Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 177 (19416)
10-09-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
This is the lousiest reply yet. The letters of the Apostiles EXIST. The letters tells that they have been WRITTEN by the apostiles. The proof that this is true, is the fact that the church exists today, dispite the oppresion during the first 300 years of Christianity. There is absolutely NO proof that the letter was not written by the apostiles. And most importantly, if christianity wasn't started by the apostiles who did? What documentation exist of it? It must have been the greatest conspiricy ever. Let me quess. You propably don't believe that Mohammed was a real person, or Moses or Budda. So tell me then. who DID start these religions?
Following your logic, the Quran is Gods word (through Mohammed).
Now, explain to me why it isn't, then apply that same logic to the apostles alleged writings for consistency.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:34 PM mark24 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 177 (19417)
10-09-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
This is the lousiest reply yet. The letters of the Apostiles EXIST. The letters tells that they have been WRITTEN by the apostiles. The proof that this is true, is the fact that the church exists today, dispite the oppresion during the first 300 years of Christianity. There is absolutely NO proof that the letter was not written by the apostiles. And most importantly, if christianity wasn't started by the apostiles who did? What documentation exist of it? It must have been the greatest conspiricy ever. Let me quess. You propably don't believe that Mohammed was a real person, or Moses or Budda. So tell me then. who DID start these religions?
The bible is true because the bible says it is true?
BTW, Paul started Christianity.
There is outside evidence for the existence of these others, there is no credible, or independent evidence for the existence of Christ during his life time.
Let's list the fallacies you are using:
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Begging the Question
Burden of Proof
Couldanyone else name some more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM nos482 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 18 of 177 (19422)
10-09-2002 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
10-09-2002 11:26 AM


If you actually read some of his letters, then you would've seen that he refers to himself as "the least worthy of all apostles" (Sorry about the spelling) He is an apostle, because of the revelation he recieved on his way to Damascus, which turn his live 180 degrees around

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 12:25 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 12:29 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 177 (19423)
10-09-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
If you actually read some of his letters, then you would've seen that he refers to himself as "the least worthy of all apostles" (Sorry about the spelling) He is an apostle, because of the revelation he recieved on his way to Damascus, which turn his live 180 degrees around
But he never actually met Christ, he only dreamed of him, and he never was a member of the "original" 12 apostles either. What makes him any different than Jim Jones or Koresh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:08 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 10-09-2002 12:44 PM nos482 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 20 of 177 (19425)
10-09-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:08 PM


Hanno writes:

If you actually read some of his letters, then you would've seen that he refers to himself as "the least worthy of all apostles" (Sorry about the spelling) He is an apostle, because of the revelation he recieved on his way to Damascus, which turn his live 180 degrees around.
If you're going to include Paul among the apostles then we'll need some terminology to distinguish among them. How about "Paul" for the Apostle Paul, and "the 12" for the twelve apostles who Jesus actually called apostles in the gospels.
If when you ask, "Why would the apostles lie?", you're referring to accounts about the 12 in the synoptic gospels such as where they witnessed the risen Christ at the tomb and again later along with hundreds of other witnesses in Jerusalem, then my answer is that the gospel accounts were not written by the 12, nor even by eye-witnesses to these events.
On the other hand if when you ask, "Why would the apostles lie?", you're referring to Paul, then my answer is that he is speaking to his faith just as any religious adherent would. What is there in Paul's writings that lends them any more or less credence than the writings of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:08 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 21 of 177 (19426)
10-09-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
10-09-2002 11:28 AM


I'd be glad to. According to Islam, the people perverted the teachings of the (prophet, not God) Jesus Christ, so God revieled Himself to Mohammed with the true teachings. Oh, it wasn't God, it was the arch angel Gabriel. He denied things that were written and confirmed by wittnessess 600 years before him. Thus the entire Islamic faith stand or falls on the word of Muhammed. There were no other witnesses. If Muhammed had lied, there are no other witnesses to test his word.
Jesus, however, said he is the son of God, and performed the miricals to proof it in from of hundreds of witnesses. And not just any kind of mirical. He rose Lazarus from the grave when the body were already smelling bad. And He rose from the dead, and revealed Himself to a few hundred people. This is the eye witness accound of the appostles. And their credibility has been tested in my opening statement. Up to now, I haven't read a single proposal for the motivations why they would've lied. This shows that there was no other motivation, therefore no lies. There are even non-Christian references to him as a man that did great wonders.
Now, I am very reluctent to write the following, since I've heard stories that Muslims would hunt down and kill people that openly critisize the credibility of the Qu'ran, but, I'm going to do it anyway.
Muhammed, unlike the apostiles, has the posibility of alterier motives: the Arabs were a divided, insignificant people, surrounded by the powerful Eastern Roman Empire. The unity among christians inspired him to start a rival religion. If he could unite the Arabs under one God, they will become a force to be recond with. And unlike the Christians, when the people of Mecca refused to believe, he went to Medina, where he created an army to force them to convert. I might be wrong, but as you can see, there is plenty of space to suspect Muhammed of alterier motives.
Further more, the apostiles wrote about things that happend right in front of their eyes, Muhammed said they were lying, 600 years afterwards.
You take your pick: who is more credible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 11:28 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 12:42 PM compmage has replied
 Message 27 by Jeff, posted 10-09-2002 2:20 PM compmage has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 177 (19428)
10-09-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:34 PM


Hanno,
You have completely missed the point.
Do you believe that the word of Allah is in the Quran? It says it is, though indirectly.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:34 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:38 AM mark24 has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 177 (19429)
10-09-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nos482
10-09-2002 12:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
But he never actually met Christ, he only dreamed of him, and he never was a member of the "original" 12 apostles either.
Nos is right, Hanno. Paul lived long after the legendary Christ. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, which was written about 70 AD -- still about forty years post cruxifiction and at least one generation removed.
quote:
What makes him any different than Jim Jones or Koresh?
There is a magical line of demarcation approx. 200 AD, before which one is a prophet and after which one is insane.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 12:25 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 2:58 PM John has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 24 of 177 (19431)
10-09-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nos482
10-09-2002 11:31 AM


There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation revering to Jesus. Now I can understand if you say: Jesus was a good person, and he had some strong view, but he was just a man. But to deny his existance ?!? I call that denial.
There are people that believe there wasn't a real moon landing. The idea is propostourous, because it is imposible to ensure the silence of everyone involved for such a long time. If christianity was a lie, it would've been a greater feat than having a fake moon landing. There are just to many people involved.
If Jesus did not exist, then, please, show me the historical data that indicate to a different source. Denying the existance of even the person Jesus Christ, is like denying the existance of dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 11:31 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 1:20 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 26 by John, posted 10-09-2002 1:23 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 2:53 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 150 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 25 of 177 (19432)
10-09-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:48 PM


Hanno writes:

There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation referring to Jesus.
Historical documentation? Really? Such as?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM compmage has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 177 (19433)
10-09-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation revering to Jesus.
But very few and no good ones.
Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels
quote:
But to deny his existance ?!? I call that denial.
I doubt that Christ is 100% mythology. That is, a character something like Christ probably did exist. What I don't believe is that the Bible tells an accurate tale of his life and death. What has grown up around the man is myth, and sadly all that we have left is the myth.
quote:
There are people that believe there wasn't a real moon landing. The idea is propostourous, because it is imposible to ensure the silence of everyone involved for such a long time. If christianity was a lie, it would've been a greater feat than having a fake moon landing. There are just to many people involved.
No it wouldn't have been. You believe that Islam is a lie, yes? And Hinduism? and pretty much everything non-Christian? All of those lies seem to be galloping along quite well.
If Jesus did not exist, then, please, show me the historical data that indicate to a different source. Denying the existance of even the person Jesus Christ, is like denying the existance of dinosaurs. [/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM compmage has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 177 (19435)
10-09-2002 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Jesus, however, said he is the son of God, and performed the miricals to proof it in from of hundreds of witnesses. And not just any kind of mirical. He rose Lazarus from the grave when the body were already smelling bad. And He rose from the dead, and revealed Himself to a few hundred people. This is the eye witness accound of the appostles.
jeff:
Correction: No Jesus didn't say this...nor did he write this.
Odd how someone so important & all knowing never left a single document, penned by his own hand. We must rely on the hearsay of claims made by people who were TOLD that these events actually occurred.
The NT simply 'alleges' that the authors of the gospels 'claimed' that jesus said all this... did all that... yadda yadda ya...
That's 3rd degree hearsay.
You believe it because YOU CHOOSE to believe it.
Do you really require more ? Is THAT what the NT's message means to you ?? Believe in jesus - and then PROVE it all happened the way it is claimed ?
What about faith ?
Ya know - that intangible ability of humans to accept absolute absurdity as fact, despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence ?
You’re making xianity sound rather hollow.
If you want to believethen believe already and stop worrying whether the populace at large agrees with you. I want Santa Claus to be realbut I don’t post my dedication to this myth on message boards and challenge all to prove me wrong.
If I did do thatwould it be fair —or logical- of me to demand you disprove my dubious myth ?
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be upon me to demonstrate Santa Claus exists ?
You claim that the Quran is perverted, or distorted and erroneous and that eastern religions are merely philosophies. Have you studied them all with the same scrutiny that you devoted to the bible ?
...and you STILL prefer the bible ?
Perhaps you were raised to accept the bible without question and never really entertained the validity of the other religions.
OK — so once you’ve decided the bible is the one true book of god, then you have to decide which religion to pursue: Judaism or Xianity.
You chose Xianity — ( it’s actually Judaism 3.1; same core operating system with new higher logic, drivers and options )
Then you have to decide which ‘flavor’ of Xianity best fits your needs. Tough choice considering there are over 100 Xian denominations in the USA alone.
Are they all correct ? You certainly can’t get them to agree. Are they all wrong ?
That alternative has possibility
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:34 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 177 (19436)
10-09-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:48 PM


Originally posted by Hanno:
There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation revering to Jesus. Now I can understand if you say: Jesus was a good person, and he had some strong view, but he was just a man. But to deny his existance ?!? I call that denial.
There are no docuements from the time he was alive. Everything else is influenced by the church afterwards.
There are people that believe there wasn't a real moon landing. The idea is propostourous, because it is imposible to ensure the silence of everyone involved for such a long time.
Unlike the bible there are MANY outside sources which confirm the Moon Landing.
If christianity was a lie, it would've been a greater feat than having a fake moon landing. There are just to many people involved.
You are forgetting the time in which Christianity was invented. It was nothing like today in regards to knowledge and how it is gathered. It was a time of much ignorance and superstition as well.
If Jesus did not exist, then, please, show me the historical data that indicate to a different source. Denying the existance of even the person Jesus Christ, is like denying the existance of dinosaurs.
Show me Christ's bones. A piece of the actual cross, a record from the time he was executed. Do you have any original, or physical, evidence at all? Or do you just have accounts drawn from third and fourth hand tellings decades of the event was suppose to have happened?
You sure like to use common fallacies as arguements. You offer nothing we haven't heard and refuted many times already.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 10-09-2002 4:55 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 177 (19437)
10-09-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
10-09-2002 12:44 PM


Originally posted by John:
Nos is right,
I'm going to faint.
Hanno. Paul lived long after the legendary Christ. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, which was written about 70 AD -- still about forty years post cruxifiction and at least one generation removed.
Wouldn't that be more like two or three generations since a generation is around 13 years?
There is a magical line of demarcation approx. 200 AD, before which one is a prophet and after which one is insane.
Well, of course. So, that means that J. Smith of the Mormons is a nutjob by those standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 10-09-2002 12:44 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John, posted 10-09-2002 3:23 PM nos482 has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 177 (19438)
10-09-2002 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nos482
10-09-2002 2:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Hanno. Paul lived long after the legendary Christ. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, which was written about 70 AD -- still about forty years post cruxifiction and at least one generation removed.
Wouldn't that be more like two or three generations since a generation is around 13 years?
Yeah, probably, but one generation is concievable. If Mark were a first person witness he would have to be around 90 by AD 70, which is pushing it a bit. However, Mark could have gotten his information from a first person witness. Even this requires that both Mark and the witness live to be fifty to sixty years old, which would be a very odd thing for the times. I wouldn't put my money on it, but impossible? Not quite.
[quote]There is a magical line of demarcation approx. 200 AD, before which one is a prophet and after which one is insane.
Well, of course. So, that means that J. Smith of the Mormons is a nutjob by those standards. [/B][/QUOTE]
By that logic, yes. And that is exactly what I was taught as a child. That prophecy is ok in the past but not in the present is a very odd component of most modern christian sects.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 2:58 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 5:38 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024