What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

Your correct. It doesn't have to. But it makes it more believable.
And if not directly written, then more than 1 source needs to be available. And we're not talking about a few individuals all in the same group. As many mentioned, where are the trial records and other recordings of the crucifixtion?
All historical documents need more than 1 verifiable source to be considered accurate.

 

Probably not. As your beliefs are different to begin with. Were you brought up in a buddahist or muslim world or similar. Or was christianity around you most of your life. Even if not directly in contact with you.

 

That was not long enough ago for them to have been reliable.

The older the testimony, the more pure, it improves like wine.

Anyone who sees a mermaid now is just not believable

C Columbus' sailors who eye witnessed a mermaid may not have. But its getting better with age.

Anyone who saw a dragon or unicorn in biblical days, that is good as gold. If they say they saw it, they did.

 

WRONG

there are zero first-hand accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

all accounts of his resurrection are from folks who knew folks who knew folks who may have claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead.

extraordinary claims, such as human resurrection, require extraordinary evidence.

it saddens me greatly that you and hundreds of millions others are soo willing to accept such an extraordinary event as true....with such pathetic evidence to support it.

 

You are the author of the thread?
And you make statement above and then offer no other historical documents of the miracles?
If you have evidence that you say gets ignored, it will continue to be ignored if you don't present it.
So just present your evidence and let folks take from it what they may. That is about the best you can expect.

 

I'll admit faith is more important to me. But in order for me to have faith, I first wanted to establish that his life was real, and then I had to examine the available information regarding his resurrection. Is there evidence of it? My conclusion, not based on evidence that is acceptable to you, obviously, but evidence acceptable to me, is that he was who the Gospels say he was, and that he did what they say he did. Then I look at the works of all the Bible scholars since, none of which to date disputes categorically the accounts of the Gospels, and I believe more.

According to Tacitus, the Christians became a real problem for the Romans in the decades after the crucifixion. Nero, probably the most barbaric Roman emperor, was using the full force of the Empire to squash this Christus movement. And Tacitus eludes to "superstitions" associated with it that Nero sought to end. So the most vicious of Roman emperors is trying to kill off everything to do with Jesus, including all of his disciples, and the story not only survives, but thrives. Against all odds, the story thrives to a point that eventually another Roman emperor, Constantine, finally makes Christian persecution end, 300 years later. That's amazing.

 

Man can't live on science alone. There's far more to our conscience. There's much about us science cannot explain, let alone the Theory of Evolution. For you to reject Jesus based solely on science, you'd have to be a computer program and not a human being.

 

That's evidence of nothing other than the popularity of a story and the idea that there's something better waiting for you after you die from whatever horrible thing will befall you in this life. Are you really impressed that the idea of a paradise after death was popular in a world where the mean life expectancy was less than 30? Parents were likely to have a child die before its 5th birthday. It's no wonder that a warm and fuzzy idea like reuniting with them later caught on and held.

- - - Updated - - -

Again with the false idea that there is only science without Christianity. Why is this such a common misconception among the theists on this forum?

 

The idea is popular today, and life expectancy is much higher.

 

That's because it has had hundreds of years of control and indoctrination to force it into our society. Keep your Jesus ideas away from children until they're old enough to think rationally and see how long your religion lasts.

 

What do you mean categorically? The only things that most scholars agree on is the baptism and the crufixtion.

More amazing than the Jewish story continuing to exist and thrive?

 

I don't understand the statement - "Again with the false idea that there is only science without Christianity."

What I'm trying to convey is that scientific data is not necessary to believe in Christ. There is evidence beyond that of empirical data that supports the Christian faith. Our minds draw conclusions based on many things other than science. You do need faith to believe in miracles, because what someone said or wrote about the miracles, no matter the person or his credibility, is not enough for a lot of people. I get that. All I'm asking you to do is examine the witnesses' testimonies, first. Then, consider the likelihood that a myth of this magnitude could accelerate beyond the Jewish subjects of the Roman Empire, all the way to Asia Minor, with the full weight of the Roman Empire actively trying to destroy it.

 

Eye witness accounts of the battle of gettyssburg..

There is plenty of corroborating evidence in records of all sorts.

none at all except for the "eye witnesses' who saw the gold books, or the various miracles.

what does that say?

 

What Im trying to convey is you keep beating dead horses.

Scientific data is not necessary in order to believe in astrology, ufos, homeopathy, copper bracelet cures for arthritis, nessie, or any number of other things. In fact, its a positive hindrance.

see part in bold

do you ever take the advice we'd offer you, which is to try considering the possibility that you are wrong?

The full weight of the roman empire was soon enough backing it.

How likely do you think it is that the islam myth could get people to fly airplanes into buildings?

 

All of that has to make you pause and ask, was there something to this? If you stop and chalk it up to humans being susceptible to superstition, then you're ignoring something really important about Jews. Their oral traditions and texts and religion are way older, of course, and hardly disputed among ancient historians as to their authenticity. Granted, the Israelites had their ups and downs with God, choosing kings over Him some times, other times the spoils of war and false idols. Anyway, their religion survived all of that since time and memoriam. Although few of them are Christians today, and the Bible says it will be this way, without thousands of them accepting Jesus as the Messiah, the story would've surely died fast. So what was it about him that they couldn't reject? It was his miracles, which they knew well. It was the disciples credibility, which they also knew well. It the prophecies? Then it was Paul, who was first a Christian killer, then the father of the first millennial church. So it wasn't just the Roman Empire that was a barrier to the resurrected Jesus story being promulgated. It was also an ancient Jewish religion.

 

The only reason why that evidence is acceptable to you is because of your faith blinders. If you actually had the ability to analyze the evidence independent of your faith you would see that it is tenuous at best.

 

There is evidence beyond that of empirical data that supports the Muslims faith.

Why aren't you a Muslim?

 

the Battle of Gettysburg is hardly an extraordinary event that requires more than just 1st or 2nd person accounts.

But when you claim to see ghosts, globlins, Gods, banshees, singing elephants, black holes, resurrected men, you BETTER have some damn good evidence to prove it or I shall call you a fool.

 

Singing elephants never told me to love my neighbor. Banshees haven't told me to feed the poor. What teachings of Jesus have you so upset anyway? Was it something he said?

 

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.


HORRIFYING!

 

The Buddha said all of those things and did so centuries before Jesus. Why aren't you Buddhist?

 

There is NO evidence of Christ's resurrection and miracles, to ignore.

 

And you think this behavior was unique to Christians?