Excavating The Empty Tomb

[Angrboda]

Now you have crossed the line and are an outright liar, Drippy.

Your godboy does not exist in historical texts except in a few spots where desperate editors tried to retrofit him into the story. It fools no one but the fools.

As always you've missed the point Minnie. I am saying that there is a libary full of historical texts, that identify and verify Christ, but because of the libary's location ALL of those works are dismissed as religious texts. No one outside of the RC chruch has taken the time to pour over each and every one. So you can not say nothing exists that supports a historical Jesus.

So nobody outside the Roman Catholic church has poured over them. Then how do you know what they contain?

---

Ill watch one. upto 15 mins of one. If you want me to address one specific part or one specific movie give me a link and a time index and we will go from there. If you blow off and ignore what I say, then I am not watching any more crap I hate God movies for a while. As they are waists of time.

---

starting with video 1
@2:11 the host states that the resurection is based in our current form/matter/body. When Clearly the bible states in 1 cor 15:42...

---

fSo is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; git is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 kThe first man was from the earth, la man of dust; mthe second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, nso also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just oas we have borne the image of the man of dust, pwe shall6 also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Mystery and Victory

50 I tell you this, brothers: qflesh and blood rcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. sWe shall not all sleep, tbut we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For uthe trumpet will sound, and vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

---

It's interesting that you should quote 1 Corinthians to dispute that the belief was in a bodily resurrection, when, in the later videos, if you had watched them (somewhere between videos 14 and 18), the video author makes the case that Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians, likely never witnessed a bodily resurrection, but only encountered the resurrected Christ in scripture and prophecy, in dreams, or in visions (possibly brought on by epilepsy). Contrasting the author's later point with his claim that it was the presentation of the idea of a bodily resurrection that caused the crowd in Acts 17 to respond the way they did, rejecting his message, would have made an interesting inconsistency to point out. However a couple of points you and the author are glossing over here. First of all, this is a mixed group of Jews and Greeks that he is speaking to in Acts, and he has been followed from Thessalonica by people who are unhappy with what he's been doing. Moreover, Paul, according to Acts, only refers to Jesus having been "raised from the dead," so it's not clear whether the question of bodily versus spiritual resurrection was even at issue here. Even if the issue were live, quoting things written many years after the fact does nothing to tell us what the actual mood of the time was among the Hellenes, especially describing the mission of someone who himself was likely originally a Pharisee, and may have had conflicting motives with respect to the question of bodily resurrection. And if the video author's case in later videos is valid, you're looking to someone who himself never witnessed the bodily resurrected Christ for information on what it is proper to believe about the event. (And Paul's general disagreement over points of doctrine relative to the apostles is well documented.)

So the Foundation of this dbags arguement is irrepairably cracked, and will not support the rest of his arguement. He has created a strawman dressed it up like the doctrine of the resurrection, and is attacking the strawman. When people like Minnie hear something they been waiting for things like TRUTH take a side burner to unverified facts. Facts that tickle his fancy just in the way he wants it tickled.

If you say so.

@2:50 The host points out that the religious leaders did not believe in the resurection. Then He quotes a question that the Saducees mockingly asked Christ. (as if the idea of the resurection was based in later greek works) Appearently the host does not know or simply failed to mention that the Pharasees did believe in the after life/resurrection, while the Saducces did not. (That is why they are sad-u-cee? This is all sunday school stuff)

Actually, no, he does not. Quoting the video, "Even among the Jews of Jesus' day, there were those who did not believe that the resurrection was even possible," indicating explicitly that he was referring to only a portion of the Jews, and he makes no mention of them being "religious leaders."

The question of bodily resurrection was still an issue even in the second century CE, with the Christian writers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr writing against the idea that only the soul survived. Justin Martyr wrote, "Seeing as ... the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men."

@3:00 He introduces Cellcus and his great body of work.. that has not survived, but the work refuting it did @ 3:30. All to point to a old source that dismisses the concept of resurection in the time of Christ. But again, The fundemental difference between Pharasees and the Sad-U-Cees, was their belief in a after life/resurection.

The fundamental difference which is a point the author never disputed either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, it's worth noting that the Pharisees were a minority Judaic sect, that advocated holding themselves apart from the pagan Greeks including forbidding intermarriage. Since the author is explicitly referencing the Greek mindset, your point in emphasizing that an isolationist sect of Jews may have believed in the bodily resurrection amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

---

Do I really need to go one and force myself to watch the second one? Or does he just keep building on the cracked strawman foundation he starts out with in the first one?

No, you can stop. You've adequately documented your incompetence, lack of scholarship and general abuse and misuse of sources.

I will tell you, in fairness, however, that I didn't expect a different or more substantive reaction from you. And I don't lay the blame on you as a person. This is simply the way that human psychology is built, and both sides do it, it's not an atheist versus theist thing. The mind is built with standard predispositions, the like of which conspire to reinforce the person's existing beliefs, regardless of the content of the material they are exposed to, whether it be pro or con. The human mind is like a ratchet that can only tighten once it has started with a belief. That's just human nature 101, and your behavior is not in any sense unusual, excluding your own personal touches of course.

So don't be dismayed. Watch the videos, don't watch the videos. Nobody here actually expects you to change your views based on the evidence. That's simply not going to happen.