How to debunk the resurrection?...

[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...