• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What was their motive?

Logicman said:
What was their motive?

What was the collective and individual motives of the disciples, Paul, and the others when they decided to write about the life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Just speculating isn't enough. Skeptics need to present an argument and evidence that is consistent with the changes in the lives of the New Testament believers, including their willingness to suffer persecution and even death for their beliefs.

What was the motive? Why would they lie? What would they get out of it if it were all a lie?

I still haven't seen anything in this thread by a skeptic that supports their "motive" with any evidence. Where's the beef, skeptics?
Click to expand...

Its an undeniable truth that people make up religions. You can't dispute this fact, because its your own viewpoint on faiths other than Christianity. You can't explain that motivations of Siddhartha or Mohammed or Zoroaster or whomever wrote the Hindu Vedas. You made the absolutely absurd demand that I provide hard evidence as to the motivation of people 2000 years old in order to reject Christianity, but you don't apply the same standard to yourself when it comes to rejecting other religions. Martyrs exist in every faith, so that proves nothing.
 
rathi said:
Its an undeniable truth that people make up religions. You can't dispute this fact, because its your own viewpoint on faiths other than Christianity. You can't explain that motivations of Siddhartha or Mohammed or Zoroaster or whomever wrote the Hindu Vedas. You made the absolutely absurd demand that I provide hard evidence as to the motivation of people 2000 years old in order to reject Christianity, but you don't apply the same standard to yourself when it comes to rejecting other religions. Martyrs exist in every faith, so that proves nothing.
Click to expand...

So your motive for them is that they made up Christianity? So they can be persecuted and even put to death?

Did they make this up?

Documenting A Miracle « The Righter Report

And we know they didn't make up Jesus. He's a real, historical personality. And here's just 12 things that the disciples didn't make up that we know from non-Biblical sources:

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #16 - "We know nothing about Jesus outside of the New Testament."

The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Care to re-think your theory? Because there's no question your theory doesn't hold water and doesn't have a shred of historical support.
 
tecoyah said:
Given that the stories of these men have been interpreted, rewritten, expanded upon, and in many cases fabricated by people who existed centuries after they died.....the initial premise carries very little weight to begin with.
Click to expand...

The entire New Testament is all first century, according to scholars. And the earliest recorded mention of the resurrection was within a decade of the event.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report

In addition, modern study Bibles are based on the earliest extant manuscripts, not on centuries of redactions or later ALLEGED fabrications.

Have you ever read or studied the Bible and it's earliest writings and authors?
 
Logicman said:
What was their motive?

What was the collective and individual motives of the disciples, Paul, and the others when they decided to write about the life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Just speculating isn't enough. Skeptics need to present an argument and evidence that is consistent with the changes in the lives of the New Testament believers, including their willingness to suffer persecution and even death for their beliefs.

What was the motive? Why would they lie? What would they get out of it if it were all a lie?

I still haven't seen anything in this thread by a skeptic that supports their "motive" with any evidence. Where's the beef, skeptics?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but what? What are the motives of Buddhist priest that self-immolate? The martyrs of Islam and Hinduism? The Sufis and their fanatic devotion, or the religious ascetics who are saved and reformed; and thus dedicate their lives to their various Gods?

You don't get out of the house much and talk to many non-Christians, do you?

Christianity's effect is no more intense, or as life-changing to the followers of any other half-dozen faiths. You have got to understand that you've based your views on a very limited understanding of the world. You've spent your life hearing an echo chamber of American Christian witnesses, which has lead you to believe that "only Christianity" suffers from people's derivation of meaning, dedication and tear-jerking life changes.

It'd do you some good to broaden your worldview. This type of religious devotion and meaning is rather common; whether its your fascination with Jesus or an Indian's dedication and love of the blue 10-armed Goddess Puja.
 
Logicman said:
The entire New Testament is all first century, according to scholars. And the earliest recorded mention of the resurrection was within a decade of the event.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report

In addition, modern study Bibles are based on the earliest extant manuscripts, not on centuries of redactions or later ALLEGED fabrications.

Have you ever read or studied the Bible and it's earliest writings and authors?
Click to expand...

Having grown up in Catholic school...we got to read and study the OT every year....after entering the public system I preferred the KJ until finding out about the sciences. I then began to read differing scripts to see how they squared up, something of a spiritual growth process. The Vedas...though wonderful to read and absolutely beautiful, were obviously poetic fable. The Qu'ran was pretty much the OT with a bit less magic, and a bit more forced adherence. The Book of Mormon was just plain screwed up to my mind, and the whole JW thing was just plain silly.

I liked Buddhism, but there is no way I could grasp it all....so I decided to take a few chunks here and there that did not play the magic game and develop the "Tenents of Tecoyanism".....seems to work quite well.
 
brothern said:
I'm sorry, but what? What are the motives of Buddhist priest that self-immolate? The martyrs of Islam and Hinduism? The Sufis and their fanatic devotion, or the religious ascetics who are saved and reformed; and thus dedicate their lives to their various Gods?
Click to expand...

You can start your own thread on those people. This one is on the individual motives of the disciples, Paul, and the others when they decided to write about the life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So please address your remarks accordingly.
 
tecoyah said:
Having grown up in Catholic school...we got to read and study the OT every year....after entering the public system I preferred the KJ until finding out about the sciences. I then began to read differing scripts to see how they squared up, something of a spiritual growth process. The Vedas...though wonderful to read and absolutely beautiful, were obviously poetic fable. The Qu'ran was pretty much the OT with a bit less magic, and a bit more forced adherence. The Book of Mormon was just plain screwed up to my mind, and the whole JW thing was just plain silly.

I liked Buddhism, but there is no way I could grasp it all....so I decided to take a few chunks here and there that did not play the magic game and develop the "Tenents of Tecoyanism".....seems to work quite well.
Click to expand...

Did you see the historical references in the post below, and read them? IMO they are very compelling.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/175723-their-motive-3.html#post1062952191

As for science, it has its limitations. It has never been able to conclude that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
 
Logicman said:
You can start your own thread on those people. This one is on the individual motives of the disciples, Paul, and the others when they decided to write about the life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So please address your remarks accordingly.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. Stop hiding yourself behind fanaticism. You're braver than that and it's tiring. There have been millions of talented individuals in this world, who are just as smart as you and have had wonderful, stunning transformations of their lives by accepting [insert any non-Jesus deity here]. From the ancient followers of Athena, to those today that have dedicated their lives to following the Buddha. You and other Christians are not alone in the "changing lives" department, and you darn well know that.
 
The disciples were not the authors of the Biblical books named after them. Such a simple error.
 
Logicman said:
Did you see the historical references in the post below, and read them? IMO they are very compelling.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/175723-their-motive-3.html#post1062952191

As for science, it has its limitations. It has never been able to conclude that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Science is not in the business of disproving those things it cannot study...and as there is nothing (literally nothing) to observe, examine, test, or verify when it comes to the God entity it is generally dismissed as unusable and failed hypothesis. The limitations of science are obvious, and fully accepted by everyone involved....the same cannot be said for religion.
 
tosca1 said:
Believing is one thing, however these Apostles - and other disciples - did more than just believe. They literally sacrificed everything.

Their immediate transformation - from unsure and fearful followers of Jesus before His Resurrection to such gungho fearless confidence after His Resurrection- and their ensuing actions resulted in an explosion of Christianity in the region is something to behold. They all spoke about the same thing.
A lot of them had told about their first-hand experience of witnessing the risen Christ. That this happened to a lot of people (not just the Apostles) is quite significant.

Then there was also the sudden transformation of Paul - someone who had not personally witnessed the Resurrection, but had spoke about his encounter with the risen Christ. The story of Paul is significant not only because of what he experienced, but because of who and what he was before his transformation.

For someone to do that - especially when you're talking about a big group of people - surely they have to have a motive.
Click to expand...

They did not all testify to that act in written record. Thaddaeus, Judas, bart - there's no written records of their feelings.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The disciples were not the authors of the Biblical books named after them. Such a simple error.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Matthew and John were, according to the earliest church fathers. And by similar church sources Mark wrote for Peter and Luke was the author of his Gospel.
 
brothern said:
Oh, please. Stop hiding yourself behind fanaticism. You're braver than that and it's tiring. There have been millions of talented individuals in this world, who are just as smart as you and have had wonderful, stunning transformations of their lives by accepting [insert any non-Jesus deity here]. From the ancient followers of Athena, to those today that have dedicated their lives to following the Buddha. You and other Christians are not alone in the "changing lives" department, and you darn well know that.
Click to expand...

Where are you going for your life-changing event?

Only Christianity has the signature of God - the fulfilled Messianic prophecies.
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense.

Matthew and John were, according to the earliest church fathers. And by similar church sources Mark wrote for Peter and Luke was the author of his Gospel.
Click to expand...

There is no Biblical academic support for your position. None were by the actual apostles or possibly even single individuals. "Mark" was written several decades after the fact, "Matthew" and "Luke" (Paul's assistant) are broadly copies of "Mark", (and "Q") while "John" differs substantially in several basic points. Paul's writings are similarly suspect.
 
Logicman said:
You can start your own thread on those people. This one is on the individual motives of the disciples, Paul, and the others when they decided to write about the life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So please address your remarks accordingly.
Click to expand...

You call yourself logicman, not blindfanaticman. I have quite clearly articulated how you apply an illogical double standard with regards to burden of proof. If you want to make a case for Christianity, you have to demonstrate what make it distinct from other religions.

Trying to use historical evidence of Jesus is a very poor choice on your point. The earliest mention of Jesus in third party history is by Josephus, who was born after Jesus. That compares very badly to other religious figures like Mohammed, who was written about by other cultures while he lived or Joseph Smith, whose historical existence is indisputable fact.
 
Logicman said:
Where are you going for your life-changing event?

Only Christianity has the signature of God - the fulfilled Messianic prophecies.
Click to expand...

The Jews would disagree with that one. They don't consider Jesus to have met the criteria for being the Messiah. He didn't bring the Jews back to Israel, he wasn't descended from the house of King David, he didn't build the third people, didn't lead to world peace ect.
 
rathi said:
You call yourself logicman, not blindfanaticman. I have quite clearly articulated how you apply an illogical double standard with regards to burden of proof. If you want to make a case for Christianity, you have to demonstrate what make it distinct from other religions.
Click to expand...

You haven't articulated anything that resembles an alternative, viable motive for the Gospel writers and other New Testament personalities.

rathi said:
Trying to use historical evidence of Jesus is a very poor choice on your point.
Click to expand...

Nope, your denial of it is the poor choice.

rathi said:
The earliest mention of Jesus in third party history is by Josephus, who was born after Jesus. That compares very badly to other religious figures like Mohammed, who was written about by other cultures while he lived or Joseph Smith, whose historical existence is indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

I'll stick with what I presented in the link: "Earliest Mention of the Resurrection.."
 
rathi said:
The Jews would disagree with that one. They don't consider Jesus to have met the criteria for being the Messiah. He didn't bring the Jews back to Israel, he wasn't descended from the house of King David, he didn't build the third people, didn't lead to world peace ect.
Click to expand...

Those are Strawman arguments based on faulty exegesis. Christ is expected to fulfill the REMAINDER of the Messianic prophecies at his 2nd Coming.

By the way, which Messiah are you talking about: Messiah ben David, or Messiah ben Joseph?

I recommend you read the following article which will help you get your Messiah's straight.

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report
 
Logicman said:
You haven't articulated anything that resembles an alternative, viable motive for the Gospel writers and other New Testament personalities.
Click to expand...

I have articulated the most reasonable motive possible: they made it up because humans have a tendency to make up fake stories, especially when it comes to religion. You have continually ignored the fact that your own logic agrees with this premise.

Nope, your denial of it is the poor choice.
Click to expand...

Hardly. It is an empirical fact that we have no third party source who was alive at the time of Jesus ever mentioning him.

I'll stick with what I presented in the link: "Earliest Mention of the Resurrection.."
Click to expand...

Trying to use the new testament to prove the existence of third party sources is a joke. Surely you have heard of the concept of "circular logic"? Non-Muslims wrote about Mohammed while he was still alive, mostly because his successful conquests gained quite a bit of attention. Jesus may have existed as a real person, but the historical evidence for his existence is considerably less than other religious figures. Thus its a poor choice of criteria for your attempt to defend Christianity.
 
Logicman said:
Those are Strawman arguments based on faulty exegesis. Christ is expected to fulfill the REMAINDER of the Messianic prophecies at his 2nd Coming.

By the way, which Messiah are you talking about: Messiah ben David, or Messiah ben Joseph?

I recommend you read the following article which will help you get your Messiah's straight.

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report
Click to expand...

So by your own admission, you admit that Jesus has not actually met all the criteria for being the Messiah. You may believe that he will return to finish the job, but there certainly is a difference between a promise and actually fulfilling the prophecy. I guess the Jews are more interested in action that words.
 
Ben K. said:
They did not all testify to that act in written record. Thaddaeus, Judas, bart - there's no written records of their feelings.
Click to expand...

Who testified?
 
rathi said:
You call yourself logicman, not blindfanaticman. I have quite clearly articulated how you apply an illogical double standard with regards to burden of proof. If you want to make a case for Christianity, you have to demonstrate what make it distinct from other religions.

Trying to use historical evidence of Jesus is a very poor choice on your point. The earliest mention of Jesus in third party history is by Josephus, who was born after Jesus. That compares very badly to other religious figures like Mohammed, who was written about by other cultures while he lived or Joseph Smith, whose historical existence is indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

Here, you might find this informative.

Wliliam Lane Craig responds to Reza Aslan's article, 5 Myths about Jesus, featured in the Washington Post.


 
rathi said:
but there certainly is a difference between a promise and actually fulfilling the prophecy. I guess the Jews are more interested in action that words.
Click to expand...

God's timing usually takes time. God told Abraham that Sarah will bear him Isaac. It took years before that promise was fulfilled. Abraham was 100 years old when he fathered Isaac!

Moses was 80 years old when he led the Jews out of Israel. How long did it take them to reach the promised land?

How long did it take for Jesus to be born when His coming had been prophesied all throughout the OT?


You may believe that he will return to finish the job, but there certainly is a difference between a promise and actually fulfilling the prophecy.
Click to expand...

If all prophecies made by Jesus about His death all came true, what makes you think His other promise wouldn't be fulfilled?
Especially when it's the culmination of everything He'd set out to do in the first place? The reason He came and died for us?
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
he wasn't descended from the house of King David,
Click to expand...

Wrong!

He descended from King David through the line of His biological mother, Mary!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom