How to debunk the resurrection?...

[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.