How to debunk the resurrection?...

[Minimalist]

To expand just a bit on what D-P wrote:

Keep this thought in mind: "He was the Christ".


Now Origen, writing in the mid-3d century AD about 75 years BEFORE Eusebius writes in Contra Celsus.

CHAP. XLVII.

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,

Origen, Contra Celsus Book I Chapter 47.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...en161.html


So 75 years earlier, Origen correctly cites Book 18 for the John the Baptist reference and asserts that Josephus did not believe in "Jesus as the Christ" but a later writer claims, "He was the Christ."

See why it looks like Eusebius' reference is a bit contrived?

BTW, Eusebius wrote this as well.

But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

One more Holy Liar!