Why would the apostiles have lied?

Originally posted by Hanno:At least I have the bible. You base your believes purely on assumptions. Besides. The Apostiles words are creadible because.... you know what? I'm getting tired of repeating myself.And how do you know the bible is telling the truth, because the bible says so? They are not even sure that the Apostles actually wrote the gospels attributed to them.Koresh's Christian cult at Waco did not do any mirricles to back up his claims.Why would he need to perform any mircles? he had the word of god to back him up. Isn't that all you need?

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.That is right. What most Christians don't seem to realize is that Christ is not a name, it is a title and could apply to many.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Let's talk strait here. The only evidence that can convince you on this matter, is if Jesus Christ return from heaven. Unfortunatly, this will be too late for you. You cannot be convinced to believe in God, because you do not want to believe in God. You want to believe that science is the only force at work in the universe, so you will be able to understand it. Your mind is not open for the possibility that our five sences and the power of our mind cannot detect everything that exists. I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles. I had hoped that it would at least make you think, but instead, you constantly put forward self asured, non substanciated claims that the apostles either did not exist, or were lying. No one could give any proof that indicated that Christianity started in a different way. Not even a non-Christian documentation that indicated a different start. And those claiming that they've lied, just couldn't give me a single convincing motive why they would knowingly give up their live for something they knew wasn't true. Then there were those saying that they did not know they were lying, but they were eye witnesses. You either saw it, or you didn't. There is no maybe.

​

Remeber. Of all the religions in that time, none were more resistant to change than the jews. They would not have converted, had they not seen and heard Jesus for themselves. 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.

​

This debate will go on for ever. You will tell me they lied or did not exist, and I will ask you in vian for proof. And you will just awnser me with what you've said before. I asked for motives, non were given. I ask for an explaination of how christianity came about, non substasiated speculations were given.

​

For this reason, I'm ending my participation in this debate, because it is going nowhere, and is a waste of time. Atheism is just as much a religion that any other. Only difference is there is no God in it, but then again, there is not God in hinduism (Whose gods more resemble forces than living conscious beings) or Budism.

​

Well, it's been fun. I must say this particular debate wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. You won't hear from me again soon, but this website has a way of making you return to say something you haven't thought of before. So, chances are, you'll hear from me again.

​

Cheers.

---

Now, here it is, the old "It's too late for you..." and declaring victory over us poor sinners nonsense.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:No gospel was written by an apostle. When they first appeared the gospels had no authors' names associated with them, this came later. Matthew and John are the names of actual apostles, while Mark and Luke are not. Christian tradition holds that Mark's account came by way of Peter, whom he met in prison in Rome. Luke was supposedly a physician.

​

--PercyLike I said about being attributed to them.Well, it looks like Hanno has turned into a Post and Run Christian. I wonder if he is going to brag to his friends how he "defeated" us poor misguided sinners with his "logic"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
That was not my intension. I was mearly pointing out that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficiant for you. By the way. All people, including all Christians are sinners. Did you not know that?

---

Actually, it wouldn't take all that much to prove that your god is real. All it would take is for your god to appear in the so-called "flesh". BTW, believing that something exists is not the same as worshipping it.Sin is the breaking of Church Law and thus only applies to those who believe in it. Morality and sin are two different concepts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
And I suppose you're going to brag on your victory? I left because non of you could say something new. And, as you noticed, I got tired of repeating myself. I said what I wanted to say, and you simply ignore it. How many times would you like me to repeat myself???

---

You mean that you couldn't convert any of us. You brought nothing we haven't heard already, and like all of those like you refuted countless times. How can one ignore something which hasn't even been shown to exist? It is like ignoring the Easter Bunny.

Wrong. It is asumptions on your part. You only believe because you want to believe, you have no other reason to.

I didn't call God a myth. I referred to the stories in the Bible as mythology. Sometime it seems as if rather than worshipping God and Jesus that Creationists worship the Bible with some form of idolatry.This is the impression which much of the world has of Chritianity as well. It is commonly called the religion of the Book.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

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.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is yours, not ours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Hanno writes:

---

Ok one last try. But after this, no more merry-go-round, ok?

---

​

The merry-go-round nature of this thread is because you keep restating your initial premises instead of moving the discussion forward by replying in some substantive way to the replies. Stop making declarations of "this is fact and that is a fact" and instead address the points we're making about why we don't consider them facts.

​

For example, do you understand that it is the presence of evidence for something, rather than the absence of evidence against, that causes ideas to become accepted? You haven't replied to this directly, but what you write indicates that you don't understand this. You keep asking us to prove the apostles didn't exist. That can't be done. You can't prove such negatives. Try proving that there aren't little green men living on a planet in a galaxy far, far away and you'll get an idea of the problem.

​

Or for another example, do you understand that the Bible cannot attest to its own veracity? I'm telling the truth, here, trust me?

​

---

Here are the facts:
-Jesus was a real person.

---

​

Was Jesus a real person? Perhaps, but Paul never explicitly claims to have laid eyes on the living Jesus, and he's the only Biblical author of whom we have any knowledge.

​

---

-No scrips refuting the existance of the apostles and documentation of the "actual" beginning of christianity exists.

---

​

As explained several times, this is backwards. Refutation of such things isn't possible.

​

---

-If the teachings in the bible were indeed not that of those who spreaded Christianity, then this drastic change in Christianity had to spread drastically across the entire empire before the first litriture was produced.

---

​

Nobody here is saying anything like this. We're not saying that stories about Jesus were spread by the early Christian ministry and then were replaced by a different set of stories later on. The stories developed once and were spread once.

​

---

-Unless all of Europe suddenly had a blow of amnisia, I do not find it likely that the apostles were dreamed up.

---

​

There was nothing for "all of Europe" to forget. Before the Christian ministry reached their area they had never before heard the stories of the apostles.

​

Remember that Paul split with the Jerusalem church because he wanted to evangelize to the Gentiles. The growth of Christianity was due to Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and not due to the apostles work among the small Jewish population of Palestine. When they made the bargain in Jerusalem (Gal 2:6-10) Paul got by far the better deal. He got almost the entire world, while the Jerusalem church got only the Jews. After the fall of Jerusalem there was nothing left of the Jerusalem church's ministry. In effect, the ministry of the 12 reached an evolutionary dead end.

​

--Percy

---

Plus, if the Roman Empire hadn't been converted by a deception Christianity would have died out long ago.

Originally posted by Hanno:I beg to differ. Christianity was the largest known religion in its time, and spreaded rapidly.Christianity only started to grow quickly once the Roman Empire was converted by deception and thus it could use the Empire's system of communication and it's armies to impose Christianity on much of the world.Besides. Isn't science theory also build on the data we already have, and not data that might be out there? Ofcause you can disprove a held believe:I see that like most you don't know what a scientific theory is. It is much more than just a guess.Evolusionists use existing data to disprove creationism.That is because there is so much of it around which does disprove creationism. It's just too easy.Similarly, Christinanity should be evaluated on the data we have, not assumptions. You might believe those assumptions, but in no why do they disprove the scripture which we have. Only when texts are found to back up those assumptions, can they be used as proof.We have evaluated it on the data available and found it wanting.I'm glad we agree on the first part. However, the second doesn't seem right. It's one thing for a fairy tale the evolve: that is just a story. But a religious tale is held as holy truth, and people will not easily add to them. If they do evolve, then very slowly. Yes, this evolution might be used to explain the minor contradictions that exists (e.a. the details of Jesus's resurection), but I do not think this straying from the original truth could have gotten very far before it was written down.Remeber, what we now call Greek Mythology once was the main religion in the world. In fact much of modern Christianity was influenced by it....not that the theory convince me, but I can understand how someone could believe it You are misusing the term theory. A more appropriate term would be hypothesis.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Now take Percipient for instance. He replies to my claims, and I'll be happy to respond to him/her. However, if you're not even going to respond to it, and just making wild claims that the apostles never existed or lied, without even taking into account what I'm saying, why do you participate in this debate??? Ok, given. I'm not convincable. But even if I was, your arguements wouldn't work.

---

I'm not the one making the "wild claims" here.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:By the way, yes, Nos is known for acerbic remarks, little content, and fallacies.His remarks have absolutely no content and are nothing but fallacies.

Another point on your torture comments. We all know that Galileo was correct about his view of the world, but he was made to recant them through the threat of torture by the Inquisition (The Church). He wasn't lying yet they made him say otherwise. Torture is an instrument of terror, not one of truth.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-11-2002]

Originally posted by Hanno: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.You might think of the reformation what you like, but the reformation also gave you the right to believe what you believe without persucution. It was beneficial for christianity, and non-christians,because it prevented people from claiming to be representing God on earth.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.Second of all. what exactly are you trying to say? Galileo said what his torturers forced him to say. So? Does that mean that the apostles said what their torturers forced them to say? If this is what you are saying, then you are saying that it was infact the Roman Legion that invented Christianity.When Rome adopted Christianity it incorporated much of its old beliefs into it as well. Modern Christianity is quite different than it was before the 3rd or 4th centuries. 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.Let's call it quits. I won't think any lesser of you, just because you didn't have the last word. You failed to convince me, and I failed to convince you.It is irrelevant if I "convince" you or not. The important thing is that the truth comes to light. Since you are a TRUE believer evidence and the truth mean nothing to you if they contradict your beliefs.It's a stale mate. That's why I wanted to end the debate earlier on, but the remarks you made about me afterwards forced me to continue. The question is, how long do you want this pointless "debate" to continue?Actually, you lost even before you started. You just don't realize it yet.You yourself said there is no proof available to disprove the bibles account, so it can go both ways.When did I say this?Whether we end this now or later, you will think of me as a poor gullible fool, and I will think of you as someone I need to pity. No further arguement is going to change that. 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.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-11-2002]