Why would the apostiles have lied?

At least I have the bible. You base your believes purely on assumptions. Besides. The Apostiles words are creadible because.... you know what? I'm getting tired of repeating myself.Koresh's Christian cult at Waco did not do any mirricles to back up his claims.------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
He was. Read the book of Acts. And besides. You just proofed my point.
Non of the apostles gave it to their oppressors.

******************************************************************
There are very few. Josephus (2), Tacitus (1), Suetonius (1), Thallus (1). They are so few we could quote them all in full in a short post. Revisit this link that John posted earlier:Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet InfidelsAnd these sources indicate very little about Jesus. At best they confirm that a man named Jesus began a religious movement known as Christians, that he was credited with great works and miracles, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate. None provide any confirmation, not even any mention, of Jesus's miraculous conception, his birth, the three wise men, his ministry, the apostles, the journey to Jerusalem, the last supper, the betrayal, the crucifixion, the entombment, the rising on the 3rd day, or the appearance of the risen Jesus to the apostles and to hundreds in Jerusalem. None of this is mentioned in any sources. Nor is there any archaeological support for any of these events. All the information for these events comes from a single source: the Bible.
********************************************************************Those sources only confirm the existance of Jesus. And since most of them are hostile towards Christianity, so you wouldn't expect them to expand to the story. I have already provided the reason why the apostles words can be trusted.*******************************************************************
The Christianity that comes down us today is Paul's Christianity, not the apostle's Christianity. Paul disagreed violently with the Jerusalem church represented by Peter and James. Paul was responsible for the conversions to what eventually became the Christianity we know today. Whatever became of the Jerusalem church is not known, and certainly it didn't survive the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman's in 70 AD. The gospels were written by religious communities who were followers of Paul, not of the Jerusalem church. And the gospels were all written after Paul's epistles, explaining why they never mention the gospels, and also why Paul's letters reflect almost no knowledge of Jesus's life beyond a few details like the crucifixion and resurrection.
**************************************************************I'm not quite sure where, I believe in one of the letters to the Corinthiens. Paul states that before he went out on his missionary journeys, He told the other apostles what he believed, to make sure he got it right. Also, He did not "violently disagree" with Peter and James. The story is that Peter and James did not want to be seen associating with non-jewish believers, and Paul corrected them. There is 3 letters of John, 1 of Jacobus, 1 of Peter, and in the book of acts, you hear from other apostles as well. The church of Jerusalem was schattered before 76AD, and the people of that church told the story of Jesus Christ where ever they went.*****************************************************************
The account in the gospels of the apostles spreading the Word, indeed even the apostles themselves, is likely all fiction, a mythology created by early Christian groups to satisfy their curiosity about what their early church and its founder were really like, and about the events surrounding the early ministry. The apostles weren't lying because the events in the gospels are fictional, or perhaps even the apostles themselves were fictional.
******************************************************************
Once again, very convinient. The earliest copies of the new testament are found within the livespan of 1st and 2nd generation Christians. They KNEW how they were converted, they did not have to think up stories.Besides if Paul didn't convert them, someone else had to. And if the DID make up stories about him, they would make him say that which they believe, and what they believe was told to them by whoever converted him. This arguement of the non existance of the apostles doesn't really achieve anything.*******************************************************************
That being said, fear of persecution and death has rarely deterred the religiously devout or fanatical. You only have to look back a year to see evidence of to what deeds religious devotion can drive men.
******************************************************************
Fair enough. But they believe only that what was passed on to them. They believe blindly without any proof. The apostles was eye witnesses, and for goodness sake, how many times do I have to repeat this.

Let's talk strait here. The only evidence that can convince you on this matter, is if Jesus Christ return from heaven. Unfortunatly, this will be too late for you. You cannot be convinced to believe in God, because you do not want to believe in God. You want to believe that science is the only force at work in the universe, so you will be able to understand it. Your mind is not open for the possibility that our five sences and the power of our mind cannot detect everything that exists. I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles. I had hoped that it would at least make you think, but instead, you constantly put forward self asured, non substanciated claims that the apostles either did not exist, or were lying. No one could give any proof that indicated that Christianity started in a different way. Not even a non-Christian documentation that indicated a different start. And those claiming that they've lied, just couldn't give me a single convincing motive why they would knowingly give up their live for something they knew wasn't true. Then there were those saying that they did not know they were lying, but they were eye witnesses. You either saw it, or you didn't. There is no maybe.Remeber. Of all the religions in that time, none were more resistant to change than the jews. They would not have converted, had they not seen and heard Jesus for themselves. After the priests interigated the apostles, one said: There were many leaders in the past that were called the Messiah. But their leader was killed, and the followers chased off, and nothing came of it. If this Jesus are the work of man, this cult will dissapear. But if it is the work of God, it will prevail. It prevailed.This debate will go on for ever. You will tell me they lied or did not exist, and I will ask you in vian for proof. And you will just awnser me with what you've said before. I asked for motives, non were given. I ask for an explaination of how christianity came about, non substasiated speculations were given.For this reason, I'm ending my participation in this debate, because it is going nowhere, and is a waste of time. Atheism is just as much a religion that any other. Only difference is there is no God in it, but then again, there is not God in hinduism (Whose gods more resemble forces than living conscious beings) or Budism.Well, it's been fun. I must say this particular debate wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. You won't hear from me again soon, but this website has a way of making you return to say something you haven't thought of before. So, chances are, you'll hear from me again.Cheers.

That was not my intension. I was mearly pointing out that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficiant for you. By the way. All people, including all Christians are sinners. Did you not know that?

And I suppose you're going to brag on your victory? I left because non of you could say something new. And, as you noticed, I got tired of repeating myself. I said what I wanted to say, and you simply ignore it. How many times would you like me to repeat myself???

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning and discussing viewpoints with others is a waste of time? I'll have to remember that. Maybe it's best you leave while your misimpressions are still intact:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, you guys can be nasty. You stated your view point, and I stated mine, but we seem to be speaking past each other. This debate runs around in circles. The first 360 degrees were good enough for me. How many times do you want to go around it?-------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because I don't accept a literally inerrant Bible doesn't make me an atheist. I believe in the same God you do, we only differ in the threshold of credibility we apply to the evidence for Christian mythology.
------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you say in one sentence you worship my God, and in the next call Him a Myth? If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, who came to earth, to pay for our sins, you cannot call yourself a Christian. And there is a difference between believing in "a God" and believing in the Christian God.

I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles.I have. You just cant put them all together. But since you have done so much thought on the origens on christianity, lets hear it. But please don't repeat the lies/non existance theory again. It cannot be proofed.

Ok one last try. But after this, no more merry-go-round, ok?Here are the facts:
-Jesus was a real person.
-After His death, Christianity spread throughout the roman empire in less than a cetury.
-For the first 300 years, Christians were violently oppressed.
-The are no documeneted proof that the spread of Christianity was aided by violence in the first 300 years.
-The New Testament which we have today is based on scriptures that were written only a few decades after the death of Christianity.
-No scrips refuting the existance of the apostles and documentation of the "actual" beginning of christianity exists.Save assumptions:
-Christianity was founded by Jesus.
-A lot of people had to spread the word accross the empire for it to be able to grow so fast. The only (Yes, biblical) evidence we have is that these people were the apostiles. There are no documentation found that explain the sudden growth and denies that it was the work of the apostles. Thus, in total, the only records we have, point to the apostles.
-If the teachings in the bible were indeed not that of those who spreaded Christianity, then this drastic change in Christianity had to spread drastically across the entire empire before the first litriture was produced. Probably even faster than the original version. This change would have been noted and documented by Christians. It is one thing to blindly believe something, but for a large group of people to blindly believe A, then harmoniously decide that B is actually to be blindly believed, and then to proceed as if A never existed, is impossible. It can therefore be assumed that the bible, even if not written by the apostles, are a very accurate account of what has been tought.
-Unless all of Europe suddenly had a blow of amnisia, I do not find it likely that the apostles were dreamed up. When the first Christian litruture that we know of was produced, it was well within the live time of the 1st and second generation Christians. They would have known who the apostles were, what they had tought, and how they lived. If these early scripts were falsified, Christians would've noticed. And seeing as they "blindly believed", it is unlikely that the large majority would have accepted this falsified version. It would have been recorded, like the many other false christian movements that has been recorded. And since todays bible is based on those early scriptures, any falsification should have happend before that. With all of this taken into account, I believe we can savely believe, if not anything else, that the bible is an acurate account of the words and deeds of the first missionaries.
- And if we take the above as the truth, we can clearly see from the apostles teachings and deeds that they WERE eye witnesses, and that, in fact, if they were lieing, they would have been the dumbest bunch of people to have ever lived, to through away their lives and well being like that for something they knew wasn't true. And if it wasn't the apostles, they would have been even dumber to give the credit to someone else, while suffering persucution.(Which they have had to, since Christianity was oppressed from very early on, even in non-Christian records.)All the counter theories that was proposed, ignored several of the above, which makes them not very convincing for me. If you want to claim you have defeated me, you have to refute ALL of the above, and do it holistically, and not in seperate unrelated arguments.If you still can't see my entire arguement, and just agrue against some of it, I really cannot put it more plainly.

It was not my intension to insult your religion in any way. I respect your religion, and I do have a more than average knowledge about Islam. However, I was requested to indicate why I believe in the Bible, and not the Qu'ran. This is a sensetive issue, and i did not want to publicly view my personal views on this matter, but I had to in order to explain to them why I believe what I believe.Regards

*****************************************************************
Then post them. Cite some evidence. Show me where my logic is faulty. Restating your proposition over and over does no good. I have given you a long string of objections and you choose to brush those off and ask the same question again.
******************************************************************
I can pretty much say the same thing about you, John. Which is why I wanted to end the debate. I have stated my objections for the last time. If you're not going to respond to them, I'm not going to repeat them again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Jesus a real person? Perhaps, but Paul never explicitly claims to have laid eyes on the living Jesus, and he's the only Biblical author of whom we have any knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What about during his conversion on the way to Damascus?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-No scrips refuting the existance of the apostles and documentation of the "actual" beginning of christianity exists.
----------------------------------------------As explained several times, this is backwards. Refutation of such things isn't possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ. Christianity was the largest known religion in its time, and spreaded rapidly. Surely there must be some document, Christian or otherwise that would at least indicate its true origins.
I cannot believe that something so big can just appear with no record at all of its true origin. Were the people completely blind to what was going on arround him? If all available documents on the matter point to exactly the same origin, what other proof do you need? And by the way, the Bible does go some way in proving it self, because it is not one book, but a collection of different independant books. This must count for something.Besides. Isn't science theory also build on the data we already have, and not data that might be out there? Ofcause you can disprove a held believe: Evolusionists use existing data to disprove creationism. Similarly, Christinanity should be evaluated on the data we have, not assumptions. You might believe those assumptions, but in no why do they disprove the scripture which we have. Only when texts are found to back up those assumptions, can they be used as proof.------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody here is saying anything like this. We're not saying that stories about Jesus were spread by the early Christian ministry and then were replaced by a different set of stories later on. The stories developed once and were spread once.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad we agree on the first part. However, the second doesn't seem right. It's one thing for a fairy tale the evolve: that is just a story. But a religious tale is held as holy truth, and people will not easily add to them. If they do evolve, then very slowly. Yes, this evolution might be used to explain the minor contradictions that exists (e.a. the details of Jesus's resurection), but I do not think this straying from the original truth could have gotten very far before it was written down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember that Paul split with the Jerusalem church because he wanted to evangelize to the Gentiles. The growth of Christianity was due to Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and not due to the apostles work among the small Jewish population of Palestine. When they made the bargain in Jerusalem (Gal 2:6-10) Paul got by far the better deal. He got almost the entire world, while the Jerusalem church got only the Jews. After the fall of Jerusalem there was nothing left of the Jerusalem church's ministry. In effect, the ministry of the 12 reached an evolutionary dead end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean with "Paul split with the Jerusalem"? Geographically, yes. Theologically, no. How often have Paul mentioned that he is collecting controbutions to help the church of Jerusalem? And after every journey he returned to Jerusalem. I must agree with you that there isn't more letters from other apostles in the Bible. The reson would propably be because europeans compiled the Bible, And that was the area in with Paul worked. Other apostles serviced other areas, like Mathueu that worked in Egypt.At least you do recognise that there must have been a Jesus, and that there must have been apostles, spreading the news of Jesus. I'm not sure, but I believe that is as far as the non-biblical evidence can take you.Thank you. It has been a pleasure to awnser you, because you didn't repeat the retorick "They lied, they did not exist". You came up with a theory that take into acount the logical assumption that Christianity must have been founded be someone, and spread by others....not that the theory convince me, but I can understand how someone could believe it

Now take Percipient for instance. He replies to my claims, and I'll be happy to respond to him/her. However, if you're not even going to respond to it, and just making wild claims that the apostles never existed or lied, without even taking into account what I'm saying, why do you participate in this debate??? Ok, given. I'm not convincable. But even if I was, your arguements wouldn't work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Wrong. The apostles were merely telling people what they saw and what they heard. They were not teaching people on hear say, or interesting philosofies, they gave eye witness accounts. In this case, it is impossible "to tell lies and not be aware of it".

---

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

Another point on your torture comments. We all know that Galileo was correct about his view of the world, but he was made to recant them through the threat of torture by the Inquisition (The Church). He wasn't lying yet they made him say otherwise. Torture is an instrument of terror, not one of truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the Inquisition was a false church. The bible refers the the church as everyone that believed. In the time of Galileo, The "church" was a bunch of holy cows, pretending to do Gods will, and abusing their powers. Fortunatly, the reformation returned to the Bible as the word of God, and rejected the pope. You might think of the reformation what you like, but the reformation also gave you the right to believe what you believe without persucution. It was beneficial for christianity, and non-christians,because it prevented people from claiming to be representing God on earth.Second of all. what exactly are you trying to say? Galileo said what his torturers forced him to say. So? Does that mean that the apostles said what their torturers forced them to say? If this is what you are saying, then you are saying that it was infact the Roman Legion that invented Christianity.Let's call it quits. I won't think any lesser of you, just because you didn't have the last word. You failed to convince me, and I failed to convince you. It's a stale mate. That's why I wanted to end the debate earlier on, but the remarks you made about me afterwards forced me to continue. The question is, how long do you want this pointless "debate" to continue? You yourself said there is no proof available to disprove the bibles account, so it can go both ways. I want it to go this way, and you want it to go that way, and since neither of us can present any more evidence to proof our point, any further arguements will be based on personal conviction. Whether we end this now or later, you will think of me as a poor gullible fool, and I will think of you as someone I need to pity. No further arguement is going to change that.Agreed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
You live a life and morality based on fear of what your so-called loving god may do to you if you commit the least "sin". You have a twisted idea of what love is. It is either unconditional or it means nothing. That is what truly deserves pity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you don't make the same kind of misguided and unfounded conclusions when you're doing your scientific research. You'll play right into the hands of the creationists. And if your idea of Gods love is that He must turn a blind eye to all the injustices commited in this world, and just accept the wrong doers unconditionally....
I'm glad God isn't really like that. Imagin meating Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in heaven. Go figure.----------------------------------------------------------------------
You yourself said there is no proof available to disprove the bibles account, so it can go both ways.When did I say this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, maybe you didn't SAY it, but you didn't provide any historical documentation that describe the "true origens" of Christianity either.