What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

strawman.

 

You're not a lawyer...are you? Or did you get your law degree from Liberty University Online?

 

Why go to a xtian web site was the q. And, no, im not talking as if these people are purely theists, and that they don't believe in science.

I did tho, top center and big, see an add for a book about how evolution is a farce. They do appear to be endorsing it.it.

If they want to talk science and bible, that is fine Saying evolution is a farce tho....

You are looking at anything but an honest unbiased source there.

- - - Updated - - -

Did I miss something? A recent discovery to disprove ToE?

 

Check out my Topic about OZZY OSBORNE getting his Genome Mapped and sequenced which showed he has Neanderthal DNA as do just about ALL PEOPLE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT as Cro-Magnon...ie...Modern Humans along with Homo Sapiens.....and Neanderthal have been GENETICALLY PROVEN TO HAVE INTER BRED.

That means that if you have European Ancestry your relatives in the distant past were or had sex with a Neanderthal or thals!! LOL!!!

THIS IS A PROVEN FACT BEYOND CONTEST!!

AboveAlpha

 

And that has what to do with my post?

 

Well, many gnostics thought he was just an idea, and they were some of the earliest christians.

Most historians think he existed even though the evidence is pretty suspect. Christian gospels that we still have date about four hundred years after his death, and those are pretty damaged. Earlier writings are far from complete and often conflict modern interpretations.

As far as the supernatural aspects of his existence faith is necessary to think them absolutely true.

Jesus embodies a beautiful idea. Truth comes in many ways. Why worry about the details?

 

Ok, some say there was a "Jesus", whatever his name really was, whatever he really did.

So flippin' what?

Let them show us that the stories are not made up. Then it doesnt matter if "Jesus" was really a left handed lesbian
from Tupelo or a wooden Indian, if he actually did that stuff.

If there was a real person around whom the myth was woven, he wouldnt recognize himself.
Imagine being shown one of those catholic paintings of this Sylvester Stallone-eyed guy with a beard, holding his shirt open to show his heart, and told "This is you!"

 

LOL. Point taken.

I am not trying to referee, I'm just trying to understand the guys point. Is proving the unprovable going to do something?

Seems like a waste of time to me.

 

If it is all unprovable, yes, a waste of time. They keep trying. Some pretty silly stuff that has the opposite effect to what they intended.

My fav. techinique was in Maarquez' book, "One Hundred Years of Solitude" with the priest who
proves god by levitating chocolate.

But really, if there is proof, then what is the utility of faith?

 

Its a legitimate response to a red herring. Because X event may be false, that's supposed to mean Y event is too?

 

Completely ludicrous, by definition those closest to the events are more reliable. This is from Wikipedia on Papias, born in 60AD, he knew the Apostle John and wrote the following about 110AD:

"Papias describes his way of gathering information:
I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.[1]
Thus Papias reports he heard things that came from an unwritten, oral tradition of the Presbyters, a "sayings" or logia tradition that had been passed from Jesus to such of the apostles and disciples as he mentions in the fragmentary quote. The scholar Helmut Koester considers him the earliest surviving witness of this tradition.[2]

About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:
`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"`

This makes Mark a second-hand witness, such evidence is considered reliable in court. Of course John was an eyewitness.

You mean modern scholars. Again, it is crazy to assume someone working 2,000 years after the events knows more than someone who knew one of the disciples.

 

Context ALWAYS matters. A text without a context is a pretext.

Wow, you are not aware of the whole conrtroversy with the Judaizers who thought Jewish law (such as circumcism) had to be kept, and who didn't think Gentlies could be Christians?

Essentially you are saying you a prior reject the supernatural, making this conversation a waste of time.

Certainly true of the atheists here.

 

Here's someone convicted on hearsay: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/drew-peterson-conviction-_n_1867335.html

What? This thread keeps getting stranger and stranger.

 

Either that or you in particular call people liars when you can't debate them, with no back up for your slander.

 

Paul never knew Jesus before the crucifixion yet his account is one of the earliest. Why didn't he write more about the life of Jesus?

 

The Gospels wrote on the life of Jesus, Paul wrote for the early church.

 

Because there are many who want everyone to live by the teachings, going so far as to pass laws to force others to live the way they think.
And it's the details that are used to show, you can't prove what you want say and therefore can't force the entire population to live the way you think.

The message is great. But it is not to be forced unto everyone.

 

Paul wrote some 14 letters.. He must have known that the people wanted to know more about the life of Jesus so why didn't he preserve that information... Why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write more about the life of Jesus?

 

No. It's supposed to make you reexamine the way you look at "eyewitness testimony".

 

So why don't we close down our court systems, we sentance people to death based on eyewitness testimony. And what other evidence would you expect from 2,000 years ago?

- - - Updated - - -

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written." John 21:25

If people refuse to believe what was written, more wouldn't change anything.

 

Cases based on eyewitness testimony tend to get overturned the instant some objective evidence shows up. Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence available.

Give it another generation and any court case not reliant on empirical evidence a la forensic evidence wot even see a judge. No DA in the Western World will take on the case.

As for evidence from 2,000 years ago, comtemporary independent sources would be good. Too bad there aren't any.

 

That is a pretty pathetic argument...

Peterson, the former suburban Chicago police officer, faces a maximum 60-year prison term after his first-degree murder conviction in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. It was the first case in Illinois history to permit the use of hearsay evidence, based on a 2008 state law specifically tailored to Peterson's case.

Your statement implied that hearsay was admissible in most cases. As I noted it is usually not admissible. This case does nothing to challenge that. It is usually not admissible because it is deemed too unreliable.

A first hand account or eye witness testimony is extremely faulty. There is nothing strange about that statement. 52 of the first 62 DNA exoneration cases involved eyewitness testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability

 

there is NO eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection.

nobody who saw him come back to life wrote about it.

 

As a schoolgirl I always wanted to know more about the life of Jesus.. There is so little about him in scripture.

 

Isn't it hard to take serious "eyewitness accounts" in a book that also tells us that bats are birds...that rabbits 'chew their cud'.....that the Sun can stop in the sky and not see the Earth burn and shatter....and that donkeys and snakes can talk?