Why would the apostiles have lied?

You are assuming what you read IS what the apostles said, of course.

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.

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.

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.

Hanno,Post 22 please,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hanno,

quote:

---

Thank you, Mark. You seem to be the only one posting rational replies.
If I had to trust the Bible on only what the Bible says, I would propably have serious doubts about it by now, or, at least, I wouldn't have started this debate. The Letters from the apostles are credible, because:

​

1/ There are many different eyewitnesses that tells the same story.

​

2/ The surcamstances in which it was told, make it imposible to motivate why they would've lied

​

3/ Non-Christian evidence that point to Jesus as being a real person.

---

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:

---

In the case of the Qu'ran:
1. There are no eye witnesses to confirm that Muhammed actually saw Gabriel. Furhermore, much of the Qu'ran is about refuting the Bible. Who are you going to believe: Lots of eye witnesses that tells the same story, or one man, that came 600 years later, that tells a totally different story?

​

2. Given that Islam were forced on people, the circumstances in which Muhammed operated, make it possible that he had alterier motives to start a religion.

​

I don't doubt Muhammed existance, though. There is no point in doing so, since Islam must have had a founder.

​

So you see, it is not just a blind believe in the bible, but the CIRCUMSTANCES in which it was written that makes it believable.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Ok, given. I'm not convincable. But even if I was, your arguements wouldn't work.

---

LOL.And THAT, Hanno, is why I stopped posting on this thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hanno,I thought these two posts were worthy of response;Gene90:

quote:

---

The problems with your premise are (1) you can't be absolutely sure these characters who would supposedly have lied were real and (2) other people have died for religions you don't believe in.

​

---

Compmage

quote:

---

You are assuming that the authors of the gospels were actually eye witnesses. Care to provide some supporting evidence?

---

Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

1. They told the truth, and therefore was witnesses.
2. They lied, and they knew it.

​

---

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.

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.

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]

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.

Hanno,

quote:

---

I'm sorry, Mark but I just can't do that. Yes, to some extend you are right: I will never be able to betray my believes. This "believe, despite anything" is a build in capability of the human being, and mine is well developed. There is nothing that can convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I just can't imagine live without christianity. It is a big part of what I am, and live without it seems bleek and pointless. If this is what you wanted to hear from me, than there, I said it.

---

So what are you posting here for, then? You are asking a question that you will not accept an answer for? Good grief!

quote:

---

But also (I hope I will get myself not to repeat this again.)

---

You just have..

quote:

---

Christianity was a huge development in the roman empire. It spreaded quickly, and everyone knew of it. Therefore, my reasoning is that there must be documentation on this development.

---

And? Where is it? I have no problem that Christianity spread quickly. It doesn’t mean the 12 biblical apostles were responsible, though.

quote:

---

Remember after 9/11, all of a sudden there were books of al quida and Bin Laden. It was a huge event, therefore a lot of people wrote about it. Similarly, I expect that, if Christianity had a different start, there must be Christian, or non Christian documentation about it. The lack of this documentation, for me at least,is a confirmation on the bibles account. For me this is proof.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
So I take it know one of you know which setting to change to get my Internet Explorer to display Excel graphs. Bummer.

---

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]

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.