What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

You aren't looking at it in context. It is like saying Jesus really is a door when He said, "I am the door." This needs to be looked at in the context of Paul's arguments against the Judaizers, who wanted to maintain the laws intended for the OT theocracy of Israel, and who didn't even think gentiles could be part of Christianity. Paul rightly emphatically rejected that thinking.

So do mine.

No, I reject it because it is a faulty argument, not because it contradicts my faith. Most opposition to the Gospel accounts seem to boil down to 'since I've never seen a miracle, they must never have happened.'

No, I believe Christianity is objectively true and that Islam is a Satanic counterfeit, whose fruit is oppression and bloodshed, by those following the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

Anyway, I have to get back to work. Bye.

 

Well the bar is very high as an Atheist I would see this and assume he was maybe an advanced alien species or something like a alien/human half breed with technology that would fool us that is a rational view, if a modern man met our ancestors with armor and modern weapons they would be seen as a god most likely.

 

So all of a sudden context matters? Show me where the context is wrong.

I reject the Gospels accounts because fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. I don't believe in alien abductions or fairies or astrology even though there are thousands of accounts of those throughout history. But each one (and your precious miracles) have zero empirical evidence to back them up.

So why should I believe any of them?

Statements based entirely on faith and the rejection of any evidence that contradicts that faith.

 

Of course it doesn't count. It only counts when dishonest people are doing their best to convince people they faith makes sense.

 

Christianity, judaism, did the same thing.

 

What certain skeptics?

If he really existed then I expect it decomposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

Scratch verified and let's say recorded.

The supposed "Jewish leadership behind his death" is part of your story. It's circular reasoning to claim that because they did not do more to prove his lack of divinity that that is proof of his divinity.

I made no claim that they were "false" cults or that it proves that Christianity was a "false" cult. I pointed out that there were many cults and no reason for anyone to pay special attention to the claims of the early Christians.

 

I'm talking about after it was established as a state religion.

 

One of the most ironic statements I've seen.

 

Hence the word "IF", in my statement. Or any other magician.
And no, some of the magic, other magicians may not show how it's done. Some of the guys have done unique things.

 

If you want that evidence, you're going to have to do some research. But, I can certainly start you off if you want.

The author isn't a scientist. Authors sensationalize science titles all the time.

Well, the fact that humans are classified as hominids should be evidence enough that what you said is untrue.

 

As far as I'm aware there's no physical proof of Jesus's existence. There certainly isn't any proof of the resurrection, otherwise we'd have different things written in our physics textbooks.

 

Everyone. By the time ones starts to examine a subject, they have been given life experiences that start out the examination with some sort of bias.

 

Even before that point. Look at the stuff done by Christian mobs in places like Alexandria where they went around attacking pagans and burning their temples.

 

How humans are classified may change, and this most recent discovery may influence it. Did you read the NY Times article I posted?

 

Except that genetically, we are hominids. Period.

That's not going to change.

 

so is trolling.

so stop it.

[MENTION=59329]Paul7[/MENTION]

 

Why are you ignoring the most recent scientific discovery and it's implications to evolution?

 

It's not first hand. Second hand testimony is usually not admissible and is only admissible to prove that a statement was made.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inadmissible+as+Hearsay

First hand accounts or eye witness testimony is extremely faulty.

 

No, considering it is behind a paywall. Did you read it? If so, please post it in its entirety here. And this discovery has nothing to do with us win hominids. So, no, I doubt his will affect it at all.

 

What, pray tell, would this discovery be....and please explain these implications.

If you are referring to this:

"Our family tree may have just lost a few branches.

A complete skull found in the Eurasian country of Georgia could be evidence that early hominids are actually all members of a single species. The view challenges long-held ideas about human evolution and could upend decades of classifying early hominids into different species, such as Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis.

Researchers publishing their analysis of the 1.8 million year old find in Science today argue that the skull’s combination of primitive and more evolved features make it difficult to classify by currently accepted definitions of early hominid species. In addition, variations between the skull and those of other early hominids found at the site are no more significant than differences among modern humans, suggesting the fossils represent one species."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...ull-spurs-radical-rewrite-of-human-evolution/

It does nothing to change our Hominid status.

 

After eight years spent studying a 1.8-million-year-old skull uncovered in the Republic of Georgia, scientists have made a discovery that may rewrite the evolutionary history of our human genus Homo.

It would be a simpler story with fewer ancestral species. Early, diverse fossils — those currently recognized as coming from distinct species like Homo habilis, Homo erectus and others — may actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage.

In other words, just as people look different from one another today, so did early hominids look different from one another, and the dissimilarity of the bones they left behind may have fooled scientists into thinking they came from different species.

This was the conclusion reached by an international team of scientists led by David Lordkipanidze, a paleoanthropologist at the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, as reported Thursday in the journal Science.

The key to this revelation was a cranium excavated in 2005 and known simply as Skull 5, which scientists described as “the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull” of such antiquity. Unlike other Homo fossils, it had a number of primitive features: a long, apelike face, large teeth and a tiny braincase, about one-third the size of that of a modern human being. This confirmed that, contrary to some conjecture, early hominids did not need big brains to make their way out of Africa.

The discovery of Skull 5 alongside the remains of four other hominids at Dmanisi, a site in Georgia rich in material of the earliest hominid travels into Eurasia, gave the scientists an opportunity to compare and contrast the physical traits of ancestors that apparently lived at the same location and around the same time.
Dr. Lordkipanidze and his colleagues said the differences between these fossils were no more pronounced than those between any given five modern humans or five chimpanzees. The hominids who left the fossils, they noted, were quite different from one another but still members of one species.

“Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” a co-author of the journal report, Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, said in a statement. Such was often the practice of researchers, using variations in traits to define new species.

Although the Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, Dr. Zollikofer said, the hominids who left them were living at the same time and place, and “so could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.” He and his Zurich colleague, Marcia Ponce de León, conducted the comparative analysis of the Dmanisi specimens.

“Since we see a similar pattern and range of variation in the African fossil record,” Dr. Zollikofer continued, “it is sensible to assume that there was a single Homo species at that time in Africa.” Moreover, he added, “since the Dmanisi hominids are so similar to the African ones, we further assume that they both represent the same species.”

But what species? Some team members simply call their finds “early Homo.” Others emphasized the strong similarities to Homo erectus, which lived between two million and less than one million years ago. Tim D. White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, called it “the most primitive H. erectus yet known,” noting that “it is more similar than any other yet found to early Homo from eastern Africa,” a group of hominids estimated to have lived 2.3 million years ago.

All five of the skulls and skeletal bones were found in underground dens, suggesting grisly scenes from the perilous lives these early Homos led. They resided among carnivores, including saber-toothed cats and an extinct giant cheetah. All five of the individuals had probably been attacked and killed by the carnivores, their carcasses dragged into the dens for the after-hunt feast, with nothing left but dinner scraps for curious fossil hunters.

Dr. White and other scientists not involved in the research hailed the importance of the skull discovery and its implications for understanding early Homo evolution. In an article analyzing the report, Science quoted Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York as saying that the skull “is undoubtedly one of the most important ever discovered.”

A few scientists quibbled that the skull looks more like Homo habilis or questioned the idea that fossils in Africa all belong to Homo erectus, but there was broad recognition that the new findings were a watershed in the study of evolution. “As the most complete early Homo skull ever found,” Dr. White wrote in an e-mail, “it will become iconic for Dmanisi, for earliest Homo erectus and more broadly for how we became human.”

Dr. White, who has excavated hominid fossils in Ethiopia for years, said he was impressed with “the total evidentiary package from the site that is the really good news story here.” Further, he said, he hoped the discovery would “now focus the debate on evolutionary biology beyond the boring ‘lumpers vs. splitters' ” — a reference to the tendencies of fossil hunters to either lump new finds into existing species or split them off into new species.

In their report, the Dmanisi researchers said the Skull 5 individual “provides the first evidence that early Homo comprised adult individuals with small brains but body mass, stature and limb proportions reaching the lower range limit of modern variation.”

Skeletal bones associated with the five Dmanisi skulls show that these hominids were short in stature, but that their limbs enabled them to walk long distances as fully upright bipeds. The shape of the small braincase distinguished them from the more primitive Australopithecus genus, which preceded Homo and lived for many centuries with Homo in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fossil-skull-may-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html

 

It does not prove that we are not hominids or not related to other hominids. It only cast doubt on the variety of species/subspecies in the homo genus.

 

Has human DNA suddenly changed?

 

Are suggesting Neanderthal DNA is the same as human DNA?

 

I'm saying that human DNA clearly demonstrates that we are hominids.