How to debunk the resurrection?...

[Minimalist]

Christians also say that there is no Biblical claim that archeology has proven false

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...ers%29.htm

In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore. The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.

This article is pretty good but there is no substitute for reading The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein, prof of archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

So far it seems that there is little in the fucking bible that has been sustained by archaeology.

[KichigaiNeko]

oooops!!
Still reckon a thermo nuclear device in the galileean fault would solve alot of the worlds religious issues....


Ground Zero ocean!!

[Minimalist]

The idea has merit.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Proving existence or otherwise of a certain person of no significance during his life time, but recorded only long after his death by persons best described as fanatical groupies a couple of steps removed, is tough. But the outcome is also totally immaterial. Jesus either existed, but is not god, or he did not exist, and is not god. His existence played no role in his not being god. So there is no strong need to squander the effort to find out on the part of atheists.

However, for the edification of social scientists, i think it would be better if he existed and evidence of his existence comes to light. If he existed, it would be potentially be easier to gather the evidence needed to really flesh out the train of contingencies that took name of the dead and disgraced preacher jesus to the core of the mass hysteria around "Christ", thus offer social and behavior researchers easier insight into origin and speciation of religion. If he didn't exist at all, then this part of evidentiary fabric will not exist and social science could potentially have a harder time gaining those insights.

[everythingafter]

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.

He most probably was real in the sense that he existed as a human peasant in the general Palestine area, just not as the son of god. Read "The Historical Jesus," John Dominic Crossan.

[dave4shmups]

Christians also say that there is no Biblical claim that archeology has proven false

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...ers%29.htm

In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore. The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.

This article is pretty good but there is no substitute for reading The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein, prof of archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

So far it seems that there is little in the fucking bible that has been sustained by archaeology.

Thanks for the link! And I will check that book out!

[DeistPaladin]

Ah, having recently ditched my Christian faith, I didn't know any of that, so thank you! Christians also say that there is no Biblical claim that archeology has proven false-I know this is bullshit, but, again, I'm new to countering Christian arguments-so please do give me some examples.

No problem and hope it didn't come across that I was laughing at you. I was laughing at what you heard that you needed an answer to.

To give you an idea of what I find so funny, here's the TF, from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 18. Bold emphasis mine.

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

So the bullet points concerning Christian theology we get in a short paragraph are:
1. Jesus was divine ("if it be lawful to call him a man")
2. Jesus performed miracles.
3. Jesus had a successful ministry that spread like wildfire among Jews and Gentiles.
4. Jesus was the Messiah (Christ)
5. Jesus was crucified by Pilate
6. Jesus was resurrected on the third day
7. Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy
8. Jesus' ministry has spread like wildfire since.

All of these are the salient points of Christian theology, with the possible exception of the virgin birth. The rapid fire presentation of this checklist is such that would do any auctioneer proud. The "ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" is truly over the top and the stuff of Christian propaganda. For this paragraph to have been truly written by Josephus only makes sense if he were a closet Christian the whole time. Rather dim of him to have come prancing out of the closet in a book written for Roman nobility, wouldn't you say?

What did Josephus really write? Earlier copies of this book are mysteriously "lost to us". The earliest copy we have comes from Bishop Eseubius, who proudly presented the paragraph as evidence for Jesus. Surprisingly, no Christian apologist prior to the 3rd century Bishop made any mention of it. This would seem strange since it answers every apologist's prayers.

The apologist has neither earlier manuscripts of the TF nor any Christians prior to Eseubeus referencing it. But apologetics is a shameless profession and the lack of any evidence hasn't stopped them from insisting that the TF is "partially authentic". They strip away the more glaring Christian terms like "he was the Christ" and rewrite it to be something more Jewish sounding and proceed to proclaim that this is what he "probably wrote". No evidence is ever presented for this assertion and, since tampering by Christian scribes is admitted to, the burden of proof is on them.

"When one lie is detected, a thousand are suspected." -Thomas Paine.

[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!

[dave4shmups]

You know, I was thinking this morning that since Jesus's biography contains fictional characters like Noah and Adam, then there really is no reason to think that he ever existed.

[solja247]

You know, I was thinking this morning that since Jesus's biography contains fictional characters like Noah and Adam, then there really is no reason to think that he ever existed.

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Lets go with the assumption that Noah and Adam are fictional characters in Hebrew mythology. Why are you going to throw out Jesus? You might as well throw out Paul and other historical characters.

No serious scholar doubts Jesus existed, not even Dr Errham.