Why would the apostiles have lied?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is why I don't buy this. Every time someone compares the apostles to known liers, they leave out some of the detail.Arguement 1:
Many religious fanatics today blindly believe in liesTrue, but they believe that which was passed down to them. They did not actually SEE what they believe. The apostles weren't just believing some story that was passed along to them, they were eye witnesses of what they saw. (At least, they claimed to be) So they would've known if they were telling lies. An ordinary religious fanatic, would not.Arguement 2:
"...but men lie all the time, and with much less motivation than promoting or preserving their position as head of a budding religious movement."Ok. but how many will knowingly lie, while knowing it is going to cause them the following pain:*Poverty
*Being whipped (with the iron pieces at the end of the whip. I don't know what this kind of whip is called in english)
*Being thrown into jail
*Possibly be crussified or thrown to the lions or being burned as streatlamps. (Nero did this)And also knowing that all they had to do to make the above go away, is to stop telling the lie.The arguement go in circles, because everytime when it is claimed that the apostles lied, the above is ignored.-------------------------------------------------------------------
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?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
They started of as a lie, and since then, they didn't change much, because they are believed to be truthful and holy.

They claimed to be witnesses. Therefore, there are only two possibilities:1. They told the truth, and therefore was witnesses.
2. They lied, and they knew it.And, I for one, find it increadibly hard to believe that someone would knowingly tell a lie, if that lie causes them so much hardship. Well, I know I wouldn't. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?----------------------------------------------------------
other people have died for religions you don't believe in.
----------------------------------------------------------
They were not witnesses to what they believe in, and therefore could not know they were believing a lie. No one would die for his religion if he knew it was a lie. In fact, it would be his religion.Had Muhammed died a marter because of what he was teaching, I might have been more compeled to believe he did actually speak to Gabriel. It would've showed beyond reasonable doubt that he believed in what he was teaching, and since he was the one that claimed to have witnessed Gabriel, this revelation would have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (No offence intended to Muslims. I'm simply sharing my religious views, and as you know, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the only path to salvasion. And since Muhammeds teachings contradict this, I cannot believe him.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.They were just as much Christians as you are. It is all a matter of interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsence. Their teachings were not even based on the Bible. If calling youself a Christian was the only criteria for being a
Christian, then even Adolf Hitler could've been a Christian.----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that the vast majority of Christians in the world are still Roman Catholic. Protestants are guilty of much evil as well, they are far from being innocent either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly how much do you know about the church history? The only reason why the Catholic Church still exists today, is because of the counter-reformation, in which the Catholic church did away with many non-Christian teachings and practices. There wouldn't have been a counter-reformation if the Catholic church did not fear that the Protastant church would take over.--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take a closer look at all of your Christian rites and rituals you will see that none of them are actually Christian in origin, but taken from older pagan belief systems. Even Christmas is pagan in nature, from the date choosen (The pagan celibration of the Winter Soltice (Michealmas)), to Christmas trees.Even weddings aren't traditionally Christian either, but are Pagan as well. What the Christians did was marriages which is in fact a contract where the item being bought is the woman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? I know this. This is cultural bagage. People married long before Christianity. The apostles regulated marrage, the did not invent it. And as for Christmas, it is hardly a Christian day anymore. It is nice to celebrate Chirsts birth on this day, but I know that it was the Christians that adopted it, It wasn't prescribed by Jesus. The reason why Christianity could adopt these things, s because Christianity is not about rules. Rules what you may eat, what you must celebrate, what you should pray, etc. It is adaptable to cultures, without taking out the meaning of christianity.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Protestants are guilty of much evil as well, they are far from being innocent either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I don't judje people, based of church denominations. All denominations and religions has true believers on one side, and hipocrites on the other. However, It was the protestants that broke the dictatorial grip of the Catholic Church on Europe.---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not the one who needs pity. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Just out of interest. Were you a bully when you were little? You seem to like to mock people. AND I DO NOT FEAR GOD! DON'T BE RIDICULOUS! WHY SHOULD I FEAR GOD IF HE ADOPTED ME AS HIS CHILD AND PAYED FOR MY SINS??? You have a very distorted view of what Christianity is about.

-------------------------------------------------------------
They were inventions.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Been there, done that. If Nazism still exist 2000 years from now, It could be possible that the oldest documentation they have on Adolf Hitler would be at least from 70 years after his death. And I bet if you had live in those times, you would propably think the Nazis came before the mith of Hitler, wouldn't you? Of cause, we who lived 70 years after Hitler would not notice that a false historical figure has been created in our history books. Yes. One day, there was no Hitler, and 70 years later the Nazis had us believe that he was their founder, and we happily place Hitler in our History books. And you would say the Communists dreamed up Carl Marx and Stalin. And heck, while we're at it, the Americans created the mith of George Washington and the founding farthers as well. This is exactly what you are doing. All of this just because the evidence we have is not sufficiant for you. So if you don't have enough documentation, would you always claim the founders of a movement were dreamt up by the movement itself? We have the biblical documentation that christianity was spreaded by the apostles. If you want to refute this, the onus is on you to come up with a decent theory on the origins of Christianity, with some historic documentation to back you up.Otherwise, those "theories" (hypothesis, whatever nos485. You know very well what I mean) are unprovable speculations. It is more likely that the claimed founders founded the movement, than for the movement to dream up a founder. If the oldest documentation of Jesus we have were from 700 AD, then your arguement would have counted. But the oldest documentation we have of Jesus is within the livespan of first and 2nd generasion Christians, and there is no way they could have forgotten who brought Christianity to them.Please, if this isn't proof enough for you, it certainly is for me. So there is no point in trying to convince me of the possiblity that the apostles did not exist. If you're going to raise that idea again, I reply with the above again....if I reply again. If you know the awnser you'll get, please don't post the question. Unless ofcourse, if you get some strange satisfaction from me repeating myself. >sigh<

Let's recap. We had:
1. They were lying. This arguement has been going back and forth from the beginnig.
2. They did not exist. This too, has been going back and forth from the beginnig.I'm getting tired of this debate. The same qustions, and the same awnsers over and over again. I want to end this debate, but then you're going to say "Oh, the Christian got scared and ran away." like you did before. So please. Do not post any more questions which you know how I would awnser them, and which I awnsered over and over again. If my awnser isn't satisfactory for you, than it wouldn't help asking the same question again. If someone have anything to say that hasn't been said before, by all means.And nos485, there is no need to become personal. 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. If I'm wrong, tell me so. 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.

If a may abuse this forum a little. Do anyone of you know something about the settings of internet explorer? I need to display an Excel graph in it, and lately it only display an Image holder. Do anyone of you know which setting I need to change to get this thing to display my graph?

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".

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'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.

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.

I would like to thank everyone that participated in this debate. It has been an interesting experience. I haven't read any more replies since late last Saterday. The replies have been coming in faster than I could reply, and I'm too busy lately to reply.I want to attempt to close my participation of this debate....again. The reason is not because I felt I won or lost. I didn't convince anyone of you, so I can't say I won, (As Paul said to the Corinthians. I can only tell people the Gosple. It is the Holy Spirit that does the converting of people.) I haven't lost either, because I wasn't convinced by your arguements. I'm not going to explain in detail why I'm not convinced, because it is repeated over and over in my previous posts.The reason why I'm ending this debate is simply because you have said all you can say on this matter, and I have also said all I can say on this matter. It is clear that no convincing is possible in this arguement. I'm pretty tired of repeating my arguments, and I think you are probably too. To me, the historical evidence we have, the religions texts we have, the short amount of time before they appeared and the persecution that went along with it, is enough to put the pieces together. However, you seem to be looking for another piece, and I could not comprient what piece you are looking for. Therefore, I can not provide it to you. I can only hope that maybe, one day, you may know the blessing of knowing the true God, the One that loved us so much, that He paid for our wrong doings in our place, so we may be saved. Please don't go around saying that I said that I'm good enough in Gods eyes, and you are all sinners.(like you did last time.) We are all sinners, and I'm no less worthy of damnation than you are. My salvation is a gift from God, I am not deserving of it. PS. On a more purely religious note. I was at a seminar of a former New Ager, where I leard of the bazzare concept of an interfaith-religion (sponcered by the United Nations to bring world piece. This idea is idiotic.) Because this exists, I need to make something very clear. When I said "I respect people's religion", I did not mean it in the multi-faith sence of the word: that all religions are paths to God. This is a false teaching, as Jesus had clearly said "I am the way. No one comes to Me, except trough the Father, and no one comes to the Father, except through me." We cannot worship God in the way we see fit, we have to do it as He prescribes. When I say I respect peoples religion, I mean I respect their right to believe it without being ridiculed about it. However, their religion will not bring salvation, because they teach that we can make ourselves acceptable before God. No one is good, and all is worthy of damnation. Not even one man is good in the eyes of God. To get salvation, you must believe that it is God that brought salvation to us. It is like we're all Africa's, and none of us are able to pay our dept to the West, and then the West write that dept off, without us deserving it. Similary, God wrote our dept off. All we need to do to recieve this blessing, is to believe in Him that paid the price.)[This message has been edited by Hanno, 10-15-2002]

I would ask Him why did He wait so long to reveal His true caracter to us then, and how can I be sure of his identity. (An Almighty God will find some way to convince me, I'm sure.) Oh, by the way, why would God go to all the effort to create this universe, which, after 500 years of scientific research you could still not have discovered everything, and not care about it? There are people that see no problem with this view. I'm not one of them.[This message has been edited by Hanno, 10-16-2002]