Why would the apostiles have lied?

Originally posted by Hanno: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.Yes, Hitler was a Christian. He believed that he was doing god's work.Exactly how much do you know about the church history?Enough to know that it is a bunch of nonsense. The question is how much do you actually know that isn't the "official" version?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.I don't think that the RCC has all that much to fear. Viva la counter-reformation! So what? I know this. This is cultural bagage. People married long before Christianity.Marriage is not a wedding. They are two different things.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.Christianity isn't about rules!!!!! Man, what bible have you been reading. The thing is nothing but rules and most of them are don'tsThat'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.The trouble is tell who is whom. Just out of interest. Were you a bully when you were little?No, I wasn't a bully when I was little. You seem to like to mock people. AND I DO NOT FEAR GOD! DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!Yes, you do fear you god, afterall you are a good god fearing Christian. WHY SHOULD I FEAR GOD IF HE ADOPTED ME AS HIS CHILD AND PAYED FOR MY SINS???Jesus never claimed to be god, only god's messenger. It is those like you who make this false claim. You have a very distorted view of what Christianity is about. Maybe you should leave the forest sometimes to get a better look at the rest of the trees.I was raised in a very religious home, one without the oppresion that is. I knw what I am speaking of.

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.

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
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.

---

​

Just out of curiosity.. What if God presented himself to you and flat out told you that the bible, while a great read was in fact NOT his word? That some fruitcakes took it upon themselves to convert everyone, and while he appreciates the effort there is no real reason to since being God and all he really could care less who believes or not.

​

What would that do to your faith?

​

Red

---

I know what any TRUE believer would say; "Get behind me, Satan!!!"

Originally posted by Hanno: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.)How would you be sure that it wasn't Satan instead?Oh, by the way, why would God go to all the effort to create this universe,For a laught? which, after 500 years of scientific research you could still not have discovered everything, and not care about it?Scientists have discovered much about the universe which we didn't know before and are continuing to learn more and more everyday. Whereas the theists are stuck on "GODDIDIT!!".

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
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.

---

​

I can think of several options:
1) This is an experiment and he/she/it wants to see how we get along without meddling.
2) This universe is the by-product of something larger and he/she/it is to busy with that larger something to worry about us.
3) This universe came about accidentally and he/she/it hasn't become aware of us yet.
4) This universe is so insignificant that he/she/it doesn't bother with us.
5) God was lonely but had to die or become impotent in order to create this universe, as a result, once the universe came into existance he/she/it lost to ability to affect it in anyway.

​

I'm sure I can think of many more if you want. I don't belief any of these, but I think them more likely than the christian God. At least with these you don't have to make up reasons why a perfectly loving God isn't doing anything about all the suffering in the world.

​

---

Are you are deist?

Originally posted by Hanno:I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.Without the bible there is no belief."3rd, whether the apostles and Jesus were real or not is really insignifacant. The real purpose of the Bible is to give you the guides to live by. "Too bad most Christians don't see it that way.You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about.Please, most of us grewup in Christian homes and were part of the conditioning throughout our childhoods.If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines?Because they aren't solely found in the bible, but taken from other cultures .If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away. We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us.No, these guidelines are our way of ensuring our survival and that of our offspring. Saying that they are from some mythical all-powerful being only gives them weight to be inforced.If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation.The Hebrews had these long before Christ was suppose to be around and dying on the cross for us.If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines???Christ never ever claimed to be god, only his/her/its messenger. It is people, like you, who assert that he was god. Plus, it wouldn't be much of a real sacrifice if one comes back to life. The real sacrifice would have been if Christ had stayed dead. Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing".Morality can, and does exist without the fear of religion added to it. Atheists, and the like, tend to be far more moral than theists since atheists have more to lose and theists have nothing to lose."2nd, suppose he "proved" he was God. Would that suffice? "
I don't know myself. But a truely alpowerful, alknowing God would. Hence the "all" before "powerful" and "knowing"We're waiting.Granted. My mistake.

​

I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate. Now you lot start using the tactics of a religious person that feel cornered: you stray from the point, and throws personal insults. (I concider your statement that I am worshipping a book instead of God very insulting).The way most Christians act in regards to their bible makes it perfectly clear that they do worship the bible more than they actually worship their god. That is why Christianity is known as the religion of the Book. You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence.Sure, it is a waste of time trying to convince a TRUE believer since even absolute proof will not be enough. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"! Yes, all of what you believe in is speculation and you are leaving because you might begin to actually see this.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

(nos482, I do not know what your intentions are when calling me a "TRUE believer". You can make fun of it as much as you like, I will still concider it a great compliment.)A TRUE believer is a person who will believe in their religion no matter what, even to the point of absolute proof that they are completely wrong. The reality of the matter means nothing to them since they have chosen to believe what they want. They are one step away from being fanatics who would do just about anything to protect these beliefs, even kill for them.

Originally posted by Hanno:and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist.And really none that they did.You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.You're the one who is making extraordinary claims so the burden of proof is yours. I'm an agnostic. I believe that there is no way to prove it either way.That step being to blindly believe what someone else says the bible say, instead of reading the bible, and judging what the person says.The bible is written in such a way, as all religious texts are, to leave open to any interpretation the reader may want.Thus, the person's word carrys more athority than the Bible. Thank goodness Christianity is a "Religion of the book", otherwise the church reformation would never have happend.It is because of this personal interpretation that there are so many different sects, and denominations in Christianity (Around 1500 now, with around 30,000 in its bloody history.) Christians create god in their own image. You are no different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frank:
Hanno,

​

There was some discussion earlier in this thread about whether Jesus actually existed. I found two links today you might find interesting. Although far from conclusive, they do provide some "concrete" evidence.

​

'Jesus' Inscription on Stone May Be Earliest Ever Found - The New York Times

​

CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002

​

Frank

---

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.The owner is reported to be a collector of ancient Jewish artifacts. The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, bought the box some 15 years ago from an antique dealer for $200 to $700, Shanks said.The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"Doesn't the Catholic Church say that Jesus was an only child? Plus, is that the name mistranslated into Jesus or is it actually the name Jesus on the box?[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-22-2002]

Originally posted by Hanno:What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself.So is Greek mythology as well. Is it any more true than what you are asserting?I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false.Not so much as being false as being fiction.Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly.It was scientists who discovered that it was a fraud and removed it themselves, that is why there is peer review. All theists do is create another sect or denomination and break off from those who don't accept their belief.You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?It is not a matter of enough texts, but of outside collaboration which isn't directly or indirectly influenced.I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)Saying that "The bible is true because it says that it is true" is like saying the National Enquirer is true because it says that it is true as well.Therefore, the objective conclusion of this debate is, the bible could be true, or it could be a falsification. Subjectively, I will say it is definitly true, and you will say it's definitly false, and we both will believe that our point of view is objective. You will say I believe without proof, and I will say you won't accept proof. Then we will argue on what exactly qualifies as "proof". And neither will accept the others point of view. So to continue the debate is pointless. I would have stopped long ago if I weren't so darn curious how you'll reply everytime (I admit, this seem to be my weakness.)In other words you believe that it is true only because you want (need) to believe that it is true since you have nothing else to back up what you believe.Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.And the Big Blue Banana made you think that your god did this to test your faith in the all powerful BBB and you have failed. Prepare to be peel. (This is just as valid a statement as you had said).[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
"'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

---

​

Both David and his son Solomon were called "son of God" as were probably all kings of Israel. The appellation was employed by virtually every king, or would-be king and emperor of the ancient, and not so ancient, world.

​

So, What's the big deal if one more calls himself that?

---

Because Jesus was asserted to be the literal son of god. Joseph wasn't his genefather. And it is taught that Mary didn't have anyother children.