8 thoughts on “Michael Alter debunks Gary Habermas’s “Minimal Facts” Case for the Resurrection”

1. Hi Vincent,

   You’ve been digging really deep on this topic, so I’m curious about your current position. You’re still a Christian, so does that mean that you continue to believe in the Resurrection as a real, historical event? If so, and since you find Habermas unconvincing, what do your base your continued belief on? If I’m remembering correctly, at one point you said that you accepted the Resurrection based not on direct evidence, but rather on the fact of the Church’s success and influence, reasoning that it required a supernatural explanation and thus validated the Church’s tenets.

2. I vaguely remember (a worryingly regular situation theses days) Michael Alter visiting TSZ.

   Here

   Hope this post is an indication your life is less hectic, Vincent. My niece is in Japan, visiting and looking at a possible employment opportunity, Sapporo is where she is at the moment. It’s been a steep learning curve for her.

   ETA

   Also here

3. More background

   Michael Alter at Peaceful Science

   Like Keiths, I’m wondering if Vincent’s worldview has evolved over the last few years.

4. . Although I’m a Christian myself, I have to say I think the methodological criticisms Michael Alter makes are valid ones. Anyway, without further ado, here’s the interview. More posts will be following in the next few days.

   Hi VJ
   The basis of this argument shows the weakness of consensus claims where bias becomes hard to sort through. A better approach would be to look at the strength of the facts or claims themselves IMO.

   I do have a problem with your over use of the word debunked. Challenged is a valid word and better fits your last claim.

   Although I’m a Christian myself, I have to say I think the methodological criticisms Michael Alter makes are valid ones.

   The title of this discussion also lacks a scholarly approach using the negative label. Fabricated.

5. Hi keiths, Alan and colewd,

   Thank you for your comments. I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.

   1. I continue to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, but I also think it’s impossible to demonstrate its historical likelihood, primarily because the only well-attested group appearance of the risen Jesus was to the Twelve (or Eleven), and we simply don’t know whether they all saw, heard and felt the same thing when they saw Jesus. It’s quite plausible, for instance, that they all saw Jesus arrive and perhaps utter his customary greeting to them, before each of them then branched off and experienced divergent apparitions. It’s also quite plausible that while all of them saw Jesus arrive, only a few of them heard Jesus speak. nd we cannot ignore the wording of Matthew 28:17, referring to Jesus’ appearance to the Eleven on a mountain in Galilee: “some doubted.” [By the way, scholars today are generally agreed that the appearance to the 500 was not part of the original pre-Pauline creed (see https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/an-analysis-of-the-pre-pauline-creed-in-1-corinthians-151-11/ ), and in any case, it is nowhere attested in the Gospels.] My main reason for believing in the Resurrection is a pragmatic one: the fruits of Christianity. That’s hardly a proof, but for someone who has grown up as a Christian, it may be a sufficient reason to continue believing.

   2. I’m happy to accept colewd’s criticism of the word “debunked” in the title of my OP. “Challenged” would have been a better word. Still, I think point (c) alone calls Habermas’s methodology into question. If most of the people who write books about the Resurrection have a vested interest in defending it, then appealing to their opinions in an attempt to buttress an argument for the Resurrection is somewhat question-begging. Instead, it would be better to ask what the majority of critical scholars think, as these are scholars who are prepared to change their minds as new facts come to light. (Ehrman, for instance, has changed his mind on issues such as whether the Gospel authors believed in Jesus’ divinity, and whether he was buried in a known tomb.) Regarding the word “Fabricated” in the title of Michael Alter’s Youtube video, I think it’s unlikely that Michael would have chosen it. I think it’s more likely that the host of the “History Valley” show would have selected it.

   3. The past few months have been very busy for me, due to various family-related issues. I apologize for not posting more frequently, but I hope to have more free time over the next few weeks. Cheers.

6. Vincent,
   What do you think of Leo XIV? As a self-described “bad Catholic”, do you see him as fitting better with your “bad Catholicism” than Francis, or worse?

7. Hi keiths,

   He sounds like an interesting guy. From what I’ve read, he’s a very cool customer, and he’s not afraid to “speak truth to power.” I suspect that’s what got him elected: his fellow cardinals sensed that he’ll be able to take on Trump. I doubt whether we’ll see any departures from the line Pope Francis took, but there may well be a change of emphasis. I think pro-life advocates will be delighted, pro-LGBT advocates not so enthusiastic: on the latter point, Pope Leo XIV may be less welcoming than his predecessor, although he’ll still try to reach out. What I’m really interested in, however, is whether he’ll implement the proposals put forward by Snap, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. If he does that, it’ll dramatically enhance the Church’s credibility, but I have to say that his past record does not inspire confidence. Still, he might take a stronger line, now that he’s in power. See more here:

   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/clergy-molestation-survivors-pope-leo-xiv

   Cheers.

8. vjtorley:
   If most of the people who write books about the Resurrection have a vested interest in defending it, then appealing to their opinions in an attempt to buttress an argument for the Resurrection is somewhat question-begging. Instead, it would be better to ask what the majority of critical scholars think, as these are scholars who are prepared to change their minds as new facts come to light. (Ehrman, for instance…

   This is a good point that needs more careful consideration. Nearly all biblical scholars (and scholars of that region around that time) are Christian. Yeah, Ehrman is always mentioned, but he’s not considered a trustworthy scholar by some others, since he proposes non-existent “sources” like M or Q and then uses those sources to support his arguments. He has actually written that we “have” those sources! The point being, Ehrman is a believer who has fabricated validation for his belief. But in this respect, he may be typical of Christian biblical scholars.

   The more fundamental problem is that there are almost NO extra-biblical materials to be found. For most of the first century, we have near-total silence (in terms of what has been preserved), and we have very curious lacunae in existing extra-biblical sources that cover years the bible says are Jesus’ birth, preaching, and death. If we regard the bible as not trustworthy, we really have no evidence of anything in it – or rather, in the New Testament. This ought to cause you to wonder about the perspective and objectivity of Christian historical scholars.

   Get outside the Christian echo chamber, and we find no compelling reason to believe there ever was a Moses, an Abraham, or a Jesus – much less miracles nobody external to the bible wrote about (that would surely have been preserved if accounts existed). To me, discussions of the resurrection are like debating the attire of the 32nd angel on the pinhead, meaningful only to those who believe in angels in the first place.

   What would be entertaining would be to go back in a time machine and have a debate between Paul and Mark.