Other then the fact that humans don't rise from the grave, how does one counter argue the Christian arguments for the resurrection of Christ?? I've read that, those who were hostile to Christ during his life would have had no reason to steal his body, that the Romans would not have, and that his disciples-who seem confused about his saying that he had to die and rise again-would not have stolen the body because they didn't expect Christ to rise again.

I know about "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" film, but I've read that it's used sloppy methods and is generally unreliable. Any good books, or films, would be helpful to me, though.

Jesus was not real, so he could not have been resurrected. End of story.

(September 12, 2010 at 2:17 pm)chasm Wrote: Jesus was not real, so he could not have been resurrected. End of story.

Eh?? Don't a lot of people accept that he was a real human being, who did live?? If not, I would really like to read some evidence that he never was alive in the first place-and I'm being completely serious.

(September 12, 2010 at 2:57 pm)dave4shmups Wrote: Eh?? Don't a lot of people accept that he was a real human being, who did live?

I have no idea. The Bible is a bunch of made up stories, and Jesus is one of the stories.

dave4shmups Wrote:If not, I would really like to read some evidence that he never was alive in the first place-and I'm being completely serious.

No. First I would like some evidence that he WAS alive.

(September 12, 2010 at 2:57 pm)dave4shmups Wrote:

(September 12, 2010 at 2:17 pm)chasm Wrote: Jesus was not real, so he could not have been resurrected. End of story.

Eh?? Don't a lot of people accept that he was a real human being, who did live?? If not, I would really like to read some evidence that he never was alive in the first place-and I'm being completely serious.

Many of the early Christians apparently didn't. This was such a problem that apparently John had two write not one but two epistles on the controversy.

1John 4:1-3

Quote:Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

and 2John Verse 7

Quote:For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Here we have two references to early Christians who didn't believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being ("Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"). Exactly who he's referring to isn't clear. It's believed that he was speaking of the Docetics, who thought that Jesus was a higher spirit who only seemed to appear in this world. However, it's not clear and the early Christian church did much to destroy evidence of heterodox Christian faiths to promote the idea, often touted by modern Christians, that there was only one faith all along.

What I find really interesting is how John uses the language of faith to condemn these heterodox Christians. "Believe"? "Confess"? How about just point to obvious recent history? Why condemn them by calling them "antichrists"? Why not just say these people are crazy? Did Jesus not have relatives living at that time (John was supposedly one of his disciples, after all)? Could they not have offered testimony that he really existed? What's to take on faith?

And just who were these Christians he was condemning? Why would devoted followers of Jesus ignore obvious recent history and invent a fantasy that he was a purely spiritual being? Or is it more likely that Jesus began as a higher spirit, was eventually brought down to earth in parables and then the parables were thought of as real stories?

But let all that go. Let's assume Jesus really did exist and that he was crucified. Where exactly is this "empty tomb"? The Catholics and Protestants both have one of their own. What about the story of his resurrection? The four Gospels and Acts can't get their story straight. Was the stone rolled away already or was it rolled away when Mary arrived? Were there two angels or one? Did Mary arrive at night or in the morning? Did Jesus arise into Heaven that day, eight days later or 40 days later?

See the Brick Testament's brilliant account of that resurrection story:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_lif...20_01.html

But some apologists will cry "picky picky" at all these internal contradiction. The important question is "would such a story have suddenly arose and been believed if it weren't true?"

See "Elvis sightings" of today, and we live in a less superstitious time.

"Fine", they may say, "But would they have died for a lie?"

See Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the Hale Bopp (Heaven's Gate) cult. People die all the time for idiotic religious beliefs.

And what proof do they have that any of this happened? "Historical documents" (their mythology).

Well, I guess that means Zeus was real, since he's documented in the Iliad, and we have the ruins of Troy to know that some sort of war did happen.

Excellent points, and I LOVE the Brick Testament! So, what about Christians who try and argue that people have been following Jesus for over 2000 years, and that people no longer worship Zeus??

Quote:Eh?? Don't a lot of people accept that he was a real human being, who did live??

Lots of people believe a lot of stupid shit. Doesn't make it true.

(September 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm)dave4shmups Wrote: So, what about Christians who try and argue that people have been following Jesus for over 2000 years, and that people no longer worship Zeus??

Christianity will go the way of the Egyptian religion-- that lasted 3,000 years. Of course, by then humans will invent some new idiotic religion to replace it though (if we haven't killed ourselves first, or get hit by a huge asteroid). Never underestimate the stupidity of human beings-- they can cling to superstitions for centuries.

Humans can't stand the thought of not being the center of the universe.

(September 12, 2010 at 2:15 pm)dave4shmups Wrote: Other then the fact that humans don't rise from the grave, how does one counter argue the Christian arguments for the resurrection of Christ?? I've read that, those who were hostile to Christ during his life would have had no reason to steal his body, that the Romans would not have, and that his disciples-who seem confused about his saying that he had to die and rise again-would not have stolen the body because they didn't expect Christ to rise again.

I know about "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" film, but I've read that it's used sloppy methods and is generally unreliable. Any good books, or films, would be helpful to me, though.

I am not as good an authority as some on this with respect to historicity issues. But I have problems with the logical contradiction of the resurrection. We are told that god the father, is a disembodied mind in a timeless and spaceless supernatural realm. But the resurrection and ascension of the Jesus figure was allegedly bodily, a body which requires time and space to exist. So if he did go somewhere it wasn't to where god (as the father) exists. Logically something with the dogma is false, where is Jesus?

My favorite argument against Jesus comes from Bob Price and Rene Salm:

"Few realize that ‘Nazareth’ is mentioned only once in the Gospel of Mark (1:9). That passage obviously conflicts with the rest of Mark’s gospel which knows Capernaum as Jesus’ home. Even the Matthaean parallel (3:13) does not yet know of Nazareth. For these and other cogent reasons, the word ‘Nazaret’ at Mk 1:9 is properly seen as the interpolation of a later hand. ‘Nazareth’ did not appear in the original Gospel of Mark! It doesn’t even appear in the earliest stratum of Matthew’s gospel"

"archaeologists have abandoned any claim to a ‘city’ at Nazareth. They currently advocate for “an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses” (Charlesworth, Tabor, Alexandre, et multi). The (lack of) evidence, however, shows that even this minimalist position is false and that traditionalist affirmations by Christian and other archaeologists writing on Nazareth continue to be tendentious. Worse, they sometimes stoop to fabricating evidence at critical junctures—as my book and articles (in American Atheist magazine and in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society) have demonstrated."

Though there is some contention over these claims, Ehrman for one doesn't buy it.