What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

Im going to guess it seems people ignore the evidence because there is no evidence. The only evidence is what other people who were trying to control other people told them. There is the same evidence of mermaids probably more so.

 

Yep, Jesus was probably gay, and the Bible says to kill gays, so it's kind of like these posters are members of a group called "Christians Against Christ".

- - - Updated - - -

Let me translate: "I don't have any evidence....I'm driven by fear of hell".

 

Jesus, we're calling you out, take a second away from creating babies born with severe birth-defects and just show us some evidence, dude! Your followers on this thread are HANGING by a thread, they need some help from you.

[I don't think he's listening to anybody]

 

As an Atheist I will agree Jesus likely was a preaching holy man in the region, he was likely born in Nazareth and was crucified and had followers but so did MANY others including John the Baptist and more. In fact such men were common enough to not draw much attention from the Romans unless they caused trouble.

But there is no accounts outside of the Bible to support his existence or performing miracles from anyone reliable but one can say he existed more likely than not.

It would help if respectable Greek or Roman or other sources supported his life we know for example Cleopatra existed since many sources wrote about her, same for many famous figures even in regions we can find out key details of local leadership due to correlating records for those outside those cultures like the Minoans.

 

he's busy watching early episodes of Torchwood.

 

The evidence of his existence is not fantastic but as it's of no consequence whether a particular cult leader existed and was executed, I have no particular reason to dismiss it.

On his supposed resurrection, however, the evidence is laughably poor. I don't ignore it: I reject it wholly.

 

this doesn't prove Jesus existed either. try again.

 

if there are aliens from other planets then are they also gods children? Or does your god only cover this planet? How far out does his reach go? If Aliens are also gods children then why does the bible never tell us of other life in the universe? At the time the bible was written man didnt comprehend space travel, but surely, SURELY god knew about it. It seems to me this proves the source of the bible was man not god. If it was god it would be rife with knowledge of the universe and not coming from the direction that the Earth was the center of life. So do Aliens exist or not? If they do how do you know their god isnt correct? seeing as how they conquered the space and time continuum and we cant even figure out healthcare.

 

You took my alien comment literally, huh?

 

The volumes of books written about him aren't enough to convince you? I posted a Wikipedia link, for starters. I've paraphrased it at least twice. Few historians doubt his existence. Most are convinced of it.

 

As for evidence of the resurrection, we have to first agree or disagree that evidence can be in the form of eyewitness testimony. If you discount eyewitness testimony, then I'm sure we're done. If you're open to it, I'm ready to present a case.

 

Lotta books about j smith and his gold books, too.
A million of them wont make the story any better.

As there is virtually no material to go on when writing about "jesus" all they can do is re re re hash the same things. All that is actually known wouldnt make a pamphlet.

You are not understanding that nobody seriously doubts that there was someone, whatever his real name, place or time of birth, place or time of death, whatever he may have said or done.

If you keep thinking you have to convince people that there really was a "Jesus" you are whomping on a dead horse. Sure there was. We just do not accept, there is no evidence to say that he actually was
the supernatural being that some chose to claim he was.

Now, if he really got crucified, and then went right back to preaching, maybe went to Pilate to challenge him to try it again, now then we'd really have something.

As it is, just some people say they heard someone else say they saw him.

We see him as having been a rather ordinary individual, upon whom much was projected, and around whom many legends were woven. They needed a figure, so, they made one.

Have you, who want others to seriously consider your "god" spent even two minute seriously considering the idea that your "Jesus" was no more than what i said?

Tell us honestly if you have ever spent two minutes, let alone an hour or a day with
a serious look at that perspective. Including the thing about how all you books
boil down to about one slim pamphlet.

 

You first have to establish that the Gospels are eyewitness sources. The Book of like flat out says that it isn't, so, what is your evidence that they are, in fact, written by eyewitnesses?

 

"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."

"The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence."

He states it pretty candidly and obviously. Our religion rests on the credibility of the Four Evangelists. So read it for yourself and see what convinced this guy that the eyewitnesses were indeed credible.


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

- - - Updated - - -

No, I really don't. They do not have to have been written by them to be considered their words. That standard doesn't apply to any other historical document.

 

The Bible is a single source of evidence that makes claims that are not supported by any contemporary source.

That's weak non-empirical evidence.

Why should anyone give it any attention?

 

Evidence certainly be in the form of "eye witness". In court (where one presents a case)
it is known that eyewitness accounts are notoriously contradictory, unreliable, and often false.
That is why corroborating evidence is needed.

The more outlandish the story, the more vital the corroborating evidence from different sources becomes. Need we mention the "Miracle of the Sun" in this connection? Not that it was a court case, but honestly, does anyone but the most credulous think there really was a miracle of the sun? Lotsa witnesses tho, said to be anyway.

Do you "disagree with" eyewitness testimony? Unless you plan to plead special pleading, you will need to accept this, as better evidence than there is for the "resurrection". These guys
signed their names. There are others too of course.

Would you write and sign such a thing if you didnt mean it?

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.


Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

 

Sure I've considered that. I'm quite aware of how most the major religions started. I've also felt the need to be convinced. That's why I've studied and researched it. For as much as you're sure I'll throw nothing new at you; I'm pretty sure of the same. I've spent countless hours reading all of the skeptics' information I could find. If you'll read Simon Greenleaf's conclusions, I think you'll get an idea of how I arrived at mine. Again, considered the credibility of the witnesses first. You don't have to apply that standard. That's your call.

 

Except there aren't any.

The first Gospel, Mark, wasn't written until 20 years after Jesus's death. Luke and Matthew were written after the destruction of the Temple. John wasn't written until around 100AD.

And none of them were written by the person they were named after.

 

The disciples did not write the Gospels.

 

You said something important. The "notoriously contradictory, unreliable, and often false" assertion. Though I won't argue that, I will counter by saying the earliest accounts are the most reliable.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I know that. What is your point?

 

What you're effectively saying is that NO eyewitness accounts of ANY historical event ever can be relied upon unless written by the witnesses themselves. That's absurd. That standard would not apply to any other historical event or person.

 

Lets see...In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge

Two good things there the one about science, and the one about how one must accept an axiom that Xtianity is all true.


That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.


The documents are real. The contents, though, are another matter. Proof to the contrary concerning certain contents is irrefutable.

I wonder if our friend, writing from the time when it was commonly believed that there was a vast undiscovered southern continent, would be so sanguine in his willingness to say that
contrary proof would be a problem for them "sacred writings" as he might have been for proof that there was no southern continent as envisioned.

Anyone with a scrap of insight, let alone detailed knowledge of earth history thinks there was a flood. We suppose he would have been bright enough to see that if evidence had been available then.

His whole chain of custody thing would also work for the authenticity of the book of mormon.

 

That's because the Gospels aren't only a historical document. If the Gospels were solely about Jesus and his ideas, not about his supernatural wonders, then I would certainly agree with you. Unfortunately for your case, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. Do you accept any other historical documents when they talk about supernatural wonders, whether they were written by eyewitness sources or not? If Caesar's The Conquest of Gaul suddenly begins talking about how Caesar "...levitated above the battlefield and started shooting lightning bolts out of his arse," would you believe the account?

 

Your interpretation there is what is absurd.

 

I know the Bible is true....says so in the Bible!!!!!