What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

There are some who actually believe he is a mythical figure that never walked the earth as a man. This is pretty astonishing, considering the evidence. I watched Richard Dawkins and John Lennox debate and Dawkins first said he wasn't sure, based on his conversations with ancient historians, to which Lennox, of course, replied the exact opposite - that all of the ancient historians he talked to say unequivocally that Jesus existed. Dawkins eventually backed away from that assertion and reluctantly admitted Jesus was a real person.

What drives people to ignore the evidence, first of his life, and then his resurrection?

 

What evidence?

You are making the claim- provide the evidence.

 

Historians agree that Jesus probably existed, that he was baptized, and that he was crucified. But, what you seem to be implying is that there is sufficient evidence to say more than that about his life. So, what is driving you to ignore what historians have said and go further?

 

In my research and reading, Jesus was not considered Divine until the Council of Nicea.

 

I don't go any further than the eyewitness accounts to his resurrection.

 

What drives people to ignore the evidence for the Piltdown man...or the Cardiff Giant?

 

Yes, he was. The Council of Nicea affirmed his diety. It didn't first make the claim of his diety. That was an issue the Council had to deal with. Not one they introduced.

 

Did those eyewitnesses have an agenda that would lead them to want a Resurrection, even if there wasn't one?

 

I have no idea. I've never heard of them.

 

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, they're hearsay accounts.

 

there is no evidence of his resurection.

no one who ever saw Jesus wrote a word about him.

 

No, the disciples spent some time with Jesus before he ascended back to Heaven. They were definitely eyewitnesses to his resurrection, although they didn't see him at the point the stone was rolled and he left the tomb.

 

Not all Christians held the believe though and the orthodox version became the official version at Nicea, after much infighting and blood shed.

 

And the Disciplines didn't write the Gospels... so, there's that. The Disciples weren't even present when he was crucified according to the Gospels.

 

The "evidence" for "Jesus's" resurrection (and even his life - to some degree) is no more stronger than the "evidence" for Krishna, or for Zeus, or for Thor, or Odin, or Wotan, or bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa, or Nanook, or Allah, or any of the other 200,000 gods/prophets of all time. You're just rolling the dice by picking any one of those over the others. Usually just depends upon which fairy tale people were BORN into, really.

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly Jesus is not real.

- - - Updated - - -

In religion, ya gotta kill to get things done. Muslims are the same way, just read recent news headlines.

 

Except Paul, who saw him after his resurrection, so I understand your reluctance to believe it. The first Gospels were written between 30-50 AD. I wouldn't expect much to be written to survive a Roman persecution. The Jews, as they historically did, relied on oral tradition for awhile. I'm sure they had no choice, as every disciple was being hunted down and killed by Romans.

Here's an interesting read on the reliability of the Gospels.

http://www.equip.org/articles/recent-perspectives-on-the-reliability-of-the-gospels/

 

Does his birth certificate say he's NOT A TWIN? That's simple Perry Mason stuff. That would easily explain people seeing "him" after his death. Or maybe they just lied like you probably believe Joseph Smith and Mohammad lied, eh?

 

You can't be serious. As much evidence for Jesus as Bigfoot or Santa? No historian would be willing to risk their reputation asserting that.

 

Gospel reliability
Jumbo shrimp
Airline schedules
Moral religion

 

They were running for their lives!

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, it's been fun. See ya.

 

I can show you a contemporaneous photograph of the Cardiff Giant...which was proven a hoax later.

Can you show me a photo of Jesus???

 

There is indeed more evidence for his LIFE....but for his RESURRECTION, nope. It doesn't matter if he did indeed exist, since the ZOMBIE part is the real stopper for thinking people.

I think more people today claim to see Bigfoot or Nessie and Jesus, but I could be wrong.

If Jesus cared for us, he'd be more visible than bigfoot or Nessie, today. But he doesn't, because he's not real, just like Bigfoot and Nessie.

- - - Updated - - -

I can show alleged photos of Bigfoot and Nessie.

 

You're claiming that the low end of the Gospels dating was before Jesus even died? Huh? The majority view of the Gospels by Biblical scholars is that they were written around or after 70 AD.

You notice how the author of that article keeps referencing "conservative scholars"? Do you know why he/she does that? Because they go against the majority view of biblical scholars.

 

If jesus was REALLY magic, then he would have convinced many many more people that he was who he said he was and therefore his disciples wouldn't have had to run as much. Entire towns didn't believe Jesus' magic. He was a con.

 

Again, assuming the Gospels are reliable accounts, which is certainly not the majority view of the Bible by scholars. You also avoided replying to the part of my post where I said that the Gospels weren't written by the Disciples.