From: Brian Holtz []
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:52 PM
To: Kris Key
Subject: RE: I am an ex-atheist
KK: Good try Holtz, but with the exception of Docetism they all taught a PHYSICAL resurection.
BH: Do you have a source citation that Ebionism taught a specifically physical resurrection?
KK: About the ebionites:

Bzzt. That article does not say that Ebionism taught a specificially physical resurrection.  You claimed that "they all taught a PHYSICAL resurection [sic]". Now, do you have a source for your claim, or not?

KK: the idea of the ebionites teaching a spiritual resurrection is at best questionable

I claimed that Ebionism was an example of "early Christian heresies about Jesus' divinity and resurrection".  I didn't claim that Ebionism taught a spiritual resurrection.  You, however, claimed (apparently without any evidence) that it "taught a PHYSICAL resurection [sic]".

BH: the existence of many mutually inconsistent early Christian heresies about Jesus' divinity and resurrection: Ebionism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Docetism Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism;

KK: This is your statement from Jordan's website and here is why it is misleading.

Earlier you said it was a "lie".  Now you say it's merely "misleading".  Perhaps soon you'll realize that you in fact just didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.

KK: a.) only one of those actually taught a spiritual resurrection, Docetism. Your response implies that at least the majority of them had this teaching

No, it simply implies that at least one of the heresies was about Jesus' resurrection, and it doesn't even say that any such resurrection heresy was about physicality vs. spirituality.  Your "majority" interpretation shows that you simply didn't read me carefully enough.

KK: b.) Your early Christian heresies on the whole are not that early as a whole

All but one came before the Council of Chalcedon (451). The fact remains that rampant confusion over the most fundamental question of the identity of Jesus is as old as the earliest Christian commentaries, and continued for centuries despite easy access to the textual revelation arranged by the allegedly omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent Yahweh.

Adoptionism-8th century-

Adoptionism 190CE

Dynamic Monarchianism and Sabellianism late 2nd -3rd century
Marcionism-mid 2nd century
Arianism- 4th century
Nestorianism- 5th century
Monophysitism -5th century

These dates show that Christians were confused early and often about the identity of the carpenter from Nazareth.

Apollonarianism- I could not find this one, however I did find Apollinarianism- 19th century

Bzzt. The second sentence of the article plainly states that Apollinaris "flourished in the latter half of the fourth century".

Monothelitism-8th century

Bzzt. The second sentence of the article plainly calls it "a heresy of the seventh century".  This is the only heresy in my list that came after the Council of Chalcedon (451).

KK: They all taught a bodily resurrection( with the aforementioned exception [Docetism])

Again: what is your evidence that Ebionism taught a specifically physical resurrection?

KK: and the vast are so late as they offer little aid in understanding early Christianity.

They show that Jesus' revelation was incompetent and muddled from the beginning.

KK: You gave the impression they( or at least the majority) denied the bodily resurrection.
Why would I mention "Jesus' divinity" if I were claiming they were all about the resurrection? You misread my statement, hastily called it a "lie", and now you have egg on your face.

KK: You gave the impression that they were from an equally as early time as Christianity.

I called them "early Christian heresies". That's what they are.

KK: I stand by my statement with this one,

("this one"? Are you admitting that you don't "stand by" the statements that you've declined to defend from my rebuttals?)

KK: thats simply dishonesty.

You're simply confused by your demonstrable misreading of 1) my original statement and 2) the reference works you consulted.

KK: The longer ending of mark is from the late 4th century-

You're confusing the dates of extant manuscripts with composition dates. (Jordan made the same mistake in our earlier discussion.)  Irenaeus (d. 202CE) cites Mark 16:19 in Adversus Haereses. 

KK: It has no value for making any points to what on Easter Sunday, at best it is an educated guess by a 4th century scribe.

The various endings of Mark are thought to have been composed in the early 2nd century. (Apparently your status as a "well-read" atheist didn't include a familiarity with the composition dates of the major NT sources.)

KK: You were certainly aware of this and you choose to use it to support your hypothesis. How is this honest now?

The endings of Mark were written not long after the last gospel (John, c.90CE), by scribes who can be presumed to be in touch with the gospel tradtions, and are consistent with the early resurrection tradition being spiritual rather than physical. (Apologists like to claim that "oral tradition" ensures the accuracy of texts written down decades after the events in question. Are you backing away from that position?  Or do you dare claim that the various endings were intentionally errant?)

KK: I stand by my points.

Your points remain systematically rebutted, and you have still not identified a single point by Jordan that I did not rebut.