What was their motive?

[Logicman]

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 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?

 

[rathi]

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 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?

What was the motive for Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Siddhārtha, and whomever wrote the Hindu vedas? Whatever explanation you use to reject other religions can also be applied to your own.

I suspect that most people who wrote religious texts wanted to create a moral philosophy. The creators of the new testament promoted non-violence in an era in which it was solely lacking. Buddha wanted to reject materialism without becoming a full on hermit.

 

[Goshin]

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 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?

That most of them were martyred and none recanted is a strong indicator that they really believed what they were preaching.

 

[Goshin]

Moderator's Warning:

Take note before you post: Religion forum. Civility, respectful discussion and so on. thankee....

 

[Logicman]

That most of them were martyred and none recanted is a strong indicator that they really believed what they were preaching.

I agree.

I also think we can rule out money as a motive since there's no real indication in the Bible or elsewhere that they ever coveted or received riches.

 

[Medusa]

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 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?

their motive was god l think :mrgreen:

 

[tosca1]

What was the motive for Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Siddhārtha, and whomever wrote the Hindu vedas? Whatever explanation you use to reject other religions can also be applied to your own.

I suspect that most people who wrote religious texts wanted to create a moral philosophy. The creators of the new testament promoted non-violence in an era in which it was solely lacking. Buddha wanted to reject materialism without becoming a full on hermit.

We're talking 11 Apostles, and who knows how many more disciples of that time period became martyrs for their belief. Only one out of 12 didn't get martyred, and he wrote the Revelation.

It's hard to get as many people as that to devote their lives spreading the Word, and all be willing to die (and lived a frugal existence)....unless there's any compelling evidence that would make them willingly face death.

And they're all sticking to the same thing they've personally experienced, and witnessed.

 

[head of joaquin]

Paul was inspired by God and his deep love of others. The Pauline texts seem more or less true to the original epistles (leaving aside the pastoral letters which are dubious).

The problem with the other texts is that their attributions are in doubt, and they were revised by later redactors. It's not a problem for me, since the story is what counts. But it might be a problem for literalists and others who insist on some pristine relationship between these texts and the apostles.

 

[rathi]

We're talking 11 Apostles, and who knows how many more disciples of that time period became martyrs for their belief. Only one out of 12 didn't get martyred, and he wrote the Revelation.

It's hard to get as many people as that to devote their lives spreading the Word, and all be willing to die (and lived a frugal existence)....unless there's any compelling evidence that would make them willingly face death.

And they're all sticking to the same thing they've personally experienced, and witnessed.

That isn't anything special. There are legions of people being persecuted for their faith in every religion.

 

[tosca1]

That isn't anything special. There are legions of people being persecuted for their faith in every religion.

It may not be anything special to you perhaps....but it is significantly special for believers, and also those who did investigative researches. Among them is Simon Greenleaf.

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html



I guess what set the apostles (and other disciples) apart was the fact that they all gave similar accounts of what they've experienced and witnessed.

The sudden changed attitude of the apostles AFTER the Resurrection is one of the most compelling evidence of their passionate conviction.

From unsure, doubting and scurrying disciples (who went into hiding after the death of Christ), these apostles had all transformed overnight into what we'd probably compare with radical activists - suddenly fearless, and gungho in spreading the Word.

Why the sudden change? Because they witnessed the risen Christ! They finally fully understood what Jesus was talking about.

Christianity suddenly exploded in that region, and kept growing - all because of them.
Why is Christianity so strong even today? It was as Jesus' had said would happen.

 

[Ben K.]

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 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?

You should post this in an appropriate forum if you truly want to have a discussion with sceptics on the issue. You've built yourself an echo chamber.

 

[Logicman]

You should post this in an appropriate forum if you truly want to have a discussion with sceptics on the issue. You've built yourself an echo chamber.

If I post it elsewhere it becomes a skeptic's echo chamber. They're real good at throwing Jesus under the bus without having the goods.

 

[RGacky3]

What was the motive for Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Siddhārtha, and whomever wrote the Hindu vedas? Whatever explanation you use to reject other religions can also be applied to your own.

I suspect that most people who wrote religious texts wanted to create a moral philosophy. The creators of the new testament promoted non-violence in an era in which it was solely lacking. Buddha wanted to reject materialism without becoming a full on hermit.

Joseph Smith made a lot of money (2 of the 3 "eye witnesses" to seeing the angel recanted under pressure), Mohammed conquered a whole lot of the middle east.

We have to take the claims on seperately ... the situations were as different as could be ... so what was teh motivation for the early christians ...

 

[RGacky3]

Paul was inspired by God and his deep love of others. The Pauline texts seem more or less true to the original epistles (leaving aside the pastoral letters which are dubious).

The problem with the other texts is that their attributions are in doubt, and they were revised by later redactors. It's not a problem for me, since the story is what counts. But it might be a problem for literalists and others who insist on some pristine relationship between these texts and the apostles.

Evidence that they were revised???? Also which attributions?

 

[lizzie]

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 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 don't personally believe there was a motive by ,those who wrote the stories in what is now known as the bible, however, I think the early church had a motive in the way of controlling the masses, and a good bit of editing was done, in order to accomplish that.

 

[Logicman]

I don't personally believe there was a motive by ,those who wrote the stories in what is now known as the bible, however, I think the early church had a motive in the way of controlling the masses, and a good bit of editing was done, in order to accomplish that.

How about a novel motive- telling a true story!

 

[head of joaquin]

Evidence that they were revised???? Also which attributions?

Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, goes into details of all the revisions and variations in the earliest MSS. They are undeniable. Most are minor. Some are major. The ending of Mark being the most obvious. Some MSS have the "longer" ending, some the shorter. So some redaction is going on.

As to attributions, for the longest time Hebrews was attributed to Paul. I don't think any major NT scholar believes that anymore. The pastoral epistles also appear dubious. It's obvious that one of Peter's letters isn't written by Peter, since they are written in totally different styles -- unless Peter's script just went hogwild. Finally, I don't think most NT scholars believe that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew. There's too much negative evidence, added to the fact that only one of the older mss attributes authorship to Matthew. Most don't. The authorship of Luke is also up in the air, though I believe the consensus is still in favor of the traditional view.

 

[Paschendale]

There are at least three completely plausible possibilities.

1. These people really believed in the magic and miracles they thought they had witnessed and were simply mistaken. Plenty of crazy people seriously believe in their delusions. I'm sure that some of the oracles of Delphi really thought that they were experiencing visions from the gods. It is not unreasonable to think that these people were sincere. Sincerity has no bearing on veracity, however. As above, plenty of people genuinely believe things that aren't true. Any religious figures could have been delusional. We don't know.

2. They were charlatans. Lots of people make up stories for fame, glory, or money. Joseph Smith, for example, was a known charlatan before creating Mormonism. It is not unreasonable at all to suspect that he retained those motives in creating a new religion. Paul or Jesus or anyone else living two thousand years ago could certainly have had the same motivations. Any religious figure, recent or in antiquity, could have done this.

3. The stories were edited later. What was originally the fairly mundane life story of a Jewish preacher and his friends could have been embellished by future retellings to incorporate supernatural elements ("miracles") or parts of other legends. Or they were simply mistold in future iterations. Urban legends still exist and are modified as they are retold even in this modern age of instantaneous communication and the internet. In the middle of a desert in the iron age, it would be easy to make these mistakes even with the best intentions. With mistakes and retellings, the figures in question may never even have existed at all.

All of these possibilities can and do happen all the time. The spread of a particular story has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Plenty of people today believe in alien abductions or Elvis still being alive. Now, we have no more evidence of the motivations of the authors of the New Testament at all. Nor do we have evidence of the motivations of the authors of any legends. Not those of Theseus and the Minotaur, of the Oorochi, of Gilgamesh, or any others. But we reasonably attribute their stories to one of the above three possibilities. A lot of people passionately care about the New Testament, or about the Quran, or about the Book of Mormon, but passionate caring doesn't mean that we except a story from scrutiny. All six of those stories are likely fiction for exactly the same reasons. Lots of people throughout history have fought, killed, and died for their particular story. We reasonably conclude that all of their stories were wrong.

 

[tosca1]

There are at least three completely plausible possibilities.

1. These people really believed in the magic and miracles they thought they had witnessed and were simply mistaken. Plenty of crazy people seriously believe in their delusions. I'm sure that some of the oracles of Delphi really thought that they were experiencing visions from the gods. It is not unreasonable to think that these people were sincere. Sincerity has no bearing on veracity, however. As above, plenty of people genuinely believe things that aren't true. Any religious figures could have been delusional. We don't know.

2. They were charlatans. Lots of people make up stories for fame, glory, or money. Joseph Smith, for example, was a known charlatan before creating Mormonism. It is not unreasonable at all to suspect that he retained those motives in creating a new religion. Paul or Jesus or anyone else living two thousand years ago could certainly have had the same motivations. Any religious figure, recent or in antiquity, could have done this.

3. The stories were edited later. What was originally the fairly mundane life story of a Jewish preacher and his friends could have been embellished by future retellings to incorporate supernatural elements ("miracles") or parts of other legends. Or they were simply mistold in future iterations. Urban legends still exist and are modified as they are retold even in this modern age of instantaneous communication and the internet. In the middle of a desert in the iron age, it would be easy to make these mistakes even with the best intentions. With mistakes and retellings, the figures in question may never even have existed at all.

All of these possibilities can and do happen all the time. The spread of a particular story has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Plenty of people today believe in alien abductions or Elvis still being alive. Now, we have no more evidence of the motivations of the authors of the New Testament at all. Nor do we have evidence of the motivations of the authors of any legends. Not those of Theseus and the Minotaur, of the Oorochi, of Gilgamesh, or any others. But we reasonably attribute their stories to one of the above three possibilities. A lot of people passionately care about the New Testament, or about the Quran, or about the Book of Mormon, but passionate caring doesn't mean that we except a story from scrutiny. All six of those stories are likely fiction for exactly the same reasons. Lots of people throughout history have fought, killed, and died for their particular story. We reasonably conclude that all of their stories were wrong.

Of course, those possible plausabilities must've been in the mind of Simon Greenleaf when he decided to get to the bottom of it once and for all.

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

 

[RGacky3]

Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, goes into details of all the revisions and variations in the earliest MSS. They are undeniable. Most are minor. Some are major. The ending of Mark being the most obvious. Some MSS have the "longer" ending, some the shorter. So some redaction is going on.

As to attributions, for the longest time Hebrews was attributed to Paul. I don't think any major NT scholar believes that anymore. The pastoral epistles also appear dubious. It's obvious that one of Peter's letters isn't written by Peter, since they are written in totally different styles -- unless Peter's script just went hogwild. Finally, I don't think most NT scholars believe that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew. There's too much negative evidence, added to the fact that only one of the older mss attributes authorship to Matthew. Most don't. The authorship of Luke is also up in the air, though I believe the consensus is still in favor of the traditional view.

Yeah any modern bible would show mark without the endings ... Ask Ehrman if what we have NOW, in the greek text, is basically what the text's said origionally, I guarantee you he'll say yes ... How do we know that changes in certain specific manuscripts and variations are changes or variations? Because we have tons of manuscripts and we can compare them to the majority and SEE "oh that's a change, the origional said this."

As far as Authorships, the stuff about Matthew and Hebrews has to do with Church traidition, not the text itself.

 

[Hiram]

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 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 believe they wrote by the "Unction" and motivation to do so by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Logicman]

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?

 

[Ben K.]

There doesn't need to be a motive. People can believe something without it being true. See the rest of the forum for examples. A variation of the Lewis trilemna is not that convincing.

 

[tosca1]

There doesn't need to be a motive. People can believe something without it being true. See the rest of the forum for examples. A variation of the Lewis trilemna is not that convincing.

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.

 

[tecoyah]

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.