|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why would the apostiles have lied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: 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 BeliefAppeal to Consequences of a Belief Begging the Question Burden of Proof Couldanyone else name some more?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hanno writes: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hanno writes: Historical documentation? Really? Such as? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: But very few and no good ones.
Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024