdershins? When the variants and interpolations are taken into consideration, not a single Christian doctrine is called into question by them. Even Ehrman concedes this point.

When I mentioned interpolations I was not talking about any "Christian" documents.  I was talking about the tampered with "non-Christian" history.  The "interpolation" to which I was referring is where the history says "some guy" and Christianity says, "Hey, that sounds like Jesus.  Let's replace 'some guy' with Jesus."

Now to your last point. This has to be one of the most illogical things I've heard in some time. If God is perfect and I am not, how does my lack of perfection call His into question? This simply does not follow. Being an imperfect follower of God does nothing to prove His imperfection because there is no claim that God makes ALL of His followers perfect. So, I may be the worst liar on the planet and this is no proof of God's lack of honesty.

It's simple.  If you come to me using the tools of the devil then you are not sent by God.  If you try to use the devil's tactics to convince me then you are not a messenger of God.  The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and you want me to follow you.  It only makes sense to see where you're going before I hop on into your windowless van.  I don't expect the followers of God to be perfect.  Far from it.  But, assuming God is real, what are the chances, do you think, that he would be okay with his people using the devil's toolbox to do his work?  Do you REALLY think the vengeful, jealous God of the Bible would accept a liar into Heaven, EVEN IF that liar lied for what he believed was a good reason?  Are God's people used car salesmen?  Is God okay with them saying and doing whatever is necessary to save souls?  Or is it more likely that if you come to me with a lie to convert me to your religion that you aren't really on the narrow path you think you're on and you'll actually be leading me astray?  How the hell can you follow sin to Heaven?  It's stupid if you think you can.

Let me interject here that you are merely asserting that I am wrong without providing any evidence to prove what you are saying. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, widdershins, that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts? What is your basis for believing this?

Man, you really don't see an issue with any of that argument do you?  First, this is not a court of law.  You would LIKE to use the standards of our legal system because they're actually a lot easier to meet than the standards of science, so you keep trying to get away from scientific method at every turn.  I am NEVER going to accept an argument that throws out science and tries to rewrite the rules to make it easier for you to make your point.

Second, have you EVER seen a case where the defendant had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he DIDN'T commit a crime?  You don't prove a negative.  Not in court, not in science, not on Internet forums discussing religion or other such voodoo nonsense.  You are making the claim that magic is real, and it is a VERY high bar to prove beyond a "reasonable doubt" to prove that.  You can't provide evidence for you, frankly, ludicrous claim that Jesus went around casting spells left and right 2,000 years ago.  So the first thing you do is lower the bar for yourself.  But even then it's STILL not low enough for you to prove magic is real.  So then you shift the burden of proof onto me.  Now you don't have to prove magic is real, I have to prove magic isn't real.  But you know what, fucker?  I can do that.

In all of history there has NEVER been a SINGLE proven case of any form of magic scientifically proven EVER!!!  There's your reasonable fucking doubt.

We do. And there are LOTS of copies, and the greater the number of copies, the easier it is for textual critics to determine what the original said. You like science? Great. This is a scientific approach for examining ancient texts.

So you DO know how science works, you just only use it when it's convenient and throw it out when it's not.

It doesn't apply and here's why (the author is an expert in this field):

Why the Hearsay Rule Shouldn’t Apply to the Gospels
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/why-the-hearsay-rule-shouldnt-apply-to-the-gospels/

Moving on.

I really wish we could move on past this ridiculous courtroom nonsense.  Science is nothing like a court of law.  The rules of court to not apply here and they most certainly do not let us discard scientific method when it is inconvenient for our argument.  Suddenly you don't like science so much again.

You don't get to pick and choose which set of rules you want to follow at each step of your argument.  You follow the same rules throughout the argument, and in this case those rules are scientific, not legal.  We're not in a court.  We're not prosecuting a case.  We're talking history, and unfortunately for you, the debate is settled, by scientific rules, because the majority of historians and scholars disagree with what you would like to believe.  So you switch to courtroom rules to lower the bar.  That's not how reality works.

Blah, blah, blah, more shit about court cases which really doesn't apply....

Can we begin with whether or not it's even possible? And to give me a fighting chance, can we begin by treating it (and me) with some respect?

Respect is earned.  You want it, you earn it.  You can start by not moving the goalposts all over the damned place by jumping back and forth between scientific and courtroom rules depending on how high you want the bar to be set.

We're talking about miracles...not "magic". We're considering whether the supernatural exists and, if so, how God might interact with the natural world.

They are the same.  If Jesus turns water into wine you call it a miracle.  If I do it you call it magic.  But we both turned water into wine.  We both did the same thing.  You prefer that we not use the word magic to describe the particular magic you believe in.  It bothers you to use the word "magic" to describe Jesus going all Harry Potter.  But it's still magic.  By the definition of magic, we're talking about magic and I will keep calling it magic because I believe it better illustrates how ludicrous your claim is.  You are claiming that magic is real and Christians can cast spells through prayer.  You would prefer it not be worded that way, but that statement is accurate.

So, I won't belittle your beliefs, if you won't belittle mine. Fair?

Fair, but I don't care if you belittle my "lack of" beliefs.  If you are going to make the claim that history shows Jesus was real, that history shows Jesus rose from the dead, that history shows magic is real, that is a belief I will very much belittle.  You see, you are not simply claiming that you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  That, I could respect.  You are claiming that history proves that Jesus rose from the dead, which means that you are claiming that history proves that magic is real, and that is not worthy of my respect.  I can respect you if you present your beliefs as beliefs, and I would show you proper respect then.  But when you're presenting an argument along the lines of, "It's stupid NOT to believe in magic because science shows how very real magic is", well, that's just stupid and I will treat it as stupid.

EDIT: By the way, if you think you are not belittling my "beliefs" then you are very much mistaken.  You come here, to the place I call home, and start demanding that we accept a history rewritten by you and a few fringe nuts, essentially claiming that we are unreasonable and/or stupid for not accepting your revisionist history.  For some time now you have been making wild, unfounded assertions and all but saying that anyone who is both reasonable and intelligent must agree with you.  If I made the claim that it's obvious Jesus never existed based on X, gave examples of people in the Catholic church agreeing with me (not the pope, mind you, just the odd priest here and there that you'd never heard of), COMPLETELY IGNORED the vast majority of Catholics who AND church doctrine, which says no such thing and, based on the cherry-picking of a few morons within your church made the claim that it was "obvious" that I was right, that it was "fact" because one wacky priest agrees with what I want to hear and that all "intelligent" people agree with me, would I be showing your beliefs any respect by doing that?  Would I be showing you respect by pointing out the fringe and saying, "THAT is what your church teaches!"?  Because that is what you are doing here.  That's the "respect" that you are showing my "beliefs", not that you will do anything with that information other than to ignore it, as you have ever time I've brought up how you're ignoring the masses to focus on the few who say what you want to hear in your arguments.

I think I get the gist of the challenge before me. Thanks.

Did you just go all Neil Patrick Harris on that shit?  Is that actually, "Challenge accepted!"  Now THAT, I can respect.  THAT is the attitude of someone who ACTUALLY believes, not some poser who has convinced himself that he believes, but shies away from ever "proving" that he is right because he's afraid he'll find he's not.

Nor should you "just buy it." You need to consider it very carefully, because if you decide to accept it, it will cost you everything.

Blah, blah, blah.  Words.  Meaningless, pointless words meant to sound mysterious without saying anything.  It's like, "There is no 'I' in 'team'".  You know my response to that?  "No, but there is an 'M' and an 'E', fucker!  Do you have a point?"
Go slow.
[/quote]

[Randy Carson]

Well, I did research, but the ordering is mine. I can't claim to have personally rooted out every one of them, but I saw similar lists that were all jumbled up, with no easy way to find any particular contradiction, so I just put them in some order to make it easier.

Okay. I do that sort of thing with material I'm learning, so that makes sense.

Well, here's an easy ont to start with:

45. Is Jesus' witness of himself true?
Yes
Jn 8:14No
Jn 5:31

In John 5:31, Jesus is referring to the law; specifically, whether His testimony about Himself would be accepted. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case. So, in a court of law, His testimony about Himself would not be considered "true" or sufficient.

This is commonly understood by atheists for example when they point out that believers sometimes try to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible. It's a circular argument. Jesus is saying, "If I merely testify about myself, then I have proved nothing." He then goes on to list two more witnesses to the truth of what He is saying: John the Baptist and the works that He is doing which are a sign that He is from God:

John 5:3-36
32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.

33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finishâ€"the very works that I am doingâ€"testify that the Father has sent me.

Further, here is an analogy taken from the article referenced below:

Consider the following illustration. An innocent man on trial for murder is judged to be guilty by the jury, even after proclaiming his innocence. (Suppose someone had framed the defendant for the murder and all of the evidence the jury heard pointed to the defendant as the offender.) When leaving the court house, if wrongly convicted defendant is asked by a reporter, “Are you guilty?,” and he responds by throwing up his hands up in exasperation and saying, “If the court says I’m guilty, I’m guilty,” has the man lied? Even though the statements, “I am guilty,” and “I am not guilty,” are totally different, they may not be contradictory, depending on the time and sense in which they are spoken. After the trial, the wrongly accused defendant simply repeated the jury’s verdict. He said, “I am guilty,” and meant, “The court has found me guilty.”

In John 8:14, Jesus is simply referring to His own words which He knew to be true. Notice he says, "Even if I testify on my own behalf (despite the fact that a court would not accept it), my testimony is true...". How many people have been wrongly convicted of a crime and said, "I don't care what the court said, I know I'm telling the truth"? The same principle applies to this second quote.

Here is a fuller treatment of this apparent contradiction which is actually not a contradiction at all:

Was Jesus’ Witness “True” or “Not True”?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1028

I'd like to get back to the OP: the dating of the gospels, but to be fair, I'll try to answer one more if you like.

[Randy Carson]

So, some guy just happens to be there to tell them Jesus was risen, and they believed him!?

Maybe not at that moment. Remember, the women went back and reported that Jesus was missing. Then John and Peter ran to the tomb. Even then there was doubt and confusion. It was not until they saw Jesus, they touched his wounds, He ate a piece of fish in their presence...then they believed.

Yeah, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, but then I read the Bible, and that put the kibosh on that.

It is unfortunate that you did not have a good teacher who could help you to understand what you were reading better.

Acts 8:30-31

[Randy Carson]

But not any word from a omnipotent deity. Gotcha

Imagine if the bible would say 'and at the end of the 20th century A.D. (!) a communication method will be invented called the internet. Astronauts from a continent called America will land and walk on the moon and at roughly the same time the first heart transplant will be performed in South Africa.'

But no such thing. Instead we have to stay away from our neighbor's ass and worry about gnashing teeth. Maybe if you think a little deeper you will understand.

Oh. I see. You wanted a prophetic word.

Okay, given what happened to Jesus a thousand years later, what simpleton could have written this:

Isaiah 53:3-12
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
    yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
    and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
    Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
    for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
    and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
    and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
    and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
    he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
    and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
    and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.


Isaiah had no idea that Jesus would be pierced and crushed for our iniquities.

[reasonist]

No, no dice again. I wasn't asking for a prophetic word, I was asking for one single word that could not have been written by a human and ONLY come from divine inspiration. So which word are you referring to that could only come from divine inspiration? Sheep, slaughter, crush, suffer....no can't be. Still looking......nope can't find any.
Could it be, possibly, theoretically, that the unknown authors of the bible made up history to fulfill the Torah prophecies? Nuh, can't be. And what about the hundreds of prophecies that weren't fulfilled? Apparently it's like the weather forecast: a crap shoot.
So again: ONE SINGLE word that could not have come from human origin and I am persuaded. Take your time.
I gave you examples like astronauts, America, internet and so on...now you get it?

[Randy Carson]

As you fully realize, theists don't think, they believe.   So, to suggest they use some critical thinking would roll off them like water off a ducks back.  Many would not even know what you are talking about, since they believe they already are thinking critically; they conflate thinking with believing.  And when they really need to turn from critical thinking they use their faith.  A Randy will never lose his faith--unless something just shakes him to his core and he can't help but notice that faith means nothing.  And who knows what that something would be; and it doesn't happen very often.  Randy could carry on like this forever and nothing we say will even register with him that he is wrong about anything or even a small detail is incorrect.  He is the Catholic Church's dream lay person--he just prays and pays and tries to suck in more and more paying customers.

Sure, Mike. You're the man.

[Mike Cl]

Sure, Mike. You're the man.

Thank you, Randy.  I wish I could say the same about you.

[Randy Carson]

OK, I'll bite:

If there was no Nazareth, how could there be such a person as Jesus of Nazareth?

It's not so clear that the there was no Nazareth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

There were certainly many people with the name Jesus in those days, Josephus records several, I think.

And several of them had a brother named James put to death by Ananias? Josephus recorded this, also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_James_Passage_2

[Randy Carson]

People are really good at thinking up scams.

True.

They're also pretty good at sniffing them out...especially when given a LOT of time to do so.

[Randy Carson]

Because, as Jerry Falwell said, "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

What about the Jews and Gentiles who were NOT Christians when the whole thing got started?

[Randy Carson]

The Mormon Church: why does it exist?

Because a real historical person started it.

Muslims: why do they exist?

Because a real, historical person started it.

Stupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?

Because two real, historical people started me.

Why does the Christian Church exist?

[Mike Cl]

Because a real historical person started it.

Because a real, historical person started it.

Because two real, historical people started me.

Why does the Christian Church exist?

Because real historical people started it.  None of them were named Jesus.

[widdershins]

Because a real historical person started it.

Because a real, historical person started it.

Because two real, historical people started me.

Why does the Christian Church exist?

Because Zeus started it, obviously.

[widdershins]

Don't play games. You made a positive statement and the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate works.

Otherwise, all you have is an opinion which you are asserting.

Funny.  That's not how you saw it when you said this to me:

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, widdershins, that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts?

[Randy Carson]

I will make you a bet right now.  NOT ONE of the people you get your information found religion based on their research into history, but EVERY ONE of them is Christian.  That doesn't set up any red flags for you?  That doesn't suggest that maybe this ONE THING they ALL have in common might just be a sign of a serious bias which just might be influencing their opinions?  If not, you're deluded.

It's possible, maybe even probable. After all, people tend to go to college to study things they are interested in and love. Some people are interested in God and love Jesus. Are they biased? Sure. Are they thereby unreliable? Hardly.

And sure, they have a desire to refute the stupidity of atheists who ALSO have their own biases. Can you admit that? If not, you're deluded.

I can't know anything about religion because I'm an atheist? 

Cite the post # wherein I made this statement, please.

Actually, many studies have found that atheists ROUTINELY know more about religion than religious people.  That's just an ignorant statement. 

"Religion" or Christianity specifically. I think I referenced Christianity, but I'm not going back to check. This is a pathetic line of argumentation.

And, judging by some of the claims you've made here, especially claiming the the church can trace the line of popes clear back to the beginning, yes, I am very much one of those people who knows more about Christianity than you do. 

I already gave you two passages from two Early Church Fathers tracing the lineage of the popes back to Peter. Deal with them.

I was a Christian once and, unlike you, apparently, I looked into the viability of multiple Christian religions with an open mind with the intent of determining, not that it was real, not that it was false, but whether or not it was real.

I am a convert to Catholicism from the Methodist Church. I, too, did my homework...and have continued to examine the facts of history over the past 40 years since my conversion. I spend hours daily for the past 10 years in online apologetics forums answering questions from Protestants, Orthodox, and atheists alike. I'm fairly confident that I have done enough research in order to respond to them and to you quite well.

I didn't talk to any atheists during that 2 year search.  I talked to only Christians of various Christian religions.  And I got insight and perspective from multiple people in multiple religions, plus my own religious experiences, plus all the research I've done besides, plus reading the Bible.  I know, for instance, that the Catholic church can only trace the line of popes back without dispute to, AT BEST, the third century.  Any further back than that is definitely disputable. 

No, you don't KNOW this because what you "know" is from non-Catholic critics of the Church. Hey, even the Eastern Orthodox would have no problem with the Catholic Church claim of Apostolic Succession from Peter (they simply disagree with who caused the schism among other things).

Only Protestant polemicists argue about the succession of the papacy. It's a LOST argument for anyone who denies it.

You, apparently, think the line is unbroken and ironclad clear back to Jesus.  It is not.  If you don't even know your own church's history how can I NOT know more about Christianity in general than you?

Deal with the two passages from Irenaeus and Augustine. I'll lay them out again:

Irenaeus

"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

Peter (and Paul)
Linus
Anencletus
Clement
Evaristus
etc.

Deal with that. And since Augustine lived later, his lineage contains more names:

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known” (To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 [A.D. 400], in NPNF1,I:298).

Deal with that.

No, they don't acknowledge the "Five Minimal Facts".  The first is "Jesus died".  They don't even acknowledge that Jesus was a real historical figure, so how can they acknowledge these stupid "Minimal Assertions"?  In fact, this argument is a method of AVOIDING having to prove that historical accuracy of the Bible.

Oh, so you've read Habermas thoroughly? You know what his study over the past 30 years has revealed about trends in acceptance of these five facts?

And, since you bring it up, this argument is a method of demonstrating the probability of the Resurrection without having to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.

IOW: We don't actually need the to prove the resurrection of Jesus; we can do it from non-biblical sources and pure logic.

Deal with that.

Those five "facts" are: 1. Jesus died, 2. Disciples believed they saw Jesus risen, 3. James the skeptical brother believed, 4. Paul the persecutor believed, 5. The tomb was empty.  No, scholars and skeptics DO NOT acknowledge those as "facts".  In fact, if you can't even prove that Jesus ever lived then NOT ONE of these "facts" is anything even resembling a "fact".

So, you have read all of the peer-reviewed papers in publications in English, French and German that Habermas has read? You have another opinion about what scholars are saying in these scholarly papers? Or are you simply spouting your own opinion and wishful-thinking?

But let's put that aside.  Let's say that everyone agrees with these ludicrous "facts".  Dude dies + followers believe he rose + another dude believes + another dude believes + the tomb was empty = magic is real????  What the fuck? 

WTF? Well, I'll tell you. The Resurrection has explanatory scope and depth.

If these five things are true, what explaination for them can you offer?

Even if your utter horseshit assertion that EVERYONE agrees with these 5 "facts" were true how does a guy dying + people believing he came back + one of the reasons they believed he came back make a "powerful argument" that magic happened?  EVEN IF your idiotic and COMPLETELY FALSE assertion were true the only "powerful argument" it would make is that people were fucking stupid 2,000 years ago.

Of course they were. Or that they were telling the truth about what they saw because it actually happened.

Now, how do you explain these five facts?