Why would the apostiles have lied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
But he never actually met Christ, he only dreamed of him, and he never was a member of the "original" 12 apostles either.

---

Nos is right, Hanno. Paul lived long after the legendary Christ. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, which was written about 70 AD -- still about forty years post cruxifiction and at least one generation removed.

quote:

---

What makes him any different than Jim Jones or Koresh?

---

There is a magical line of demarcation approx. 200 AD, before which one is a prophet and after which one is insane.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation revering to Jesus.

---

But very few and no good ones. Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

But to deny his existance ?!? I call that denial.

---

I doubt that Christ is 100% mythology. That is, a character something like Christ probably did exist. What I don't believe is that the Bible tells an accurate tale of his life and death. What has grown up around the man is myth, and sadly all that we have left is the myth.

quote:

---

There are people that believe there wasn't a real moon landing. The idea is propostourous, because it is imposible to ensure the silence of everyone involved for such a long time. If christianity was a lie, it would've been a greater feat than having a fake moon landing. There are just to many people involved.

---

No it wouldn't have been. You believe that Islam is a lie, yes? And Hinduism? and pretty much everything non-Christian? All of those lies seem to be galloping along quite well.If Jesus did not exist, then, please, show me the historical data that indicate to a different source. Denying the existance of even the person Jesus Christ, is like denying the existance of dinosaurs. [/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Hanno. Paul lived long after the legendary Christ. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, which was written about 70 AD -- still about forty years post cruxifiction and at least one generation removed.

​

Wouldn't that be more like two or three generations since a generation is around 13 years?

---

Yeah, probably, but one generation is concievable. If Mark were a first person witness he would have to be around 90 by AD 70, which is pushing it a bit. However, Mark could have gotten his information from a first person witness. Even this requires that both Mark and the witness live to be fifty to sixty years old, which would be a very odd thing for the times. I wouldn't put my money on it, but impossible? Not quite. [quote]There is a magical line of demarcation approx. 200 AD, before which one is a prophet and after which one is insane.Well, of course. So, that means that J. Smith of the Mormons is a nutjob by those standards. [/B][/QUOTE]By that logic, yes. And that is exactly what I was taught as a child. That prophecy is ok in the past but not in the present is a very odd component of most modern christian sects.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Show me Christ's bones.

---

Well.... we all know that Jesus rose from the dead....but I think the Catholic church has three of the apostle Paul's hands....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
But, those which I have read are very similar and very poor.

---

Well how about telling us exactly WHY they are very poor? Simply making the statement is meaningless. Buck up, man, and fight!

quote:

---

1. They lied.

​

Those that go with this theory, has yet to provide me motives. No one lies without motives, aspecially if the lie causes you so much trouble.

---

Well... let's see. The Voodoun in Haiti will claim witness to the powers of their Loa. Obviously, they are lying. Why? What is their motive?Or perhaps no real motive is needed. Urban myths circulate constantly and thousands of people believe them. The same crap has been around for decades. It just keeps coming back. The same for virus myths, and for email scams. People buy into this stuff even with the massive amounts of information we can tap into today.

quote:

---

2. They never existed

​

Tipical convinient atheist awnser.

---

Typical, yes, because it is true that there is no good evidence.

quote:

---

You did not even look on the internet to proof your statement.

---

Do not accuse me of not researching my material. Perhaps I should accuse you of not researching your statements, as I have already given you reasons for doubting your extra-biblical sources and you have not responded.

quote:

---

nonchristianaccounts.html

​

[Fixed too-long link. --Admin]

​

The opening paragraph:

​

"If the only references to the trial of Jesus came from Christian sources, there might be reason to wonder if such a trial ever took place--or indeed, even if Jesus ever existed. Fortunately, there are two important surviving references to the trial of Jesus in non-Christian writings. One comes from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who was hostile to the Christian movement. The other comes from Josephus, a Jewish historian. Each of these historians confirms three central facts: that there was a leader of a movement called Jesus (or Christ), that Jesus was executed, and that the movement that Jesus was part of survived his death."

---

Just for kicks:

quote:

---

Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus. No webpage found at provided URL: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

---

quote:

---

If someone come to you and attack the evolution theory with no proof, you rip him apart with all your knowledge. If you ARE going to argue the origens of Christianity, do a bit of research first, instead of these unfounded (religious like?) believes.

---

It is you who needs to research.

quote:

---

I will not respond to any more naive posts claiming that Jesus or the apostles did not exist.

---

Cute... so rather than debate, which you have yet to do, you will shove your fingers in your ears and sing hymns?By the way, this tendency of Christians/creationists to spout dogma and run away is really beginning to get on my nerves. I put a lot of effort into my posts. It pisses me off when the other side refuses to do the same.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
You don't believe because you don't WANT to believe.

---

Hanno, you don't know what I want and do not want.

quote:

---

You argue in circles.

---

That is a hell of an accusation. Care to support it?{quoteIT IS EASY TO MAKE UP RELIGIOUS LIES WHEN YOUR WEALTH, AND EVEN YOUR LIFE IS NOT AT RISK!!!!! SO MUCH EASIER IF YOU ACTUALLY STAND TO GAIN FROM IT!!!!][/quote]Screaming only makes you seem desparate.Besides, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the apostles were outright lying. They likely believed what they said, but that does not mean that what they said was true.

quote:

---

So kindly stop comparing the apostles to other examples were no persecution took place!

---

Have I done this? If so, be specific.Persecution is actually a very good way to encourage the generation of myth. Stress is very good for religion.{quoteAnd you say, the hell with what they wanted to gain. They lied! That is not a very convincing reply.][/quote]I said this? Really? Can you be specific? Or is that too much to ack of you in you righteous zeal?

quote:

---

There were many misconceptions on what Christianity was about in the beginning.

---

Oh? How do you know this?

quote:

---

But those were the views of outsiders that ardly ever spoke to a christian, and are invalid.

---

Hardly ever spoke to Christians? How do you know this?Outside references are invalid? That is insane.

quote:

---

Or have we forgotten that many people in America, aspeccially after 9/11, think Islam is about Jehad and suicide bombings and terrorism andpeople shouting "Death to America, Death to Israel"? Those are the views of people outside the religion, and who has no idea what it s really about.

---

It doesn't matter. WHAT Tacitus thought about Christianity is irrelevant.What is relevant is:1) That Tacitus mentioned that the name of Christianity derives from the name of a person executed by Pontius pilot.Score one for you.2) That Tacitus does not mention 'Jesus' in connection with 'Christos'Score one for me.The word 'Christos' does not automatically mean 'Jesus' The word is a generic term for 'messiah' and there were many Jewish messiahs running around at the time. Try reading Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches This could be a reference to any one of them. Many, by the way, caused a great deal of trouble for the Romans eventually resulting in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. This is important because it is the trouble makers who would be of interest to the Romans, and not the peaceful christ of the NT.3)The Annals were written 75 to a hundred year after the fact.Score one for me.This is not therefore an eye witness. It is not a contemporary account of events.4) Tacitus isn't known for being accurate.Score one for me.This one should be self-evident.

quote:

---

There was first Jesus who thought the people, and then there was the following.

---

Is that also how the Osirian cults of Egypt started? Or Hinduism? Or any other religion? The God for which it is named taught the people and then, only then, was there a following?And you forget... were Jesus to be proven to have existed beyond any shadow of a doubt, you have still made no statement concerning the truth of what he said.

quote:

---

You propose that the following just appeared out of no where, and then they dreamt up Jesus to justify their "following". That's absurt!

---

Did I propose this?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Let's talk strait here.

---

Oh frell.... he's witnessing....

quote:

---

You want to believe that science is the only force at work in the universe, so you will be able to understand it.

---

Science is a force?

quote:

---

Your mind is not open for the possibility that our five sences and the power of our mind cannot detect everything that exists.

---

My mind is quite open thanks, but open isn't the same as gullible. If you remove reason and evidence from the equation everything become equally true. Is this what you want?

quote:

---

I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles.

---

No you don't, or you would have presented them here.

quote:

---

I had hoped that it would at least make you think

---

I have thought more than you can imagine. Why is it that when a fundie can't prevail by reason, they try to prevail by devaluing the cognitive abilities of the opposition?

quote:

---

Remeber. Of all the religions in that time, none were more resistant to change than the jews.

---

This is unsupported assertion. There were actually numerous sects of Judaism at the time. This isn't indicative of a religion unduly resistant to change.

quote:

---

They would not have converted, had they not seen and heard Jesus for themselves.

---

When people converted to Zorastrianism, does this prove the veracity of Zarathustra?

quote:

---

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.

---

Bible story. The bible cannot verify itself.This argument also verifies Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism......{quoteWell, it's been fun. I must say this particular debate wasn't as hard as I thought it would be.][/quote]LOL.....Only the fundie can lose dreadfully and still claim victory....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles.

---

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.

quote:

---

But since you have done so much thought on the origens on christianity, lets hear it.

---

I told you what I think is the probable origin back in post #22, but since you were not paying attention:

quote:

---

I doubt that Christ is 100% mythology. That is, a character something like Christ probably did exist. What I don't believe is that the Bible tells an accurate tale of his life and death. What has grown up around the man is myth, and sadly all that we have left is the myth.

---

quote:

---

But please don't repeat the lies/non existance theory again. It cannot be proofed.

---

I don't have to prove that he didn't exist, any more than I don't have to prove that there are no flying pigs. You do have to prove that he existed or accept that he may be myth. And you have come nowhere near proving Christ's existence.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe you really don't understand how this process works.Let's see. This is how it is supposed to go.

1. Hanno: There is external evidence for Jesus.
   ​
   John: There isn't any good evidence.
   ​
2. Hanno: Yes there is. Tacitus.
   ​
   John: Tacitus is not a good source for the following reasons:
   ​
   1) stuff here
   ​
   2) more stuff
   ​
   3) still more stuff
   ​
3. Hanno: Point one of your objection to Tacitus is wrong because.....
   ​
   Point two because.....
   ​
   Point three because......

That is how it is supposed to work.This is how it actually works.

1. Hanno: There is external evidence for Jesus.
   ​
   John: There isn't any good evidence.
   ​
2. Hanno: Yes there is. Tacitus.
   ​
   John: Tacitus is not a good source for the following reasons:
   ​
   1) stuff here
   ​
   2) more stuff
   ​
   3) still more stuff
   ​
3. Hanno: There is external evidence for Jesus.

Notice the similarity of 1 and 3?------------------
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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
I dimly remember, & I stand to be corrected, that there were written Roman & Jewish records of Jesus' "troublemaking", & eventual crucifixion (sp?).

---

Not really. The references to Jesus cited by Percy are about it and they aren't very convincing.This has been posted before but: Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet InfidelsAs for Jewish references, those are even worse: Jesus In The Talmud------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

​

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.

---

It is taught in some sects of Christianity, but the good book itself is silent on the issue. It doesn't say one way or the other whether Mary had other kids.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

No one named Jesus ever lived back then. Jesus is a later translation of the name Yoshua and this is a very common name.

---

So it is a later translation of a hebrew name? Big deal, even if this is correct. I haven't tried to verify your claim, and, as usual, you haven't posted reference.I'm with DrBill. The Jewish community of the time was overflowing with messiahs. Christianity grew out of these movements.Marvin Harris-- Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches-- if you want to read a book on the subject.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

No one named Jesus ever lived back then. Jesus is a later translation of the name Yoshua and this is a very common name.

---

​

So it is a later translation of a hebrew name? Big deal, even if this is correct. I haven't tried to verify your claim, and, as usual, you haven't posted reference.

​

---

​

Whatever turns your crank.

---

Are you serious? This is your idea of a reply? This is the best defense you can dream up? This is your answer to evidence? And to my request for evidence? LOL......... you get funier by the day. Attending the Wordswordsman school of debate perhaps? You and he show about the same reguard for evidence.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
With your attitude lately with regards to anything I say you will just be contrary. I'd say day and you will say night.

---

Feeling persecuted, Nos?This is bullshit. I have never once disagreed with you simply because it is you. I disagree when I think you are wrong, and I tell you why I think so. This is how people learn. But you can't get past being told you're wrong. You don't like it. You react emotionally and viciously, and damn the evidence. Never mind defending the position, just attack or dismiss. This is straight from the Fundie 101 textbook.Now drop this childish crap and actually contribute something to this board.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Geez, John, he's worse on you....

​

---

The worst thing Nos could do to me is provide evidence and argue rationally. I think I'd pass out-- maybe fall off my chair and hurt myself.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com