Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 1 of 177 (19381)
10-09-2002 9:04 AM


In His allknowing wisdom, God made sure that the birth of Christianity would be its proof. Eastern religions are based of theories and philosofies. There are no "original revelation". Therefore, their founders fall into the "maybe" catogary. Christianity, how ever, is based on the eye witness accounts of hundreds, even thousands of people. The apostiles themselves would therefore know whether they are lying, or telling the truth. There cannot have been a "maybe" in their mind. And if they were lying, they must have had alterier motives. The best example of them all is Paul. He had a fanatic hatred against Cristianity. He was a member of the most powerfull religious party of the jews: the farisites. AND he was a roman citizen. He gave all of it up, to become one of the most enthusiastic apostiles. The question that comes to mind is: WHY ON EARTH??? Remember, if they were lying, then they would've given up at the first sight of hardship: they would not have had any gauruntee that their story would catch on. What ever their motives, they would've find some other way to achive them. And let's not forget. The first church started in Jerusalem. 5000 members strong. Peter converted them, by putting the things THEY ALL SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES into perspective.The stories he told about Jesus, THEY ALL SAW!
If the apostiles were lying, these people would've known, and expose them as lieers. This church then was broken up and schattered throughout the region, aiding the spread of Christianity. There is a mistake people make that the 12 apostiles were the only eye witnesses that spreaded christianity. There was hundreds, if not thousands.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 9:45 AM compmage has replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 10:21 AM compmage has replied
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 4:06 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 84 by gene90, posted 10-10-2002 11:51 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 177 (19382)
10-09-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
10-09-2002 9:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
In His allknowing wisdom, God made sure that the birth of Christianity would be its proof. Eastern religions are based of theories and philosofies. There are no "original revelation". Therefore, their founders fall into the "maybe" catogary. Christianity, how ever, is based on the eye witness accounts of hundreds, even thousands of people. The apostiles themselves would therefore know whether they are lying, or telling the truth. There cannot have been a "maybe" in their mind. And if they were lying, they must have had alterier motives. The best example of them all is Paul. He had a fanatic hatred against Cristianity. He was a member of the most powerfull religious party of the jews: the farisites. AND he was a roman citizen. He gave all of it up, to become one of the most enthusiastic apostiles. The question that comes to mind is: WHY ON EARTH??? Remember, if they were lying, then they would've given up at the first sight of hardship: they would not have had any gauruntee that their story would catch on. What ever their motives, they would've find some other way to achive them. And let's not forget. The first church started in Jerusalem. 5000 members strong. Peter converted them, by putting the things THEY ALL SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES into perspective.The stories he told about Jesus, THEY ALL SAW!
If the apostiles were lying, these people would've known, and expose them as lieers. This church then was broken up and schattered throughout the region, aiding the spread of Christianity. There is a mistake people make that the 12 apostiles were the only eye witnesses that spreaded christianity. There was hundreds, if not thousands.

To many TRUE believers it is not lying if one does it in one's god's name. If they believe that it is for the so-called "greater good".
Also, many would perfer to believe in a popular myth than in an unpopular truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 9:04 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 10:50 AM nos482 has not replied
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM nos482 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 177 (19391)
10-09-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
10-09-2002 9:04 AM


You are assuming what you read IS what the apostles said, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 9:04 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 10:42 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 9 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:09 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 177 (19396)
10-09-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
10-09-2002 10:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
You are assuming what you read IS what the apostles said, of course.
Yeah, and why would later writers lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 10:21 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:01 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 5 of 177 (19399)
10-09-2002 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
10-09-2002 9:45 AM


I don't know that lying is involved. The myths of William Tell, Robin Hood and King Arthur are all built upon kernels of truth embellished over time.
On the other hand, lying *might* be involved. Consider Oral Roberts' announcement that God had visited him and told him he was calling him home unless he raised seven million dollars. Oral Roberts was a major figure in the evangelical movement right up until his death. Did you believe him? Do you think he believed himself?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 9:45 AM nos482 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 10:58 AM Percy has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 6 of 177 (19400)
10-09-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
10-09-2002 10:50 AM


This man lied, because he could make money from it. Unlike the appostiles, he has no witnesses, and he is not endangering his live or wealth to do so. Your example is invalid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 10:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:10 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 7 of 177 (19401)
10-09-2002 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nos482
10-09-2002 10:42 AM


So, how can we be sure there was a king called Nebucanedzer of Babylon? You declare historical documentation invalid, for the sole reason that a religion is based on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 10:42 AM nos482 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 11:09 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:15 AM compmage has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 177 (19404)
10-09-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:01 AM


Historical documentation isn't invalid, it is just much less tentative if it has independent evidence in its support. The problem with the bible is that all of the contentious issues require you accept the bible as self evident.
Now, I'm ignorant of much of the bibles text & history, tell me, do we have the original documents written by the apostles?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:01 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 11:22 AM mark24 has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 9 of 177 (19405)
10-09-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
10-09-2002 10:21 AM


My mistake. they didn't SAY it, they WROTE it to congregations across the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 10:21 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 11:24 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 177 (19406)
10-09-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by compmage
10-09-2002 10:58 AM


Oral Roberts lied to forward his ministry.
The apostles lied to forward their ministry.
Or, more likely, the apostles never existed. They were symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel created by the authors of the gospels to forward their ministry.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 10:58 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 11 of 177 (19408)
10-09-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:01 AM


Hanno writes:

So, how can we be sure there was a king called Nebucanedzer of Babylon? You declare historical documentation invalid, for the sole reason that a religion is based on it.
No one is declaring historical documentation invalid. It is valid to question the historicity of a source, which is what we're doing for the Bible.
We have documentary evidence from many sources and multiple civilizations (his own plus ones he battled with) for the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar.
Outside the Bible, what is the evidence that the apostles said what the Bibles says they said, or even that they ever existed?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:01 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 12 of 177 (19410)
10-09-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
10-09-2002 9:45 AM


This is the lousiest reply yet. The letters of the Apostiles EXIST. The letters tells that they have been WRITTEN by the apostiles. The proof that this is true, is the fact that the church exists today, dispite the oppresion during the first 300 years of Christianity. There is absolutely NO proof that the letter was not written by the apostiles. And most importantly, if christianity wasn't started by the apostiles who did? What documentation exist of it? It must have been the greatest conspiricy ever. Let me quess. You propably don't believe that Mohammed was a real person, or Moses or Budda. So tell me then. who DID start these religions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 9:45 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:26 AM compmage has replied
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 11:28 AM compmage has replied
 Message 17 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 11:31 AM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 177 (19412)
10-09-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
10-09-2002 11:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Historical documentation isn't invalid, it is just much less tentative if it has independent evidence in its support. The problem with the bible is that all of the contentious issues require you accept the bible as self evident.
Now, I'm ignorant of much of the bibles text & history, tell me, do we have the original documents written by the apostles?
Mark

I can answer that. No, we don't. They're not sure that these Gospels were even written by those who they are claimed to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 11:09 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 177 (19413)
10-09-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
My mistake. they didn't SAY it, they WROTE it to congregations across the world.
So, others wrote it for them? Ever play the telephone game?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:09 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 177 (19415)
10-09-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:21 AM


Hanno writes:

The letters of the Apostiles EXIST. The letters tells that they have been WRITTEN by the apostiles.
The gospels were not written by the apostles. Paul was not an apostle, so the letters of Paul were not written by an apostle. What letters are you thinking of?
--Percy
PS - Could you please learn to spell apostle so my spell checker can get some rest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 11:21 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024