|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why would the apostiles have lied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
You are assuming what you read IS what the apostles said, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Historical documentation isn't invalid, it is just much less tentative if it has independent evidence in its support. The problem with the bible is that all of the contentious issues require you accept the bible as self evident.
Now, I'm ignorant of much of the bibles text & history, tell me, do we have the original documents written by the apostles? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
Post 22 please, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
quote: 1/ Are there non-religious, independent sources that suggest the apostles existed? Or are the "eyewitnesses" part of the same self evident documents? 2/ IF they existed, which we are in no way sure of, may have lied to garner support for there religion, like Mohammed. You can only guess at their motives. 3/ No problem there.
quote: I think what you need to do is provide non-religious evidence for the apostles, & the contentious things they may have said. If you can’t do that, then the belief in the Qurans account of Mohammed speaking the word of God is just as reliable as anything the apostles may have said. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: LOL. And THAT, Hanno, is why I stopped posting on this thread. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
I thought these two posts were worthy of response; Gene90:
quote: Compmage
quote: Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 3. They were inventions.4. They were reinterpreted by others (you don't have ANY original scripts)ad nauseum until the original message was lost, or were made to fit other accounts. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
re. 3.Inventions. Not good enough, provide independent, non-religious evidence that the apostles existed, or they are simply part of a (non) self evident religious text. I suspect a supporter of Hitlers existence in 2,000 years would be able to provide a multitude of independent evidence, outside of the "Hitler Exists; I've No Evidence, But You'd Be A Fool Not To Believe It" book. I think you'll find there's plenty of evidence supporting the other historical characters you mention, as well. & no 4 remains unanswered. "4. They were reinterpreted by others (you don't have ANY original scripts) ad nauseum until the original message was lost, or were made to fit other accounts." Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
You started the debate, so please provide independent non-religious evidence that the apostles existed, OR all you have is a self proclaiming text. I've got a copy of "Genetics, Paleontology, & Macroevolution" on my desk, by JS Levinton. I need no further evidence that macroevolution occurred, because my book says so. Ok by you? And you STILL haven't attempted no.4. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 10-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
It's neither here nor there, the point I'm making is that a religious text by itself is not evidence of the contents. Your arguments rely on the a priori assumption that the apostles all existed. I only ask you back that claim up independently of the bible & religion. I am entirely open to the existence of the apostles, I think there's enough evidence to accept there was a guy 2,000 years ago claiming to be the son of God, so why not? Jesus has independent verification, I'm aasking it for both the apostles, & their words. If you can't provide this evidence, then all I'm asking, is that you be open to the possibility that the apostles may not of existed, there may not have been 12 of them, they may not have even met Jesus, nor lived at the same place or time. That anything the bible SAYS they wrote is EXTREMELY tentative, given the original documents are non existent. The original texts (should they have existed), through multiple interpretations over time, may have lost their meanings, or be added to, or substracted from. Therefore, given we don't know what the apostles DID say, we can hardly accuse them of lying now, can we? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
quote: So what are you posting here for, then? You are asking a question that you will not accept an answer for? Good grief!
quote: You just have..
quote: And? Where is it? I have no problem that Christianity spread quickly. It doesn’t mean the 12 biblical apostles were responsible, though.
quote: Of all the things you have said, this is without doubt the silliest. Let me get this right, a LACK of documentation is evidence?????? This is proof to you? There’s no documentation of pink/green/blue fairies, either, well, I’ll leave you to your own devices here.. This is my problem with arguing with biblical literalists. Can you not see the mental gymnastics you have performed? You have asked a question for which you will accept no answer, & have twisted logic into such a ridiculous parody, in which a lack of evidence IS positive evidence?!?! Astounding! Believe what you like Hanno, just don’t pretend to me that you have a reason to believe it. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Sorry ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. ------------------Note from Adminnemooseus: I've started a "Coffee House" topic, for requests such as Hanno's. It's at http://EvC Forum: A place for misc. off topic help requests -->EvC Forum: A place for misc. off topic help requests 10/13/02 - Percy has now supplied an answer to Hanno at EvC Forum: A place for misc. off topic help requests [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-12-2002] [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hanno,
Provide non-religious, non biblical evidence that the apostles exist. If you can't, then ALL you have is a self proclaiming religious text, & I'm just as likely to accept anything in any other religious text. Make sense? Sound reasonable? How can I answer your questions on whether the apostles lied when you can't even establish their existence? I'm sure someone DID convert early christians, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it was the 12 biblical apostles. Jesus has this evidence, & is good enough for me to tentatively accept he existed, if not the son of God. If you can provode the same, then I'll accept the same for the apostles. LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR CHRISSAKES!!!!! How can you possibly triple back flip & think it is? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024