How to debunk the resurrection?...

[Minimalist]

And Pliny ( c 110-112 AD) who gives us our first Greco-Roman mention of "christians" also fails to mention the juicy little tidbit about these xtians worshiping a guy who had been executed by a Roman magistrate. That kind of thing that would interest a lawyer like Pliny!

And Pliny also never mentions the word "Jesus." Instead he mentions only "Christus" which he would know from the Greek meant "The Anointed One." Just a title. Not a name. It's probably just as well the Pliny did not know the name because without a "Nazareth" he would have had to refer to him as 'Jesus from Fucking Nowhere.'

[Godscreated]

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
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
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.

I've gone to three different translations ( The New American Standard, NIV and English Standard Version ) And none of them use the words I've put in bold above. I'm not sure what translation you have used, I hope it's not yours. Those three words placed at that part of the passage could be used to bring up controversy if one were of a mind, which it's apparent you are of that mind set. Without those three words in that particular place, the meaning of the passage becomes very clear, John was speaking of the nonbelievers period. This passage was not written about two christian factions with different beliefs it was written to show that the love of God would be in all true believers and absent from the nonbeliever, read the rest of the chapter and quit cherry picking. As for 2nd John:7 even though the words in the flesh appear that shows only that John was speaking of the nonbelieveing Jews and the reason is the Jews were the only people expecting Christ to come in the flesh. This short book is about the true believer and the love he/she has from God and how the love from God is absent in the nonbeliever. Again please stop cherry picking just so you can try to make something appear that is not there. So, what you have written below is a false assumption and has nothing to do with the true meaning of the passage.

---

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?

What language was he suppose to use this is a spiritual matter not a history lesson. John knew Christ, he had a trustworthy reputation amoung believers and they believed what he said without giving details like you want in his writtings. John never expected these three short letters to become a part of the Bible we have today he probably didn't give it a thought that these letters would last past that generation. John says at the end of these letters that he had more to teach but wanted to do it in person and not by letter, so what would make you think that he never told others in person about the life of Christ. This faith, belief or what ever you might call it is meant for those who embraced it not for the half hearted skeptic.

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?

John was not condemning christians, it was nonbelievers trying to undermine the truth of His coming. Your questioning statment is false and there is no real basis for it to stand on.

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?

Yes let's not hang on to what you've said so far. No assuming to it Jesus is real. Why try to find a tomb that is not occupied with Jesus body. The stone was rolled away before she arrived. There were two angels. Mary arrived in the morning. Christ assent to Heaven was 40 days later.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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

Yes.So what? Argument ad populum, aka argument by consensus.A lot of people believed GWB was good a president and attually re elected him. A lot of people believe in miracles and the infallibility of The Pope.

A lot of people are fucking stoopid (George Carlin)

There is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus.The best that he may well have existed.The basics seem plausible enough: A wondering rabbi in C1st CE Judea,whose may have been something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusef. He seems to have followed a long Jewish tradition of itinerant teachers. He may have had a small group of followers and may even have been crucified by the Romans for sedition.

Such a person was not the founder of Christianty,but at best the founder of a small orthodox Jewish sect. A small ,obscure sect was transformed into Christianity by the the person or persons now called 'Paul Of Tarsus'.The authority for the massive changes* were Paul's visions. (No one acatually knos who he was either,or even if he was only one person. Some modern scholars claim Paul's letters were almost certainly written by at least two authors.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


* Regardless of Jesus' instructions to obey the law,Paul abolished most of it,including circumcision and the strict dietary laws.. Paul also introduced new theological ideas,such as an eternal hell. Such a concept has never been part of Judaism.

[DeistPaladin]

I've gone to three different translations ( The New American Standard, NIV and English Standard Version ) And none of them use the words I've put in bold above.

1. I used the KJV, the darling of some fundy Christians.
2. Re-read the ones you used. They DO say "in the flesh".

This faith, belief or what ever you might call it is meant for those who embraced it not for the half hearted skeptic.

Faith isn't necessary when speaking of obvious and verifiable reality. Frankly, John shouldn't have even needed to discuss them at all. You don't spend a lot of time rebuking crazy people. If he did, he should have been expected to just dismiss them as crazy. Appeals to faith is a last resort for people who have no evidence.

John was not condemning christians

Then why call them false prophets and antichrists instead of "unbelievers" or some such?

Why try to find a tomb that is not occupied with Jesus body.

Because the empty tomb is used as evidence, shaky as that "evidence" may be.

Mary arrived in the morning

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

The stone was rolled away before she arrived.

Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

There were two angels.

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Christ assent to Heaven was 40 days later.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

[dave4shmups]

I just watched the excellent DVD "The God Who Wasn't There", which is devastating to Biblical Christianity. I checked it out at my local library, and everyone, IMO, should watch it.

[theVOID]

It's a good movie

[dave4shmups]

It's a good movie

It's fantastic! And you know what? Even with all of this talk about how inconsistent the bible is in events, what is equally, if not more important, is how horribly immoral the book is. Let's take the devil as an example-Christians believe that god has good reasons for not destroying the devil-really?? IF the devil exists and he really embodies all that is evil and god really exists and embodies all that is good, then god is immoral for not destroying the devil. Look at what happens in the book of Job-God allows the devil to do all these horrible things to Job, which would be like a prison warden letting loose a serial killer to do some damage, because, you know, his time just isn't up yet. Utterly perverse. And that's just ONE example-aside from dashing infants heads against rocks, to genocide.
[/quote]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Appropos of contradictions; the other night,against my better judgement, I watched a Lost World's programme called "The Bible's Buried Secrets" Yup,it was about that oxymoron,'biblical archealogy". Unfortunately many of the claims fell under the heading of wishful thinking,the hallmark of such endeavors at best ,or bare faced lies at worst.

BUT I actually learned something about Noah's Ark: The Torah actually records that Noah was told to take SEVEN pairs of every 'clean' animal and ONE pair of every unclean animal.

Ask most children who are somewhat familiar with the biblical account of the Flood how many animals of each kind Noah took into the ark, and the answer you likely will hear is, “Two!” These Bible students are familiar with the instructions recorded in Genesis 6:19 that God gave to Noah: “And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female” (Genesis 6:19, emp. added; cf. 7:15). It seems that fewer people, however, are aware that God also instructed Noah, saying, “You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3, emp. added). According to Bible critics, these verses are contradictory. “Are clean beasts to enter by 2’s or by 7’s?” asked skeptic Dennis McKinsey (1983, p. 1).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/525

[Godscreated]

[quote='Godschild' pid='93300' dateline='1284355780']
I've gone to three different translations ( The New American Standard, NIV and English Standard Version ) And none of them use the words I've put in bold above.

1. I used the KJV, the darling of some fundy Christians.
2. Re-read the ones you used. They DO say "in the flesh".

You should re-read what I stated, the words "in the flesh" that I bolded are not in the passages at that particular place in the passages. Do you think I would state something so carelessly. The New American Standard is the most accurately translated Bible, it was translated from the Greek and Hebrew, the people that worked on this translation set out to make this the most accurate translation and because they had more info about the Greek and Hebrew they were able to do a better job than the earlier translations. So it is you who needs to go back and re-read those three translations.

This faith, belief or what ever you might call it is meant for those who embraced it not for the half hearted skeptic.

Faith isn't necessary when speaking of obvious and verifiable reality. Frankly, John shouldn't have even needed to discuss them at all. You don't spend a lot of time rebuking crazy people. If he did, he should have been expected to just dismiss them as crazy. Appeals to faith is a last resort for people who have no evidence.

John was trying to help those he called little children the ones he loved deeply. He did not want those who were speaking against Christ to pull them away from the truth. These three short letters are not what I would call a great amount of time, I would and do say they are of great love for his fellow believers. John was there with Christ as He hung on the cross and he was with Peter at the empty tomb so I would say that his first hand account would qualify as evidence. John knew these people were not crazy,they were dangerous people trying to rebuke Christ and lead those new christians astray. John was there and understood what he needed to do for his fellow christians,as for you 2000 years puts you out of touch with the situation and the times.

John was not condemning christians

Then why call them false prophets and antichrists instead of "unbelievers" or some such?

Why not call them what they were, John was making a strong statement to his fellow believers. John wanted them to understand exactly what these people were and what they were trying to do and that was to undermine the reality of Christ.

Why try to find a tomb that is not occupied with Jesus body.

Because the empty tomb is used as evidence, shaky as that "evidence" may be.

How is a empty tomb evidence of Christ, if they find ten empty tombs which one belonged to Christ and which ones were not used. TELL ME HOW WOULD ONE PROVE WHICH ONE OF THE TEN WAS CHRIST'S TOMB SINCE NO BONES OR ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE THERE. It's senseless to look for something that can't be proven, this is a faith thing we are talking about.

Mary arrived in the morning

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark

Now you are being entirely unreasonable, many people say they rise in the morning before the sun is up, as a matter of fact my grandmother called 4:30 AM morning when I was a teen, to me as most teens it was still the middle of the night. I think you understand what I'm saying here.

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

As the sun began to rise, dawn and still mostly dark yet morning just like the other passage.

The stone was rolled away before she arrived.

Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

I do not see where this passage says that Mary was present when the stone was rolled away. The angel was setting there waiting for Mary to arrive.

There were two angels.

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

I would be affrighted also, most likely would have turned and run very fast. This says that only one angel was inside the tomb it says nothing about the angel out side the tomb that very well may not have been visible to them at their arrival. An angel in the first passage, an angel in the second passage shows us there were two angels at the tomb.

Christ assent to Heaven was 40 days later.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Just because this passage does not give the precise time for you it does not mean that Christ assended to Heaven sooner than 40 days, again you are being unreasonable.

[Minimalist]

Actually, Pad, the Buy-Bull includes both stories ( two of each animal and seven pairs "clean") in yet another of those monumental contradictions that xtians twist their scrotums into knots trying to avoid.

The best guess for the fuck up seems to be that the priests who edited the later versions wanted to account for the availability of sacrificial animals because "sacrificing animals" was their whole schtick.

Anyway, chalk it up to poor editing.