Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
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

  
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

  
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

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 177 (19417)
10-09-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by compmage
10-09-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
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?
The bible is true because the bible says it is true?
BTW, Paul started Christianity.
There is outside evidence for the existence of these others, there is no credible, or independent evidence for the existence of Christ during his life time.
Let's list the fallacies you are using:
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Begging the Question
Burden of Proof
Couldanyone else name some more?

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 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 177 (19423)
10-09-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
If you actually read some of his letters, then you would've seen that he refers to himself as "the least worthy of all apostles" (Sorry about the spelling) He is an apostle, because of the revelation he recieved on his way to Damascus, which turn his live 180 degrees around
But he never actually met Christ, he only dreamed of him, and he never was a member of the "original" 12 apostles either. What makes him any different than Jim Jones or Koresh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:08 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 10-09-2002 12:44 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 177 (19436)
10-09-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:48 PM


Originally posted by Hanno:
There are Christian and non-christian historical documentation revering to Jesus. Now I can understand if you say: Jesus was a good person, and he had some strong view, but he was just a man. But to deny his existance ?!? I call that denial.
There are no docuements from the time he was alive. Everything else is influenced by the church afterwards.
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.
Unlike the bible there are MANY outside sources which confirm the Moon Landing.
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.
You are forgetting the time in which Christianity was invented. It was nothing like today in regards to knowledge and how it is gathered. It was a time of much ignorance and superstition as 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.
Show me Christ's bones. A piece of the actual cross, a record from the time he was executed. Do you have any original, or physical, evidence at all? Or do you just have accounts drawn from third and fourth hand tellings decades of the event was suppose to have happened?
You sure like to use common fallacies as arguements. You offer nothing we haven't heard and refuted many times already.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 10-09-2002 4:55 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 177 (19437)
10-09-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
10-09-2002 12:44 PM


Originally posted by John:
Nos is right,
I'm going to faint.
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 10-09-2002 12:44 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John, posted 10-09-2002 3:23 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 177 (19442)
10-09-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
10-09-2002 3:23 PM


Originally posted by John:
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.
I doubt that they would have been all that coherent if they even made it to 70 or so. Someone in their 70's back then would be the same as someone who lived to be 120 or 130, or even much more, now. It was a very lucky individual who stayed reasonably healthy to that age back then.
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.
I think that that is because we can more easily tell that they are frauds now since we can expose them without too much fear of being burned at the stake as heretics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 10-09-2002 3:23 PM John has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 177 (19443)
10-09-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by compmage
10-09-2002 4:06 PM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Due to the high amount of responses, I couldn't read them all. But, those which I have read are very similar and very poor. There were two responses:
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.
As I've said, they probably didn't see it as lying when they did it in the name of their god.
2. They never existed
Tipical convinient atheist awnser. Can't deal with the problem, so we delete it all together. That simple, isn't it? Only christian litruture refer to these people anyway, right? WRONG!!! You did not even look on the internet to proof your statement. I haven't got a lot of time, but if you're really interrested, go to Google and select advanced search. Type in the following:
with all of the words : Roman
with the exact phrase : non-Christian reverences
with at least one of the words : Jesus Christ
You will find about 52 results.
And we all know that everything on the Internet is the absolute truth.
I used Copernic Agent 6.0 and all I found were 24 hits and none of them independent.
I haven't got time to go through them right now. But here is one I quickly looked at, since its URL did not hint Christian source :
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...s/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html
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."
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born long AFTER Christ was suppose to have died on the cross, 56 AD to 120 AD (He lived for 64 years).
And Josephus lived from 37 AD to around 100 AD. (He lieved to the ripe old age of around 63)
Do you have any verifible and independant references from when Christ was alive? Like a Roman death warrent?
COME ON! You're scientists. 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.
We can do this because unlike your situation there are mountains of real evidence in favor of evolution and all you have are two references by people who could very well have heard the same sort of stories and myths which Paul had heard.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 4:06 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 177 (19502)
10-10-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by compmage
10-10-2002 3:16 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Don't make me laugh. There were many misconceptions on what Christianity was about in the beginning. But those were the views of outsiders that ardly ever spoke to a christian, and are invalid. 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.
The old, "But they weren't real "Fill in the blank"!" excuse. They could say the same of you as well.
besides. There was first Jesus who thought the people, and then there was the following. You propose that the following just appeared out of no where, and then they dreamt up Jesus to justify their "following". That's absurt!
Why is it absurd? We see this sort of thing all of the time now. Take crop circles for example. It has been shown that they are man made yet many still believe that aliens made them.
People want to believe in something which makes them more than they truly are. In fact some are all to willing to kill to protect this belief. Read the first posting of my thread "Why People Want to Believe There is a God." It fits you to a tee as well.
http://EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god. -->EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:16 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:04 AM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 177 (19505)
10-10-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by compmage
10-10-2002 8:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
0 AD- Jesus Christ teaches in palistine.

How could he have taught when he was a just born baby? We count from when he was suppose to have been born, not from his death. Even us non-theists know that.
100 AD- Tens of thousands of people across the Roman empire share a common believe, and text with the apostles teachings are found round about this date, confirming modern day Bibles. Someone had to spread the news, and all documentation on who these people were point to te apostles. History demands the existance of apostles.
Ever hear of the Moonies? In only a very short time there are millions of them. Is their leader actual god?
B. I don't need to proof they weren't lieing: You go to Iran, and tell the people some lie about God reveiling Himself to you to make a few ajustments on the Qu'ran. Then try to fearlessly convert the people there. Say they won't kill you just there and then. We'll see for how long you stick to your lie. Like I said. The terrible conditions in which they lived because of their story of Jesus Christ proof they weren't lieing.
All this proves is that they are willing to kill to keep their little world intact. People also die for a lie everyday.
How do you expect us to take you seriously when you keep using so many fallacies as arguements?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 AM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 177 (19513)
10-10-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:04 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
Because there is no proof of a different origen for Christianity. Someone had to come up with it, and spread the news. And once again, it has to come down to people will not tell lies if they don't stand to gain anything, and asspecially not if they are gauriteed to loose everything.
Yes, they do tell lies, and the worse lie is to themselves.
Sorry, pal. You cannot get away from the fact that SOMEONE started Christianity (and all historical data points to Jesus) and SOMEONE had to spread it (and all historical data point to the apostles.)
What historical data? The bible?
It all comes down to why those that spread this story, would have done it if they are physically been punished for it. (The persucution of Christians during the first 300 year is a historical fact.)
People die for lies all the time, especially if they aren't told it is a lie. Just look at Koresh's Christian cult at Waco.
Have you ever been tortured? No? How long will you be able to continue telling a lie as you are being tortured?
Was Paul tortured? Power can be a strong motivation. Plus, torture doesn't really work, after a certain point you will say whatever you think the torturer will want to hear. You would confess to shooting JFK, anything to stop it.
Here is an interesting bit of data:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/...m/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.7.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:04 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:30 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 177 (19514)
10-10-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
You don't have to lie to be wrong. They could trully have believed what they said. However, their belief in no way makes their statements true.

Especially if they didn't know they were lied to in the first place. Many are all to willing to believe in something which makes them more than they truly are. They can't bear the truth of their reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:29 AM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 177 (19533)
10-10-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by compmage
10-10-2002 12:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Wrong. The apostles were merely telling people what they saw and what they heard. They were not teaching people on hear say, or interesting philosofies, they gave eye witness accounts. In this case, it is impossible "to tell lies and not be aware of it".
How do you know this to be true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:22 PM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024