Why would the apostiles have lied?

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.

Yes, you do fear you god, afterall you are a good god fearing -Christian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You misunderstand. When the bible speak of our "Hope in God", it does not indicate a doubtful believe in our salvation. Here "Hope" means to be certain.Similarly, fear is more an indication of respect that actual fear. I can't really recall ever being busy with Christian things, while actually being affraid of God. The only fear I had due to religion, was when I was very little and naughty in church. And then it wasn't fear for God, but fear of the hiding I'm going to get at home.

Originally posted by Hanno:And nos485,That's nos482. there is no need to become personal.You're the one who keeps asking personal questions like "Were you a bully..."If you feel I irritate you, and that this debate is going nowhere, you have no oblication to awnser. I notice a suttle mocking in your posts.You are far from "irritate", in fact it is the opposite. If I'm wrong, tell me so.You are wrong, and I have told you time and again. I don't know what you're trying to achieve with that. You're not making me embarrassed or doubtfull of my religion in any way. Heaven forbid if that ever happened. I got what I expected from you. Afterall you are a TRUE believer, and you have made that perfectly clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
I don't mind. Evolusion is a well thought through theory. However. That book you have isn't going to help you much it the next live(Just to make you happy, i'll add "if there is one"), so it doesn't really matter if it's true or not. The bible doesn't says "Though shallt not believeth in evolution", you know. If you've read my last posts on evolution, you'll noticed I've moved from "creationist sympothyser" to "Neutral".

---

Next life? I only know this one and will lead it to the best way I can.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Yes, you do fear you god, afterall you are a good god fearing -Christian. You misunderstand. When the bible speak of our "Hope in God", it does not indicate a doubtful believe in our salvation. Here "Hope" means to be certain.
Similarly, fear is more an indication of respect that actual fear. I can't really recall ever being busy with Christian things, while actually being affraid of God. The only fear I had due to religion, was when I was very little and naughty in church. And then it wasn't fear for God, but fear of the hiding I'm going to get at home.

​

---

I don't equate fear and respect as being the same thing.

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.But also (I hope I will get myself not to repeat this again.) 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. 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. If you concider this faith, then I'll agree to disagree. As to the non-Christian account of what the apostles said, you have to keep in mind, people were very hostile to Christians. So, a christian source will be more reliable that a non Christian source. After all, you won't find a accurite portrail of the Democratic party by reading Republican material, and vice versa. I would be very suprised to find non Christian documentation confirming what the apostles said. Besides, even if it existed, it would not be considered non Christian, because of the very reason that it supports the bible. So you see the dilemma? There are records that tell of Jesus. For this reason they are concidered Christain, and non valid confirmation. And there is no documentation refuting the above mentioned. So how can I confirm the bible, if all documentation that confirm it, is concidered Christian and non valid?

That is regretable.
Respect is when you hold someone in high regard.
Fear is that feeling you get before your first bunjy jump.
People feared Hitler.
People respect Mandela.

What does nos482 stand for anyway? I'm not good with remembering numbers."You are far from "irritate", in fact it is the opposite."Phew. I'm glad. That was not the impresion I was getting."You are wrong, and I have told you time and again."No, man. I MEANT if I'm wrong about you mocking me. I kinda noticed that you have been saying my believes are wrong."You're the one who keeps asking personal questions like "Were you a bully..."I asked this because I got the feeling that you were getting personal, when you gave your huge misinterpretation of my view of God.
' was just wondering, y'now

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

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]

Mark. Just one question. What proof are you looking for? Exactly what would you concider "good enough evidence"? Maybe, if you can tell me this, I can see if I can meet your high expectations. There are only documentation that point to one origin, but for this reason, they are "Christian" and "not valid". So obviously, no ancient text would do. I get the feeling that you agree, that, should the biblical account be accuriate, no valid motivation can be given for the apostles to have lied. For this reason, if the bible is false, it must be because the apostles never existed, not because they lied. Therefore the need to question their existance. However, I fear that nothing will be evidence enough for you to accept the bibles account. Not texts, anyway. You are here to convince, not to be convinced. At least I admitted that about myself. You come here knowing just as well nothing would convince you either.The hypothesis just doesn't add up for me. Someone must have spreaded the gospile. If it wasn't the apostles, then someone else. Does it really matter? And then, at worst, I cannot comprehend how it could be possible that more that 70% of the recorded bible is not what the apostles or who ever have said, given the short timespan between Jesus's time and the first records. And the core believes are the ones that are more resistant to "mutations" so the original teaching had to have the crusifiction and resurection of Christ in them. So even if all your doubts are true, we still have a reasonably accurate account of the teachings of Christianity, if not anything else. If you are converted, it is a major even in your live. You don't just "forget" who converted you. And I just can't seem to swallow the old "Oh, they forgot who told them about Christ in less that 2 generations, so they had to make up sombolic apostles...". To say that any alegged evolutions in cristianity brought significant changes before the first recorded version, is to say it evolved faster than any pagan religion of that time. If a religion would change at that rate, it will lose credibility to even its believers.Sorry Mark. It is always easier to see someone else doing "mental gymnastics". From my point of view, you have to be a master in "mental gymnastics" to believe the possibility can exist that people similar to apostles and a person similar to Christ might not have existed and that even the core of Christianity had changed before it was recorded. Possible, but not propable.You do not properly awnser my questions, so don't acuse me of not properly awnsering yours. For every part of the origin of christianity you're trying to refute, I have propable cause to believe it happend. And not once did you properly address the propable cause.
For instance: I ask why would they lie if the lie causes persucution.
You awnser people lies for all sorts of reasons, without awnsering the tricky part that people would not knowingly lie if their lie causes the things the christians had to put up with. So every awnser you give, you conveniently leaves out a part that I want addressed in your awnser.You completely ignore the huge propability that the early christians knew full well who converted them. Mithologies evolve over generations, not decades. And if they knew who converted them, they would not make up apostles. The Proof of Christ is the apostles. The proof of the apostles is the early church, and the proof of the early church is in the documentation which we have from them. Ofcause, I know that would not be prove to you, but then again, nothing will be prove enouth for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
That is regretable.

---

Life is what you make of it. If it hands you lemons you make lemonade. You shouldn't waste your life planning for the next which you really have no proof that it actually exists. And since this is my only life, as far as I know, I am more likely not to risk it. I have something to lose. You, as a theist who believes in an afterlife, have nothing to lose since you believe that you're going to heaven and a "better" life.Respect is when you hold someone in high regard.
Fear is that feeling you get before your first bunjy jump.
People feared Hitler.
People respect Mandela.Then why use the term "god fearing Christians"?[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-11-2002]

Originally posted by Hanno:What does nos482 stand for anyway? I'm not good with remembering numbers.It stands for Nosferatu. NOS 4(fer) 8(a) 2(tu).No, man. I MEANT if I'm wrong about you mocking me. I kinda noticed that you have been saying my believes are wrong.Me, mock someone?

You could just cut the irony with a knife:

Hanno writes:

---

True, but they believe that which was passed down to them.

---

As you believe that which was passed down to you. Just as those you criticize didn't come to their beliefs from firsthand observance of events, neither did you.You believe the accounts in the Bible that describe an unbroken chain of information from Jesus to apostles to gospels and Bible are accurate, but there are too many broken links in that chain.According to the Bible Jesus's ministry was far greater than John's, yet John is mentioned in contemporaneous accounts and Jesus isn't. How do you explain this?The Bible recounts a slaughter of the innocents. All other sources: complete silence.The Bible describes a star bright in the sky which stopped over the baby Jesus's manger. All other sources: complete silence.The Bible describes angels dancing around Herod as he died at a public display. All other sources: no angels.The Bible describes great unrest in Jerusalem leading up to the events surrounding Jesus's death. All other sources: complete silence.The Bible describes 12 apostles evangelizing Christianity to the world. All other sources: complete silence.This is the kind of documentary evidence I'm considering when I conclude that Paul made it up. Paul created Christianity by establishing small communities of followers throughout Asia minor and Greece.I think you are correct that some people have "believer" in their makeup. Had you been born in the Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, etc, you more likely would have been a believing Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist. I have "skeptic" in my makeup.--Percy