1. Describe the "minimal" facts approach to the resurrection question. Be sure in your Answer, to provide a general description and outline of this approach when applied to the Resurrection of Christ. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

The "minimal facts" method examines the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ and contends that even if just the facts that are most largely agreed upon by academics are considered, the evidence still leads to the conclusion that Christ was risen from the grave. Some people claim that we may treat some details regarding Christ's resurrection as historical facts because they are so well-attested by ancient sources (Breton, 2012). The crucifixion of Christ, the belief of His followers in His resurrection, and the persecution of the early Christian community are all examples. Opponents of the minimum facts approach believe that natural explanations can adequately account for the available historical data. They can say things like the disciples hallucinated or the early Christians were persecuted for reasons other than their faith in the resurrection. When it comes to the topic of Christ's resurrection, I side with the minimal facts approach. Even if just the most generally accepted facts are considered, I believe they still lead to the conclusion that Christ was risen from the death. The fact that it is founded on Occam's razor is one of the key reasons I support the minimal facts approach. When there are competing hypotheses for an event, this principle asserts that the simplest answer is more likely to be right. To say that Christ's followers just hallucinated and also that the ancient Christian society was persecuted for causes other than their faith in the resurrection is to miss the point entirely.