Freethought & Rationalism Archive

albafan2020 · 09-10-2004, 08:10 AM

Just wondering what you all think the motive behind the disciples telling blatent lies?--as they must have been if Christianity is false (let's assume that the disciples weren't mistaken or crazy)

John the Non-Baptist · 09-10-2004, 08:14 AM

Do you mean the apostles?

albafan2020 · 09-10-2004, 08:16 AM

yes--sorry...

mightyjoemoon · 09-10-2004, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albafan2020

Just wondering what you all think the motive behind the disciples telling blatent lies?--as they must have been if Christianity is false (let's assume that the disciples weren't mistaken or crazy)

Are we also assuming that they ever existed in the first place?

Jack the Bodiless · 09-10-2004, 08:25 AM

Well, for those who weren't fictional characters themselves (Paul probably existed): they may well have been crazy. This has certainly been suggested for Paul.

Note that Paul supposedly never met Jesus, except "in a vision": yet he's the most important apostle, essentially the founder of Christianity as we know it. This makes it very plausible that there were no non-fictional apostles who actually knew Jesus personally (assuming Jesus himself existed).

John the Non-Baptist · 09-10-2004, 08:27 AM

Someone with a more thorough knowledge of biblical history can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the gospels written after the apostles were long gone? We don't know that they lied, per se, but whatever stories they told certainly had to the potential to be exaggerated or spun before anyone got around to making them official.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-10-2004, 08:31 AM

Yes, only the writings of Paul are considered authentic (and not even all of those).

Amlodhi · 09-10-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albafan2020

Just wondering what you all think the motive behind the disciples telling blatent lies?--as they must have been if Christianity is false (let's assume that the disciples weren't mistaken or crazy)

Hi albafan2020,

You are also making a third assumption here, i.e., that we have sufficient record of what the apostles actually said to determine that they were telling any lies; let alone that they were doing so in a blatant manner.

Welcome to the forum,

Amlodhi

(Edited to add: Wow, 4 more posts up before I hit submit. Oh well, looks like we're all on the same track.)

albafan2020 · 09-10-2004, 08:40 AM

Assuming, say, that the apostles wrote the gospels (or directly influenced all that was contained within) and that they weren't crazy: what, do you say, could motivate them to lie?

why would they go to their deaths and live totally horrible lives for their lie?

(Sorry--I should've been more descriptive of my question--I'd do that from now on)

--Matt

Sven · 09-10-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albafan2020

Assuming, say, that the apostles wrote the gospels (or directly influenced all that was contained within) and that they weren't crazy: what, do you say, could motivate them to lie?

This assumption makes no sense because we know with quite high probability that the apostles were dead at the time when the gospels were written.

09-10-2004, 08:10 AM	#1
albafan2020 New Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ankeny Posts: 3	Why would the disciples lie? Just wondering what you all think the motive behind the disciples telling blatent lies?--as they must have been if Christianity is false (let's assume that the disciples weren't mistaken or crazy)

09-10-2004, 08:40 AM	#9
albafan2020 New Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ankeny Posts: 3	Assuming... Assuming, say, that the apostles wrote the gospels (or directly influenced all that was contained within) and that they weren't crazy: what, do you say, could motivate them to lie? why would they go to their deaths and live totally horrible lives for their lie? (Sorry--I should've been more descriptive of my question--I'd do that from now on) --Matt

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2004, 08:14 AM	#2
John the Non-Baptist Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Des Moines Metro Posts: 935	Do you mean the apostles?

09-10-2004, 08:16 AM	#3
albafan2020 New Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ankeny Posts: 3	yes--sorry...

09-10-2004, 08:25 AM	#5
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Well, for those who weren't fictional characters themselves (Paul probably existed): they may well have been crazy. This has certainly been suggested for Paul. Note that Paul supposedly never met Jesus, except "in a vision": yet he's the most important apostle, essentially the founder of Christianity as we know it. This makes it very plausible that there were no non-fictional apostles who actually knew Jesus personally (assuming Jesus himself existed).

09-10-2004, 08:27 AM	#6
John the Non-Baptist Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Des Moines Metro Posts: 935	Someone with a more thorough knowledge of biblical history can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the gospels written after the apostles were long gone? We don't know that they lied, per se, but whatever stories they told certainly had to the potential to be exaggerated or spun before anyone got around to making them official.

09-10-2004, 08:31 AM	#7
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Yes, only the writings of Paul are considered authentic (and not even all of those).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.