|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why would the apostiles have lied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
I didn't call God a myth. I referred to the stories in the Bible as mythology. Sometime it seems as if rather than worshipping God and Jesus that Creationists worship the Bible with some form of idolatry.
This is the impression which much of the world has of Chritianity as well. It is commonly called the religion of the Book. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Hanno:
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. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is yours, not ours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Plus, if the Roman Empire hadn't been converted by a deception Christianity would have died out long ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Hanno:
I beg to differ. Christianity was the largest known religion in its time, and spreaded rapidly. Christianity only started to grow quickly once the Roman Empire was converted by deception and thus it could use the Empire's system of communication and it's armies to impose Christianity on much of the world. 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: I see that like most you don't know what a scientific theory is. It is much more than just a guess. Evolusionists use existing data to disprove creationism. That is because there is so much of it around which does disprove creationism. It's just too easy. 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. We have evaluated it on the data available and found it wanting. 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. Remeber, what we now call Greek Mythology once was the main religion in the world. In fact much of modern Christianity was influenced by it. ...not that the theory convince me, but I can understand how someone could believe it You are misusing the term theory. A more appropriate term would be hypothesis. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: I'm not the one making the "wild claims" here. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
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. Your claim about the apostles works just as for Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) as it does for the apostles, and we know he lived.
By the way, yes, Nos is known for acerbic remarks, little content, and fallacies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: You are assuming that the authors of the gospels were actually eye witnesses. Care to provide some supporting evidence? ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by gene90:
By the way, yes, Nos is known for acerbic remarks, little content, and fallacies. His remarks have absolutely no content and are nothing but fallacies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
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.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Percy wrote: Hanno replied: Reread the part from me - "the living Jesus"? I don't think Paul's vision on the road to Damascus was of the living Jesus. And what of the evidence for Paul's vision? All we have is Luke's story in Acts in the Bible. Is it true? Or was it made up by Paul and elaborated upon by Luke? What test can we devise to determine the truth or falsity of Paul's vision? I confess that I cannot think of one. Can you? Your argument for accepting such stories is that the apostles wouldn't lie, but men lie all the time, and with much less motivation than promoting or preserving their position as head of a budding religious movement. Take as an example another religious vision. Before an important battle, Emperor Constantine had a dream about Jesus, and he had the sign of the cross emblazoned across the shields of his soldiers. They won the battle and Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. Did Constantine really have this dream? Like Paul's vision, there is no way to know. But unlike Paul's vision it makes little difference to history, while to Christianity the truth of Paul's vision means everything. Since it's not possible to verify or confirm such personal experiences people simply have to accept it on faith. No historical verification is possible. And ultimately religion is an matter of faith, not proof.
How can you say this, when you believe the religious tales of all other religions are false? How could these false tales which other religions hold holy have grown if people did not "easily add to them?"
The Nicaean conference where the Biblical canon was fixed was attended by bishops from Europe, Asia and Africa. Paul's ministry was conducted primarily in Asia minor and Greece, and so it extended but a little into Europe.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm certainly not sure that there must have been a Jesus and apostles. And I'm certainly not sure there that there weren't. The evidence from which to draw conclusions simply isn't there. What I believe is that the roots of modern Christianity trace back to Paul, who I trust no further than I could throw. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe you really don't understand how this process works. Let's see. This is how it is supposed to go.
That is how it is supposed to work. This is how it actually works.
------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-11-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-11-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-11-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-11-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-11-2002] [A few iterations with [list], John? Nice formatting job, though!!! You can use [list] inside a [list], if that helps. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 10-11-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024