Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 31 of 177 (19439)
10-09-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
10-09-2002 9:04 AM


Due to the high amount of responses, I couldn't read them all. But, those which I have read are very similar and very poor. There were two responses:
1. They lied.
Those that go with this theory, has yet to provide me motives. No one lies without motives, aspecially if the lie causes you so much trouble.
2. They never existed
Tipical convinient atheist awnser. Can't deal with the problem, so we delete it all together. That simple, isn't it? Only christian litruture refer to these people anyway, right? WRONG!!! You did not even look on the internet to proof your statement. I haven't got a lot of time, but if you're really interrested, go to Google and select advanced search. Type in the following:
with all of the words : Roman
with the exact phrase : non-Christian reverences
with at least one of the words : Jesus Christ
You will find about 52 results.
I haven't got time to go through them right now. But here is one I quickly looked at, since its URL did not hint Christian source :
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...s/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html
The opening paragraph:
"If the only references to the trial of Jesus came from Christian sources, there might be reason to wonder if such a trial ever took place--or indeed, even if Jesus ever existed. Fortunately, there are two important surviving references to the trial of Jesus in non-Christian writings. One comes from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who was hostile to the Christian movement. The other comes from Josephus, a Jewish historian. Each of these historians confirms three central facts: that there was a leader of a movement called Jesus (or Christ), that Jesus was executed, and that the movement that Jesus was part of survived his death."
COME ON! You're scientists. If someone come to you and attack the evolution theory with no proof, you rip him apart with all your knowledge. If you ARE going to argue the origens of Christianity, do a bit of research first, instead of these unfounded (religious like?) believes.
I will not respond to any more naive posts claiming that Jesus or the apostles did not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 9:04 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 10-09-2002 5:29 PM compmage has replied
 Message 35 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 6:00 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 7:18 PM compmage has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 177 (19440)
10-09-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nos482
10-09-2002 2:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Show me Christ's bones.
Well.... we all know that Jesus rose from the dead....
but I think the Catholic church has three of the apostle Paul's hands....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 2:53 PM nos482 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 177 (19441)
10-09-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by compmage
10-09-2002 4:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
But, those which I have read are very similar and very poor.
Well how about telling us exactly WHY they are very poor? Simply making the statement is meaningless. Buck up, man, and fight!
quote:
1. They lied.
Those that go with this theory, has yet to provide me motives. No one lies without motives, aspecially if the lie causes you so much trouble.

Well... let's see. The Voodoun in Haiti will claim witness to the powers of their Loa. Obviously, they are lying. Why? What is their motive?
Or perhaps no real motive is needed. Urban myths circulate constantly and thousands of people believe them. The same crap has been around for decades. It just keeps coming back. The same for virus myths, and for email scams. People buy into this stuff even with the massive amounts of information we can tap into today.
quote:
2. They never existed
Tipical convinient atheist awnser.

Typical, yes, because it is true that there is no good evidence.
quote:
You did not even look on the internet to proof your statement.
Do not accuse me of not researching my material. Perhaps I should accuse you of not researching your statements, as I have already given you reasons for doubting your extra-biblical sources and you have not responded.
quote:
nonchristianaccounts.html
[Fixed too-long link. --Admin]
The opening paragraph:
"If the only references to the trial of Jesus came from Christian sources, there might be reason to wonder if such a trial ever took place--or indeed, even if Jesus ever existed. Fortunately, there are two important surviving references to the trial of Jesus in non-Christian writings. One comes from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who was hostile to the Christian movement. The other comes from Josephus, a Jewish historian. Each of these historians confirms three central facts: that there was a leader of a movement called Jesus (or Christ), that Jesus was executed, and that the movement that Jesus was part of survived his death."

Just for kicks:
quote:
Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus. No webpage found at provided URL: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
quote:
If someone come to you and attack the evolution theory with no proof, you rip him apart with all your knowledge. If you ARE going to argue the origens of Christianity, do a bit of research first, instead of these unfounded (religious like?) believes.
It is you who needs to research.
quote:
I will not respond to any more naive posts claiming that Jesus or the apostles did not exist.
Cute... so rather than debate, which you have yet to do, you will shove your fingers in your ears and sing hymns?
By the way, this tendency of Christians/creationists to spout dogma and run away is really beginning to get on my nerves. I put a lot of effort into my posts. It pisses me off when the other side refuses to do the same.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 4:06 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:16 AM John has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 177 (19442)
10-09-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
10-09-2002 3:23 PM


Originally posted by John:
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.
I doubt that they would have been all that coherent if they even made it to 70 or so. Someone in their 70's back then would be the same as someone who lived to be 120 or 130, or even much more, now. It was a very lucky individual who stayed reasonably healthy to that age back then.
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.
I think that that is because we can more easily tell that they are frauds now since we can expose them without too much fear of being burned at the stake as heretics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 10-09-2002 3:23 PM John has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 177 (19443)
10-09-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by compmage
10-09-2002 4:06 PM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Due to the high amount of responses, I couldn't read them all. But, those which I have read are very similar and very poor. There were two responses:
1. They lied.
Those that go with this theory, has yet to provide me motives. No one lies without motives, aspecially if the lie causes you so much trouble.
As I've said, they probably didn't see it as lying when they did it in the name of their god.
2. They never existed
Tipical convinient atheist awnser. Can't deal with the problem, so we delete it all together. That simple, isn't it? Only christian litruture refer to these people anyway, right? WRONG!!! You did not even look on the internet to proof your statement. I haven't got a lot of time, but if you're really interrested, go to Google and select advanced search. Type in the following:
with all of the words : Roman
with the exact phrase : non-Christian reverences
with at least one of the words : Jesus Christ
You will find about 52 results.
And we all know that everything on the Internet is the absolute truth.
I used Copernic Agent 6.0 and all I found were 24 hits and none of them independent.
I haven't got time to go through them right now. But here is one I quickly looked at, since its URL did not hint Christian source :
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...s/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html
The opening paragraph:
"If the only references to the trial of Jesus came from Christian sources, there might be reason to wonder if such a trial ever took place--or indeed, even if Jesus ever existed. Fortunately, there are two important surviving references to the trial of Jesus in non-Christian writings. One comes from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who was hostile to the Christian movement. The other comes from Josephus, a Jewish historian. Each of these historians confirms three central facts: that there was a leader of a movement called Jesus (or Christ), that Jesus was executed, and that the movement that Jesus was part of survived his death."
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born long AFTER Christ was suppose to have died on the cross, 56 AD to 120 AD (He lived for 64 years).
And Josephus lived from 37 AD to around 100 AD. (He lieved to the ripe old age of around 63)
Do you have any verifible and independant references from when Christ was alive? Like a Roman death warrent?
COME ON! You're scientists. If someone come to you and attack the evolution theory with no proof, you rip him apart with all your knowledge. If you ARE going to argue the origens of Christianity, do a bit of research first, instead of these unfounded (religious like?) believes.
We can do this because unlike your situation there are mountains of real evidence in favor of evolution and all you have are two references by people who could very well have heard the same sort of stories and myths which Paul had heard.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 4:06 PM compmage has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 177 (19444)
10-09-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by compmage
10-09-2002 4:06 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 4:06 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 37 of 177 (19481)
10-10-2002 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
10-09-2002 5:29 PM


You don't believe because you don't WANT to believe. You argue in circles. For the thousandth time. IT IS EASY TO MAKE UP RELIGIOUS LIES WHEN YOUR WEALTH, AND EVEN YOUR LIFE IS NOT AT RISK!!!!! SO MUCH EASIER IF YOU ACTUALLY STAND TO GAIN FROM IT!!!! So kindly stop comparing the apostles to other examples were no persecution took place! You say the apostles lied, and I ask what do you propose they hoped to gain from that. And you say, the hell with what they wanted to gain. They lied! That is not a very convincing reply.
****************************************************************
Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.
**************************************************************
Don't make me laugh. There were many misconceptions on what Christianity was about in the beginning. But those were the views of outsiders that ardly ever spoke to a christian, and are invalid. Or have we forgotten that many people in America, aspeccially after 9/11, think Islam is about Jehad and suicide bombings and terrorism andpeople shouting "Death to America, Death to Israel"? Those are the views of people outside the religion, and who has no idea what it s really about.
And besides. There was first Jesus who thought the people, and then there was the following. You propose that the following just appeared out of no where, and then they dreamt up Jesus to justify their "following". That's absurt!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 10-09-2002 5:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 8:34 AM compmage has replied
 Message 51 by John, posted 10-10-2002 1:26 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 38 of 177 (19482)
10-10-2002 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
10-09-2002 12:42 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 12:42 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 10-10-2002 5:46 AM compmage has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 177 (19490)
10-10-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by compmage
10-10-2002 3:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:38 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 177 (19502)
10-10-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by compmage
10-10-2002 3:16 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Don't make me laugh. There were many misconceptions on what Christianity was about in the beginning. But those were the views of outsiders that ardly ever spoke to a christian, and are invalid. Or have we forgotten that many people in America, aspeccially after 9/11, think Islam is about Jehad and suicide bombings and terrorism andpeople shouting "Death to America, Death to Israel"? Those are the views of people outside the religion, and who has no idea what it s really about.
The old, "But they weren't real "Fill in the blank"!" excuse. They could say the same of you as well.
besides. There was first Jesus who thought the people, and then there was the following. You propose that the following just appeared out of no where, and then they dreamt up Jesus to justify their "following". That's absurt!
Why is it absurd? We see this sort of thing all of the time now. Take crop circles for example. It has been shown that they are man made yet many still believe that aliens made them.
People want to believe in something which makes them more than they truly are. In fact some are all to willing to kill to protect this belief. Read the first posting of my thread "Why People Want to Believe There is a God." It fits you to a tee as well.
http://EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god. -->EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:16 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:04 AM nos482 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 41 of 177 (19504)
10-10-2002 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
10-10-2002 5:46 AM


---------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ Are there non-religious, independent sources that suggest the apostles existed? Or are the "eyewitnesses" part of the same self evident documents?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There are non-religious sources indicating that Jesus had a following which survived His death. And the earliest copies we have of the new testiment books are only from a few decades later. That means that many first generation Christians that actually spoke to the apostles were still around. Do you really think they wouldn't have noticed that these accounts are not falsified? Rememder, there were thousands of christians already by that time. If some of the first generation Cristians would've wanted to falsify history, surely others would've noticed? Look at it this way:
Neo-Nazi's claim the concentration camps never existed. No one believes them. Why? Because they're trying to change history and we all know the original version. So too, would all the Christians have known the original story, and any falsification would immediatly be noticed.
To say that those early Christians harmouniously corrupted history, without anyone noticing, or any Christian objecting, is as rediciulous as claiming the moonlanding was faked by everyone involved. If the moonlanding was faked, wouldn't someone that was involved have speaken out already?
Sorry. This arguement just doesn't add up for me. There is no evidence available that the apostolic letters weren't written by the someone else.
Besides, that Christianity spread like wild fire, is a historical fact. Someone must have taken the burden to spread it. Is their names really relivant?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I delt with this before, but I'll do it again. If they had lied to garther suport for their religion, it would mean that they didn't really believe that it's Gods religion, and that it's the Holy Spirit that plants faith into ones hart. That would mean that their entire story is a lie.
And when people knowingly lie, they hope to gain something from it. Yet the apostiles had no wealth. Infact, Paul often says in his letters that he has the right to demand finansial support from the church, but he didn't, so he wouldn't be a hindrence for the spreading of the evangely (Sorry about the spelling. I don't know how to spell that in English). So money is not the motive. Also, they were subjected the the harshed forms of punishment. People lie to avoid punishment. They do not lie in order to be punished. If they were lieing, all they had to do was to tell the truth and walk free. They didn't.
You just have to read the Bible to realise the apostles were convinced that that which they were telling was the truth.
They wouldn't have lied to promote the religion for the sake of promoting the religion. If they did, they would've expected some personal gain in the process. But, apart from ever lasting live with God, they lost everything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Quite unnecesary. This is common sence:
0 AD- Jesus Christ teaches in palistine.
100 AD- Tens of thousands of people across the Roman empire share a common believe, and text with the apostles teachings are found round about this date, confirming modern day Bibles. Someone had to spread the news, and all documentation on who these people were point to te apostles. History demands the existance of apostles.
B. I don't need to proof they weren't lieing: You go to Iran, and tell the people some lie about God reveiling Himself to you to make a few ajustments on the Qu'ran. Then try to fearlessly convert the people there. Say they won't kill you just there and then. We'll see for how long you stick to your lie. Like I said. The terrible conditions in which they lived because of their story of Jesus Christ proof they weren't lieing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 10-10-2002 5:46 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 8:51 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 11:35 AM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 177 (19505)
10-10-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by compmage
10-10-2002 8:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
0 AD- Jesus Christ teaches in palistine.

How could he have taught when he was a just born baby? We count from when he was suppose to have been born, not from his death. Even us non-theists know that.
100 AD- Tens of thousands of people across the Roman empire share a common believe, and text with the apostles teachings are found round about this date, confirming modern day Bibles. Someone had to spread the news, and all documentation on who these people were point to te apostles. History demands the existance of apostles.
Ever hear of the Moonies? In only a very short time there are millions of them. Is their leader actual god?
B. I don't need to proof they weren't lieing: You go to Iran, and tell the people some lie about God reveiling Himself to you to make a few ajustments on the Qu'ran. Then try to fearlessly convert the people there. Say they won't kill you just there and then. We'll see for how long you stick to your lie. Like I said. The terrible conditions in which they lived because of their story of Jesus Christ proof they weren't lieing.
All this proves is that they are willing to kill to keep their little world intact. People also die for a lie everyday.
How do you expect us to take you seriously when you keep using so many fallacies as arguements?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 43 of 177 (19506)
10-10-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nos482
10-10-2002 8:34 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it absurd? We see this sort of thing all of the time now. Take crop circles for example. It has been shown that they are man made yet many still believe that aliens made them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no proof of a different origen for Christianity. Someone had to come up with it, and spread the news. And once again, it has to come down to people will not tell lies if they don't stand to gain anything, and asspecially not if they are gauriteed to loose everything.
Sorry, pal. You cannot get away from the fact that SOMEONE started Christianity (and all historical data points to Jesus) and SOMEONE had to spread it (and all historical data point to the apostles.) It all comes down to why those that spread this story, would have done it if they are physically been punished for it. (The persucution of Christians during the first 300 year is a historical fact.)
Have you ever been tortured? No? How long will you be able to continue telling a lie as you are being tortured?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 8:34 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:29 AM compmage has replied
 Message 45 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:33 AM compmage has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 44 of 177 (19507)
10-10-2002 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

Because there is no proof of a different origen for Christianity. Someone had to come up with it, and spread the news. And once again, it has to come down to people will not tell lies if they don't stand to gain anything, and asspecially not if they are gauriteed to loose everything.

You don't have to lie to be wrong. They could trully have believed what they said. However, their belief in no way makes their statements true.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:04 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:35 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 48 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:22 PM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 177 (19513)
10-10-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:04 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Because there is no proof of a different origen for Christianity. Someone had to come up with it, and spread the news. And once again, it has to come down to people will not tell lies if they don't stand to gain anything, and asspecially not if they are gauriteed to loose everything.
Yes, they do tell lies, and the worse lie is to themselves.
Sorry, pal. You cannot get away from the fact that SOMEONE started Christianity (and all historical data points to Jesus) and SOMEONE had to spread it (and all historical data point to the apostles.)
What historical data? The bible?
It all comes down to why those that spread this story, would have done it if they are physically been punished for it. (The persucution of Christians during the first 300 year is a historical fact.)
People die for lies all the time, especially if they aren't told it is a lie. Just look at Koresh's Christian cult at Waco.
Have you ever been tortured? No? How long will you be able to continue telling a lie as you are being tortured?
Was Paul tortured? Power can be a strong motivation. Plus, torture doesn't really work, after a certain point you will say whatever you think the torturer will want to hear. You would confess to shooting JFK, anything to stop it.
Here is an interesting bit of data:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/...m/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.7.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:04 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:30 PM nos482 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024