What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

A secondary problem is that we don't know that they are stories from the Disciples, which is what I think you're claiming. No, the eyewitnesses don't have to write their own story down; but, they do have to be interviewed. Do you have any evidence that the Gospels are stories from eyewitness accounts?

 

I saw the driver of the limousine shoot JFK.

I was only 3 years old and living seven states away, but you cannot dispute my eyewitness account, can you?

 

That is quite the assertion, which is all it is.

Early accounts are full of mermaids, sea monsters, dragons, god-kings, unicorns,
witches..........the older they are, the more they seem to be full of such things.

The ones you see now tend to be in tabloids. Bigfoot spotted. UFO lands. Nessie eats cow.
Honesetly.

You have to do better than that to call it a "counter".

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

what is the extraordinary evidence that Jesus died and then rose from the grave 3 days later?

 

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence that exists. Consider the amount of convictions based on eyewitness testimony that have been overturned over the years.

 

eyewitness accounts of extraordinary events, such as an alien landing, ghost, human resurrection from the dead, a dinosaur in the woods, are useless unless they have corroborating eyewitness reports that were put on paper or a reliable reporter interviewed the witnessess.

 

The Gospels are at best third hand accounts and at worst the result of a massive game of telephone.

Why would you consider those reliable sources?

 

if someone tells me they saw an alien spacecraft land in a park, a dinosaur swimming in a lake, a ghost, or an elephant speak Hebrew, they better have photo or video evidence, or have corroborating witnesses.

why? cause schizophrenic delusions & haluccinations are waay too common in our society. plus too many people are willing to say they saw something spectacular just to get attention & fame.

None of the men who supposedly saw Jesus rise from the dead ever wrote down their accounts, nor gave their accounts to someone who wrote them down. These accounts, are therefore worthless.

any intelligent/rational personal can see that.



and btw, the Gospel of Mark does NOT include Jesus' resurrection.

 

The Gospels were written in different times by different people with extraordinary similarities and corroboration. By your standard, no record of any historical event is credible until such time as we had a printing press and The New York Times.

 

The fact that Mark doesn't include the resurrection means what to you? Of course someone wrote in down! Are you saying the texts never existed? Who made it up, Jerome?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because I know much more about how the Bible was constructed than you. You sound like someone who hasn't spent much time on it.

 

They weren't written simultaneously. They have "extraordinary similarities and corroboration" because the writer of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark to work with. The writer of John had copies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to work with.

- - - Updated - - -

So why aren't you a Muslim? The Koran and Hadiths are full of "eyewitness accounts" of Mohammad doing miraculous things.

What makes the Muslims eyewitness accounts any less valid than the ones you claim are real?

 

The TRUE ending of the Gospel of Mark, says this:

16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.


....the "risen" Jesus, was witnessed by no one.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus' resurrection and the witnesses seeing him, was added later by zealots who wanted to make believe that Jesus rose from the grave.

Mark's Gospel gives us the truth. Deal with it.

 

So the greatest most wonderful gift given to mankind was witnessed by about 12 people? All whom lived together for several years.

- - - Updated - - -

Paul saw nothing but a bright light.

 

Sorry, but the Quran contains no such miraculous events. None. Muslims consider the text itself miraculous, as well as prophecies. Mohammad didn't heal the sick. He didn't raise anyone from the dead. He didn't turn water into wine. And how many times is Jesus mentioned in the Quran, by the way?

 

Jesus didn't heal anyone. Jesus didn't raise anyone from the grave.

these are all baseless claims with no evidence.

 

You accept Mark's Gospel as truth? That's interesting.

 

And then ALL of them were compiled and EDITED at a later time...with only "approved" books allowed to be considered true and dogma.

 

And you think the Gospels are the only historical accounts of his miracles, too, don't ya?

 

Mark's Gospel is more rational and logical.

hence its more believable.

- - - Updated - - -

there are ZERO eyewitness accounts to Jesus' so-called "miracles".

sorry.

 

And you've studied the Vulgate and the work of Jerome to draw these conclusions? Is there some evidence of this conspiracy to make everything jive? Man, imagine the painstaking task of going through the OT, too.

 

Continuing my JFK assassination conspiracy theory....imagine if a guy 10 years later, who had been in another state on November 22, 1963, no where near a TV....came forward and claimed he "saw JFK get shot by a dark figure on the Grassy Knoll".....in a "vision" on the road to Damascus, Virginia???

 

You mean there are zero accounts that you accept.

 

YouLie: you posted this link earlier to defend the genuine nature of the Gospel accounts. I spent a few minutes scouring the article and came upon this:

"These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or character were produced in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to presume its venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence, or the satisfactory character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of peerage."

His entire argument is an argument from authority and popularity! He shifts the burden of proof to those skeptical by saying, basically, "Well, many people have considered them authoritative and genuine, therefore they are!"

What a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor argument.

 

Do you not admit that the FIRST thing you trust...is in the Council of Carthage (397 CE) and those Gospels that were approved by it? And refute all others?

 

Yet "eyewitness accounts" in the Koran say that angels told Mohammad to bring new lessons to mankind and that he miraculously rose to Heaven in Jerusalem.

But I'm not surprised at all that you reject those accounts while saying that the Gospels are perfectly reliable.

Why don't you just admit that faith is the only thing that matters and that evidence doesn't matter a wink to you?