What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

Even if Christ did physically exist, it wouldn't matter without the resurrection. Show me the evidence of his resurrection and we can settle two issues. Iow, if he was actually resurrected, then he existed.

 

Clearly Jesus is not real.

That Jesus was a human and walked on the earth (not water) like the rest of us is most likely real.

 

You're right, I should have said that they either a priori accept it or that they accept it based off paltry evidence.

No, I didn't. You've tried this tactic before and I don't appreciate it. Why don't you go ahead and point out where I said that they were lying? Hell, I'm not even sure that they existed.

My explanation is that I have no reason to trust Paul's testimony. The Gospel's certainly don't even claim that 500 people saw a resurrected Jesus,

Again, due to the subject being an AUTOBIOGRAPHY, of course you are going to be the most reliable source. I don't see how this example helps with your claim that those closest to Jesus IN TIME were the most reliable sources for declaring who wrote the Gospels.

Considering that we are talking about an omnipotent deity here, a personal visit to each and every human on the planet would be a sufficiently more efficient method; as well as being one less susceptible to fraud and superstition.

 

You wouldn't apply the same standard of authenticity to other historical figures. Writings from other people is enough. I guarantee you accept answers to questions about other figures and events in antiquity with much less documentation or proof. People like to assert that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles, so they can't be their eyewitness accounts. Then that can only mean at least four other individuals took it upon themselves to write about him. We know they were not written by the same person nor at the same time. Again, that means at least four individuals, not including the Jewish historian Josephus, nor the Roman Tacitus, wrote about Jesus. Now, if four very similar and complementary accounts of any other event or person in history became that popular, and the movement spurred from that event became that large, that fast; you would not be nearly as critical of those texts. But because they contain miracles and more unbelievable things, they must've been purely fiction, probably written by some follower of Jesus or one of the disciples, maybe even someone related or close to Paul, in order to boast his story.

 

I find that pretty hard to believe. Maybe the other places you go are such echo chambers that you can feel good without inventing things to argue against. I really don't know. Regardless, you discarded the four rational explanations I provided in favor of one that was easier to argue against, and that I didn't even hint at. That's as dishonest as it gets in a debate without explicitly lying.

They would be, unless they weren't in frame when the photos were taken. Are you really unable to accept that, out of almost 70 photos at a crash site, that were taken over the course of a couple of hours, some people might not have been photographed?

You're using your terms incorrectly. You asked why ABC found something curious. I gave you an explanation. Hand wave all you want, it won't give your "miracle" any more credibility than the zero that it has right now.

You haven't even explained what the miracle is yet, so how can you claim to have shown me evidence of a miracle? You just put up another dodgy, deceptive response to a straightforward question. What is the miracle in that story? This is like when a TV sitcom wife wants her husband to apologize for something, but won't tell him what he did wrong.

 

Im curious why he was supposedly taken down and buried nicely.
The romans were in the habit of leaving the corpse till there was nothing left to display. They even put up people who were already dead.

And why bother with guards? He's not going anywhere.

Who sticks a corpse in a cave? its going to stink something terrible.

the story does not make sense.

 

The lack thereof.

Most of it is just people insisting that Jesus was real, usually using the argument from authority fallacy to back it up. Actual evidence for the man as depicted in biblcal and apocryphal texts is actually quite scarce, and what scraps do exist are miniscule and/or highly dubious in nature.

Meanwhile, since his life story as depicted in the gospels is a clear solar allegory, and since these stories were cooked up after the facts they claim to report (which again are unsubstantiated), it's actually quite reasonable to assume that there is more fiction than fact to Christ.

 

No, but the religion derived that is christianity, could satan be the deceiver and the religion be false?
It is possible.

 

The Gospels may not include a version of 500 seeing him resurrected, but they do say that his miracles were too numerous to count. What you perceive as being susceptible to fraud and superstition, in my view, is how God keeps free will in place. Jesus was born at a time of recorded history, so we have recorded history of him. But not so late as to meet the demands of modern scientific evidence for proof of him. I still contend that if you were to record the ascension on your iPhone, you'd still doubt and others would still doubt. It's my personal belief that in order to maintain the free will design, our ability to accept or reject Him, he had to place Jesus on Earth at that time and place.

 

It could be possible. So why don't we examine the doctrines of Christianity; the main tenants of faith; how Christianity shaped the world (net good or bad); and then draw our conclusions as to Satan's possible deception from that? If we agree the nature of Satan is to steal, kill and destroy; is that the manifestation of Christianity throughout history, but more importantly at present?

 

didnt you just completely contradict yourself?

you, like so many others, make up this thing about how skeptics cant be convinced no matter what, then
you say that evidence had to be with held to promote free will!

(I will add that with proof, of what use is faith)

How do you reconcile these two opposite statements you made?

 

Satan musta loved the inquisition.

I dont think all Christians would be under the sway of satan, if satan there is.

It seems the fundies are, tho, with their universal insistence on making things up then stating them as fact, their endless falsehoods of many another sort, and, of course, the vice of thinking that they
have access to infallible bible readin'.

 

It isn't rational to say someone there for a long period of time would not show up in 70 photos taken of the event. As far as my other forum, it was rated by Google the best religion forum. You guys and your name calling wouldn't last a day there.

More name calling from the usual suspect.

Not likely, especially if everyone else present was shown in the photos.

If there was an easy plausible theory of why the priest wasn't in the photos as you imagine, ABC wouldn't have run the story to begin with.

The possible miracle is the man who numerous eyewitnesses saw, did not appear in the photos. Those who were there cannot explain it, and believe it could be a miracle.

 

Not true. But it can't be supernatural and voodoo.
And needs verification by more than 1 source.

 

No, but you certainly should have a more skeptical eye on documents that claim such things.

 

I think I already stated. I found no claims for or against. I found nothing but your website.

 

Apples and oranges, they didn't die for something they knew did not happen, as is strangely alleged with the Apostles.

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6).

The implication of saying the witnesses were still alive is that they could be questioned. In fact there is no record of anyone denying the miracles before 100AD, while the witnesses were still alive.

 

What does that even mean - evidence that didn't come from other people until after his death? That's an absurd standard to apply to verifying the existence of a man. Look up Tacitus, and then come back and tell me only his people wrote about him. That's only one of at least four examples outside the Gospel. And I already mentioned Josephus, who does elude to the miracles. You need to research beyond the obviously biased atheist web sites, for real.

 

By propagating his story via a series of ancient books? There's a difference between allowing free will and setting the entire thing up to be susceptible to doubt.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. You seemed to be claiming that doubt was necessary for free will. Then you say that people would still doubt even if the events happened today (and don't you think that there would be good reason to do so?). But, then you say that for free will to work, he had to place Jesus in the ancient past.

 

The cave is an important element of the allegory.. Jesus's Persian cognate Mithras was reputedly born in a cave. Recall also Jesus's reputed birth in a dark place.. The light was born and reborn from darkness in the imagery of these stories just as the sun is born and reborn in the darkness of winter at solstice.

There is also numerology embedded in the bible, e.g. Jesus's age when he was baptised. The number 30 is astrologically significant..

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

Capricorn, the Sea Goat, December 22-January 19

The sun's position starts at lowest point in horizon and ascends upward as the days get longer. Goats are known to habitat rocky mountains which stand higher than the sun on the horizon at this time of the year. Rocks symbolize barrenness and goats can be associated with dark places like mangers, where they are kept. This is a time of darkness when evil forces are in control.

The goat half of Capricorn has a symbolic reference to the scapegoat used to carry away the sins of the people of the wilderness (Lev. 16:8, 10). The fish half alludes to water, chaos and birth as in Genesis 1:2.
Matt. 1:18-2:23 tells us when Jesus was born; Herod tried to have him killed.
Luke 2:12 refers to Capricorn when he tells us the baby was born in a manger. Mangers can be seen as dark places where there is no lighting.
The sun is not born until December 25 when days start to grow noticeably longer.
It's a new sun in its virgin stage. This is similar to the term, new moon, which survived from the days of ancient moon worshipers.
Since the entire sky can be seen as God's universe, the sun of God is referred to as the son of God.
The three magi in (Matt. 2:1) symbolize the three stars forming a waist belt in the winter constellation of Orion.
The star of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:2) is symbolized by the brightest star in the winter sky, Sirius, in the constellation, Canis Major. To Egyptian astronomers, Sirius' rising marked the beginning of their new year.
The three stars in Orion's belt are aligned along a southeast direction, pointing towards Sirius. Since stars, like the sun, always rise from the east, it would appear as three stars were following one bright star. Or as the star of Bethlehem guiding the magi.
Ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising (Matt. 2:10).
If the magi were on land, they couldn't come from the east and follow a star from the east. But if both are in the sky, it makes sense.
The constellations would appear to stop when they are directly overhead. The magi entered the "house" [of Capricorn] (Matt. 2:10).
In the first twelfth of the cycle, he was a child prodigy at twelve years old (Luke 2:42-47). Jesus tells his parents, Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house? (Luke 2:49). In other words, he must enter each house of the zodiac.
As constellations, the magi could not return to Herod. They had to continue west.
Capricorn covers Matt. 1:18-2:23

Aquarius, the Water Bearer, January 20-February 18

Water and light is the essence of all life (Gen 1:2-3). The sun needs water to bring new life into the world.

30 degrees on the Zodiac.
30Jesus is 30 years old when he begins his mission. (Luke 3:23).
Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:13-17). John can be seen in the constellation Aquarius. See John the Baptist's Stars.
Jesus temptation in the wilderness Matt. 4:1-11. The sun is too weak to overpower Satan, but it hasn't reversed into darkness.
Aquarius covers Matt. 3:1-4:11

...

And as for the crucifixion, which of course occurs at the end of the year after the spring, summer and autumn events, when Jesus is betrayed in the House of Scorpio (by Judas Iscariot):

...

Sagittarius, the Archer, November 22-December 21

At the Winter solstice on December 21, the sun enters the lowest point on the horizon. The next three days are the darkest days of the year. The scorpion's stings turn into the archer's arrows. The weakened sun is going to die a violent death on the solstice.

He's put on trial by the Jewish high council, Matt. 26:57-67.
Trial again before the Roman governor, Pilate, Matt. 27:11-26.
Crucified in Matt. 27:32-56. His pierced body is symbolized by the archer's arrows.
Sagittarius covers Matt. 26:57-28:20

December 22-25

The three days following December 21 remain perceptibly the darkest days of the year. Jesus dies and remains unseen for three days.
The first day when daylight gets noticeably longer. The sun is seen to come back to life. Three days have passed and Jesus is seen again (Matt. 2.
His Resurrection starts in the spring during the solar equinox. In biblespeak, the sun has conquered darkness.

 

From what I've been told about satan's goal, it is to steal as many souls his way. That may mean christianity isn't satans trick as a minority of the world is christian. But it is the biggest religion.
I don't agree it is satans nature to steal, kill or destroy. It is to deceive and bring souls to his domain.

 

Why would you believe any of that crap? Do you believe in the Grinch, too?