How to debunk the resurrection?...

[chatpilot]

Here is food for thought about Noahs ark how did he know which animals were clean or unclean since this was not established until the Mosaic law?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Here is food for thought about Noahs ark how did he know which animals were clean or unclean since this was not established until the Mosaic law?

Errr-Oh FUCK! Why didn't I think of that?


Short apologist answer,dietary law was established by custom by Noah's time.

BUT a Google search revealed that the Jews claim dietary law (kashrut) was handed down orally for generations FROM MOSES before being formally codified in the Torah.Fascinating,seeing as Moses almost certainly didn't exist.

Many of the basic laws of kashrut are derived from the Torah's Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with their details set down in the oral law that according to Jewish tradition was handed down by word of mouth down the generations from Moses[1] and it was finally codified in the Mishnah which is the earliest portion of the Talmud. Later summaries of Halakhah such as the Shulhan Arukh, the Mishnah Berurah and other rabbinical authorities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher

[krazedkat]

I used to follow kosher (as I used to be a Christian and then a Jew)... It's annnoying stuff. You can't eat pork, lots of the sea foods and many many more things.

[KichigaiNeko]

I used to follow kosher (as I used to be a Christian and then a Jew)... It's annnoying stuff. You can't eat pork, lots of the sea foods and many many more things.

Mmmmmmmm BACON!!!

[solja247]

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.

You cant.

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.

As well as scholars and historians.

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").

According to Romans, Christians were involved in orgies. According to 1 Corinthians Christians were speaking in tounges and non believers had no idea what they were talking about!

Christians have never wholly agreed on everything . Just look at the history of Christianity...

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?

You have to understand the logic. When one filters it through Western philosophy, it doesnt make sense, its a contradiction! However, we need to read the scripture and understand theology with a Jewish philosophy and logic, which was used to paradoxes .

---

Ehrman is not an archaeologist. He is excellent at what he does but should stick with his own field.

He also buys the idea of a watered down Testimonium Flavianum for no really good reason that I can see except it fit with his original fundie world view.

What do you know? An atheist who knows more than the scholars and academics in this field...

Yep, that seems to be the clincher. I would definitely say that between the 'independent of judaism' Saul and the very jewish pre-Ebionites (that fed the Ebionite tradition) that we can obtain the most reliable picture of the historicity of Christianity.

You should Romans mate. Jewish Christianity wasnt legalistic like the Ebionite sect...

Neither mention Nazareth or the birth narrative...

You have failed to prove the resurrection wrong.

Your arguement as follows;
1. Gosphel X says Y concerning Jesus
2. Y is wrong
3. Therefore the resurrection is wrong

You see the big jump?

---

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.'

Annoited one = Messiah (Jesus's title)

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.

You know what is funny? People who were against Christianity, never attacked the Historictiy of Jesus, they always assumed He existed. This sought of skeptism is from the 18 and 19th century, from our german theologians...

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.

Read Leviticus, it may help you...

[KichigaiNeko]

Leviticus is a Jewish book from the torah why would a xtian be quoting it???

It is a book of the the clan Levi....and clearly demonstrates that it was written by a primitive stone age humanoid who didn't know a bat was a mammal...this might help YOU.

The resurrection is a direct plagiaristic leitmotif stolen from pagans who recognised that the sun in the northern hemisphere "dies" @ Winter solstice and "hovers" for three days on the horizon before 'RISING AGAIN"....I mean REALLY kiddies!

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Someone needs to tell Biblegateway the mistakes they've made then. Just one example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

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.

Letter writing was an expensive process at that time. That two of his three cannonical epistles condemn these Christians who believed in a non-physical Jesus (possibly the Docetics) is an indication that this was a widespread problem.

These letters correlate what we know of the real history of Christianity. There was not, as Christians like to think, a unified faith. There was a wild variety of Christianities at that time (Marcionite, Docetic, Ebionite, Valentian, etc.). That's why the Council of Nicaea in 325 to sort all this out was even necessary.

My original point in bringing up these verses is to ask, if this was written by someone who knew Jesus, it was written within the lifetimes of others who would have known him. That being the case, why was it such a controversy that Jesus existed in the flesh and was born to a family? Why did John condemn them, invoking the language of faith instead of pointing to an obvious historical reality that others would remember?

How is a empty tomb evidence of Christ [?]

On that point, we agree.

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.

OK, fine, I'll let it go.

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.

The very previous verse that I'd already quoted to you said otherwise.

...I'll have to finish this later. I have to run...

---

In Matthew, Mary arrived, an angel rolled away the rock and announced the resurrection. Mary ran back to tell the disciples and met them and Jesus.

In Mark, Mary saw the stone had already been rolled away and a single angel (man in white?) met them inside, not outside, the tomb.

In Luke, Mary saw the stone had already been rolled away, they entered the tomb, saw no body, then saw two angels and then ran back to tell the disciples who didn't believe them. Jesus makes a later appearance, first on the road to Emmaus.

In John, Mary arrived when it was "yet dark" (fine, let that go), found the stone already moved, ran back to meet the disciples without seeing any angel or angels. Simon, Peter and John go to investigate and find the clothes and empty tomb. Mary stood outside weeping. Two angels in the tomb ask why she's crying. Then Jesus appears to her right there. He then later appears to 10 of the disciples but not Thomas. Then we have the "doubting Thomas" story.

No contradictions?

[Minimalist]

Read Leviticus, it may help you...

Too fucking depressing. To think that there were people who actually were so fucked up as to think like that?


And they are still around.






Anyway, this may help you, Sol....though I doubt it.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/cflood.htm

Two Flood Stories? -- Flood Story: Side by Side

[DeistPaladin]

You have failed to prove the resurrection wrong.

Your arguement as follows;
1. Gosphel X says Y concerning Jesus
2. Y is wrong
3. Therefore the resurrection is wrong

You see the big jump?

---

Normally, a good point. However, the "Word of God" is supposed to be flawless. It's held to a higher standard. One error is all it takes to bring it down.

[ABierman1986]

According to Romans, Christians were involved in orgies. According to 1 Corinthians Christians were speaking in tounges and non believers had no idea what they were talking about!

Christians have never wholly agreed on everything . Just look at the history of Christianity...

So they continued in the religious rituals of the former Roman religions during the transition to a fully established church that laid down firmer dogmas. How is it that the very fact that Christians have never and can never agree on even some of the simplest of beliefs, transubstantiation for example, is overlooked as a major religious hole?

No one religion has any unified sect, yet many contend they have the divine word of God.

- People interpret it differently, fine, that shouldn't happen with a divine gospel.
- Morals and societal norms have evolved over society, religious, divine morals shouldn't change over time
- There are contradictory statements, differing accounts, and widely varying degrees of consensus on every aspect of the texts, again, divine providence isn't open to interpretation, it is the way of the universe supposedly. Science is railed on by theists, then used as a tool to try to prove their points only to find it always fails. Replace science with what it really is, observation, reason, and logic, and you see why its so frustrating to continually find yourself short.

Everyone has their own interpretation of the bible and God, and their relationship with the spiritual realm....well all that really implies is no one has any idea what is going on and we make stuff up that makes us feel better. No religion has lasted in a pure form for more than a few decades, and never unified, in the history of mankind, why doesn't this problem bug any theists out there?