Guest Ask21771 Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 why did people lie about stuff like christ coming back from the dead and the other stuff? Why?
sdelsolray Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Most are not lying. They are simply repeating what they were taught, without thinking about it themselves, like lemmings. Religious indoctrination is powerful, particularly when used on children by trusted adults. 3
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Christianity first started with a tale of the crucifixion (Mark), and the resurrection part was added later to make it more interesting. The idea of a son of god dying and coming back to life was a frequently used theme in religions of that region and in Greece. The gospels are sold to believers today as eyewitness testimonies, but that is almost certainly not the case. Even if it were, we don't trust the writings of cults, because they write with the intent of converting people, not writing history. "But these are written that you may believethat Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31 As believers, we knew the struggles we and other believers had all the time, but when it came time to witness we never mentioned any of that, it was all love and awesome presence of god. In other words, we lied to make it appealing instead of giving a factual report of our experiences. We ourselves had made a bargain in believing, in that we felt we would receive the gift of eternal life in exchange for submission and faith. Then we guarded that faith so that we wouldn't lose out on the big reward. This led us to block out facts and anything that might sway us from believing. Historically, this led to lots of embellishments of the story of Jesus, which is where we get the gospel of Matthew loaded with tales like Herod's massacre of the innocents, the dead-raising at the death of Jesus and those people walking into Jerusalem, several prophecies that are OT verses taken out of context, etc. 9
Guest Ask21771 Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Christianity first started with a tale of the crucifixion (Mark), and the resurrection part was added later to make it more interesting. The idea of a son of god dying and coming back to life was a frequently used theme in religions of that region and in Greece. The gospels are sold to believers today as eyewitness testimonies, but that is almost certainly not the case. Even if it were, we don't trust the writings of cults, because they write with the intent of converting people, not writing history. "But these are written that you may believethat Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31 As believers, we knew the struggles we and other believers had all the time, but when it came time to witness we never mentioned any of that, it was all love and awesome presence of god. In other words, we lied to make it appealing instead of giving a factual report of our experiences. We ourselves had made a bargain in believing, in that we felt we would receive the gift of eternal life in exchange for submission and faith. Then we guarded that faith so that we wouldn't lose out on the big reward. This led us to block out facts and anything that might sway us from believing. Historically, this led to lots of embellishments of the story of Jesus, which is where we get the gospel of Matthew loaded with tales like Herod's massacre of the innocents, the dead-raising at the death of Jesus and those people walking into Jerusalem, several prophecies that are OT verses taken out of context, etc. How do you know the resurrection was added in later
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Christianity first started with a tale of the crucifixion (Mark), and the resurrection part was added later to make it more interesting. The idea of a son of god dying and coming back to life was a frequently used theme in religions of that region and in Greece. The gospels are sold to believers today as eyewitness testimonies, but that is almost certainly not the case. Even if it were, we don't trust the writings of cults, because they write with the intent of converting people, not writing history. "But these are written that you may believethat Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31 As believers, we knew the struggles we and other believers had all the time, but when it came time to witness we never mentioned any of that, it was all love and awesome presence of god. In other words, we lied to make it appealing instead of giving a factual report of our experiences. We ourselves had made a bargain in believing, in that we felt we would receive the gift of eternal life in exchange for submission and faith. Then we guarded that faith so that we wouldn't lose out on the big reward. This led us to block out facts and anything that might sway us from believing. Historically, this led to lots of embellishments of the story of Jesus, which is where we get the gospel of Matthew loaded with tales like Herod's massacre of the innocents, the dead-raising at the death of Jesus and those people walking into Jerusalem, several prophecies that are OT verses taken out of context, etc. Outstanding post.
Overcame Faith Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 How do you know the resurrection was added in later If you still have a Bible, open it to Mark 16:8 which says, "trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." If you have a good Bible, it will have a note after Mark 16:8 to the following effect: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9 - 20." In other words, the earliest versions of Mark have no account of Jesus' resurrection. All they have are the women seeing that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb and being told by the unexpected visitor that he had arisen; however, there was no account of anyone seeing the risen Jesus. Verses 9-20 were added later and they contained the resurrection account. This is strong evidence that the original version of Mark contained no resurrection account which account was added later. What is more, Matthew, Luke, and John were written after Mark. As for your original question of why did they lie, that question is not too easily answered. It is at least possible that the writers of Mark 16:9-20 and Matthew, Luke, and John did not lie in the true sense of the word. If we take Mark up to 16:8 as something of the truth and accept that there was a historical Jesus, then some person or persons discovered that Jesus' body was missing. From there, people who followed Jesus could have tried to explain what happened to his body and did this by concluding he must have arisen. It is a form of myth making in the face of a mystery. The authors of Mark 16:9-20, Matthew, Luke, and John could have simply reported the oral myth that the reason the body was missing was because he had arisen. It is also possible that it was a lie, but a lie in a slightly different sense. It is possible that Jesus' body was deliberately taken by some of his followers who then spread the rumors (or lies) that he had arisen. Why do that? Perhaps Jesus' followers stole the body and started the rumors of his resurrection to give themselves the air of importance as being his followers and to lend a certain legitimacy to Jesus' unexpected crucifixion, to give his death meaning. Many on ExC will disagree with the possibilities I have outlined for your "why" question. They will say it was all mythology and there was no real Jesus. I cannot disagree with them because the fact is that the evidence is slim on these points. Your question is one whose answer will be debated and mulled over until one day, if we are very fortunate, some further evidence turns up in the future which gives us more definitive insights.
VahnBlue Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 How do you know the resurrection was added in laterIf you still have a Bible, open it to Mark 16:8 which says, "trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." If you have a good Bible, it will have a note after Mark 16:8 to the following effect: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9 - 20." In other words, the earliest versions of Mark have no account of Jesus' resurrection. All they have are the women seeing that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb and being told by the unexpected visitor that he had arisen; however, there was no account of anyone seeing the risen Jesus. Verses 9-20 were added later and they contained the resurrection account. This is strong evidence that the original version of Mark contained no resurrection account which account was added later. What is more, Matthew, Luke, and John were written after Mark. As for your original question of why did they lie, that question is not too easily answered. It is at least possible that the writers of Mark 16:9-20 and Matthew, Luke, and John did not lie in the true sense of the word. If we take Mark up to 16:8 as something of the truth and accept that there was a historical Jesus, then some person or persons discovered that Jesus' body was missing. From there, people who followed Jesus could have tried to explain what happened to his body and did this by concluding he must have arisen. It is a form of myth making in the face of a mystery. The authors of Mark 16:9-20, Matthew, Luke, and John could have simply reported the oral myth that the reason the body was missing was because he had arisen. It is also possible that it was a lie, but a lie in a slightly different sense. It is possible that Jesus' body was deliberately taken by some of his followers who then spread the rumors (or lies) that he had arisen. Why do that? Perhaps Jesus' followers stole the body and started the rumors of his resurrection to give themselves the air of importance as being his followers and to lend a certain legitimacy to Jesus' unexpected crucifixion, to give his death meaning. Many on ExC will disagree with the possibilities I have outlined for your "why" question. They will say it was all mythology and there was no real Jesus. I cannot disagree with them because the fact is that the evidence is slim on these points. Your question is one whose answer will be debated and mulled over until one day, if we are very fortunate, some further evidence turns up in the future which gives us more definitive insights. And let's not forget how in Mark, Luke, John, Mathew(I think), and Mark, how all their personal account of what happened at the tomb are all different. 3
Geezer Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 The bible & Christianity makes some sense if it is understood & Read as theology. It falls apart & makes no sense when religious people try to turn it into history. Revealed religions are almost always nothing more than a collection of stories with unknown origins. These stories generally have some sort of message that promote moral or cultural values. These values are often culturally specific and therefore they tend to become irrelevant over time & subject to change. The Gospels & the book of Acts are two examples of story telling that religious people have attempted to convince the world were actual historical events, but they were just stories with a theological message. The bible is a collection of fictional stories & if it's read in that context it isn't as problematic. 1
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 How do you know the resurrection was added in laterIf you still have a Bible, open it to Mark 16:8 which says, "trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." If you have a good Bible, it will have a note after Mark 16:8 to the following effect: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9 - 20." In other words, the earliest versions of Mark have no account of Jesus' resurrection. All they have are the women seeing that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb and being told by the unexpected visitor that he had arisen; however, there was no account of anyone seeing the risen Jesus. Verses 9-20 were added later and they contained the resurrection account. This is strong evidence that the original version of Mark contained no resurrection account which account was added later. What is more, Matthew, Luke, and John were written after Mark. As for your original question of why did they lie, that question is not too easily answered. It is at least possible that the writers of Mark 16:9-20 and Matthew, Luke, and John did not lie in the true sense of the word. If we take Mark up to 16:8 as something of the truth and accept that there was a historical Jesus, then some person or persons discovered that Jesus' body was missing. From there, people who followed Jesus could have tried to explain what happened to his body and did this by concluding he must have arisen. It is a form of myth making in the face of a mystery. The authors of Mark 16:9-20, Matthew, Luke, and John could have simply reported the oral myth that the reason the body was missing was because he had arisen. It is also possible that it was a lie, but a lie in a slightly different sense. It is possible that Jesus' body was deliberately taken by some of his followers who then spread the rumors (or lies) that he had arisen. Why do that? Perhaps Jesus' followers stole the body and started the rumors of his resurrection to give themselves the air of importance as being his followers and to lend a certain legitimacy to Jesus' unexpected crucifixion, to give his death meaning. Many on ExC will disagree with the possibilities I have outlined for your "why" question. They will say it was all mythology and there was no real Jesus. I cannot disagree with them because the fact is that the evidence is slim on these points. Your question is one whose answer will be debated and mulled over until one day, if we are very fortunate, some further evidence turns up in the future which gives us more definitive insights. And let's not forget how in Mark, Luke, John, Mathew(I think), and Mark, how all their personal account of what happened at the tomb are all different. I would like to say, while I agree that a lot of inconsistency exists in the Bible, different authors will not necessarily have corresponding accounts as events hold different priority in what they want to convey. This is something police run into all the time with witness accounts. With that said, I have always treated the Bible as an ancient rag mag. Lots of stories, gossip, and outdated public referendums.
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I would like to say, while I agree that a lot of inconsistency exists in the Bible, different authors will not necessarily have corresponding accounts as events hold different priority in what they want to convey. This is something police run into all the time with witness accounts. With that said, I have always treated the Bible as an ancient rag mag. Lots of stories, gossip, and outdated public referendums. That is true, but the police and courts of law do not automatically take all the details in contradictory accounts to be absolute truth, as fundies try to do with the Bible. The contradictions prove that the texts are not reliable as absolute truth. As far as variance among eyewitness testimony, we have no solid evidence that the gospels are eyewitness testimony; beyond that, there are things reported in the gospels that could not be eyewitness testimony (such as what Jesus prayed when the only people at hand were fast asleep) and even the intro to Luke acknowledges that the info contained in the book is second-hand (which would be regarded as hearsay in court).
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I completely agree. I always found it amusing how on one hand all parts of the Bible are "inspired by God", but they sure as fuck pick and chose what part of God's inspirations should be believed. 2
UnFundEd Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I'm sitting in an evangelical service as I write this. At the moment I'm overwhelmed by the thought that Christian apologists have to be some of the most deceptive people on the planet. They study the problem areas all the time, so they have to know deep down in their souls that their bucket won't hold any water - yet they go out day after day and publicly say, "Look how much water is in my bucket!" It's amazing how we as humans are capable of suspending disbelief. 6
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I'm sitting in an evangelical service as I write this. At the moment I'm overwhelmed by the thought that Christian apologists have to be some of the most deceptive people on the planet. They study the problem areas all the time, so they have to know deep down in their souls that their bucket won't hold any water - yet they go out day after day and publicly say, "Look how much water is in my bucket!" It's amazing how we as humans are capable of suspending disbelief. Agreed. While I do think that there are people in the ministry who do believe what they preach, I have a much more difficult time thinking that any of the professional apologists really believe what they say.
Llwellyn Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 The lie because of Sex, Money, and Power. They are the custodians of the secrets, and they will have what they claim. They have told us what to think about them: "Think of us as servants of the Messiah and as servant managers entrusted with God's secrets. Men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1.
Justin Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Why did Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard lie? There are many reasons why people lie, power and control are but two. I've watched a few documentaries on offshoot branches of Mormonism and other Christian cults and the control of people's life's is a huge factor in these groups leaders minds. One group leader used his power and control to not only run his followers life's, but also to control their sex lifes. This guy had every man in his cult believing that God had told him that they were to give their wife's over to him for sex whenever he wanted it. This same man had two women acting as sex servents at his side at all times. Make up an elaborate story, get people to believe in it, and then get them to do anything you want. It's religion. 2
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Are you sure Sure about what, and are you asking a specific person or all of us? There is no "absolute certainty" about anything in life, or in the universe. Through using critical thinking, logic, and evidence we can think about what is more probable than something else though. In general, the people posting in this thread have read and thought about these issues and their comments reflect what they think is most likely to be true. Feel free to ask specific questions if you have them. People can probably provide links to articles and videos to support what they say. It is for you to assess the evidence and decide what you think is most likely. 1
mymistake Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Are you sure Yes. Why would you be an average tent maker struggling to survive when you could be the messenger from God with the message of giving more money to God's messenger? It was such a great scam that priests and pastors have been using it for thousands of years. "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us" - Pope Leo X 1
Guest Furball Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 why did people lie about stuff like christ coming back from the dead and the other stuff? Why? that's a good question....money? religious power? trying to control the masses? fear? to get people to behave? take your pick
Guest Ask21771 Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Weren't Christians persecuted when Christianity was new
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 It's hard to establish that. The stories of the martyrdoms of the apostles are later, and even of less historical reliability than Acts. And Acts may well be heavily fictionalized. The martyrdom of Stephen, for example. Candida Moss of Notre Dame has written a book maintaining that the stories of early Christian persecutions are largely later legends: "In 2013 her book The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom was published in which she argues that the stories of early Christian martyrdom "have been altered ... edited and shaped by later generations of Christians" and none of them are "completely historically accurate".[5] Additionally, she maintains that the Roman authorities did not actively seek out or target Christians, and only for a brief period of no more than twelve years in the first three centuries of Christian history were Christians prosecuted by order of a Roman emperor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_Moss 1
Blood Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 why did people lie about stuff like christ coming back from the dead and the other stuff? Why? I think they saw it along the lines of Plato's "noble lie." They knew it wasn't real, but they wanted it to be real, and they thought if they could convince other people that their private fantasies mapped to reality, they would make the world a better place. I'd say much the same spirit keeps religion going today. People want it to be real, so they pretend that it is real, hoping that by pretending they can transform the often grim realities of life.
Blood Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I'm sitting in an evangelical service as I write this. At the moment I'm overwhelmed by the thought that Christian apologists have to be some of the most deceptive people on the planet. They study the problem areas all the time, so they have to know deep down in their souls that their bucket won't hold any water - yet they go out day after day and publicly say, "Look how much water is in my bucket!" It's amazing how we as humans are capable of suspending disbelief. I don't think most of them are deceptive. They've bought into the lie themselves.
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Weren't Christians persecuted when Christianity was new As ficino replied, the martyrdom stories of the apostles aren't very historically reliable. However, even granting the persecution argument, what does that prove? People of other beliefs have been persecuted for their beliefs as well. Christians themselves have persecuted people for holding other beliefs. Being persecuted doesn't prove anything about the reliability of one's claims. 1
Recommended Posts