How to debunk the resurrection?...

[dave4shmups]

So, what about Christians who try and argue that people have been following Jesus for over 2000 years, and that people no longer worship Zeus??

Christianity will go the way of the Egyptian religion-- that lasted 3,000 years. Of course, by then humans will invent some new idiotic religion to replace it though (if we haven't killed ourselves first, or get hit by a huge asteroid). Never underestimate the stupidity of human beings-- they can cling to superstitions for centuries.

Humans can't stand the thought of not being the center of the universe.

That's right! The Egyptian religion lasted 3,000 years, but that doesn't make it true.

[Zen Badger]

Excellent points, and I LOVE the Brick Testament! So, what about Christians who try and argue that people have been following Jesus for over 2000 years, and that people no longer worship Zeus??

Hindu's have been worshipping their gods for much longer and still do.

Does that make them true?

[theVOID]

The Jews have been waiting for a messiah longer than the Christians have had one...

[ABierman1986]

Always waste a damned glass of wine waiting on Elijah to bring us the announcement during passover.....a**hole never shows

[Minimalist]

Though there is some contention over these claims, Ehrman for one doesn't buy it.

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.

[theVOID]

Yeah i reckon he's dead wrong about Josephus, saying that the Christians merely inserted into the existing verse seems bizarre, Again Bob Price has a far more thought out and compelling argument.

Ehrman does not argue from archeology, but from the references to Nazareth in manuscripts from the 2nd to 3rd CE, he somewhat strangely insists that this must have been what was written in the 70th CE original, though unlike his other arguments he fails to provide the solid historical critical factors, such as literary consistency and socio-political edits.

[Minimalist]

references to Nazareth in manuscripts from the 2nd to 3rd CE,

Certainly not in Josephus. He marched and counter-marched his army all across the place and never mentioned Nazareth.


And, if you want to go by xtian documents well, historically they are about as useful as toilet paper.

[theVOID]

No, in the Gospel manuscripts - He takes this reference to Nazareth as evidence of it's existence around the turn of the CE.

I don't think he makes a good case for it, there seems to be a far better argument surrounding the addition of Nazareth into tradition.

[Minimalist]

Of course that gets into the whole question of when these things were written....and, even more importantly, last edited.


Let's not forget that dear ole Saul/Paul doesn't seem to know jack shit about "Nazareth" either.

[theVOID]

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.

Neither mention Nazareth or the birth narrative...