Dear Theists....Why?

[solja247]

You're teasing me, aren't you? You DO realise this is an atheist forum? Or is that you simply haven't managed to grasp the meaning of the word 'evidence'?

You do know the gospel of Mark and Luke are taken seriosuly by rational scholars?

There is no evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

But there is. Any historian has to take the synoptic gospels seriously. I think Atheists like you need to move past the 19th century .

His existence is plausible at best,but the alleged evidence falls far short of the scholarly rigor demanded by reputable historians today. The NT is the mythlogy of Christianity,with little if any basis in fact.. The Gospels cannot even agree on what happened with the resurrection.

The resurrection stories are all the same, you have to remember the audience .

Here's an exercise:Sit down with four copies of whatever Bible you use. Open each at a different account of the resurrection. Read them together. .

I have, they do vary. Sit down with four different credible newspapers with the same story, things will be a little different

Neither the Torah nor the NT meet the requirements for credible evidence.Skeptics reject the special pleading made for sacred texts,as no claim for revealed truth has ever been supported by evidence.Such evidence would need to begin with proof of the existence of a divinty to make the revelations.No one has ever managed to accomplish such a task.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000​

Skeptics reject the NT, most scholars dont.