Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong? (Jesus, Earth, disciples, Corinthians)

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Steve

The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not. They knew if Jesus had risen, they claim to have eaten and spoken with him. To die for a belief which turns out to be wrong is one thing, to willingly die for what you know to be a lie is another. You have to ask yourself if you think the various apostles would die the way they did knowing that Jesus hadnt really risen, their may be plenty of people out their who would die for their beliefs and that alone dosn't make them true, but i bet there arnt many who would die for what they knew was a lie.

No many have died for things they belived to be true. knowing something and beliving somthing are two different things.

As i stated befor - The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not. They knew if Jesus had risen, they claim to have eaten and spoken with him.

The apostles died for somthing they either knew was either true or false. Either the group all decided to make up a lie and go out and be beaten and eventually killed for it, or they really did meet the resurected Christ and therefor went through what they did.

[Jaymes]

Except they didn't believe it to be true; they knew it, just as others have. If they weren't completely convinced that something was true, they wouldn't have died for it. I'll say it again: You can know something and be wrong. When I was younger, I just absolutely knew there was an alligator in our pond. I swore it up and down, and wouldn't be told otherwise for anything. There never was, though, even though I just knew it was true.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Jensa

Except they didn't believe it to be true; they knew it, just as others have. If they weren't completely convinced that something was true, they wouldn't have died for it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Jensa

I'll say it again: You can know something and be wrong. When I was younger, I just absolutely knew there was an alligator in our pond. I swore it up and down, and wouldn't be told otherwise for anything. There never was, though, even though I just knew it was true.

I disagree.
You didnt know their was an alligator in your pond, you belived there was. For you to have known it their must have been irrefutable evidence that you came across to change your belief to knowledge. The apostles had such evidence, would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?
Again they either lied about meeting with Christ or they really did. Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Steve

You didnt know their was an alligator in your pond, you belived there was. For you to have known it their must have been irrefutable evidence that you came across to change your belief to knowledge. The apostles had such evidence, would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?
Again they either lied about meeting with Christ or they really did. Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

Im wondering, are there any reliable sources (meaning something other than the bible) that says these people died for their faith? Just a curious thought...

Also, if death meant that the religion was right then I would say according to modern day the Jewish people are the right ones in light of the holocoust.

And steve, just to let you know, the definition of "know" is this....
To regard as true beyond all doubt.

So someone can know something and have it still be wrong. Like the apostles

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Also, if death meant that the religion was right then I would say according to modern day the Jewish people are the right ones in light of the holocoust.

????? are you even able to follow an argument?????
I havnt asserted that dying for somthing makes it true, rather it dosnt make sense for the apostles to die for somthing that they knew was a lie. As i said to Jensa - would you claim that the whole group could have been mistaken about whether or not they had infact all eaten and spoken with the risen Christ and seen him on a number of various occasions?

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

And steve, just to let you know, the definition of "know" is this....
To regard as true beyond all doubt.

So someone can know something and have it still be wrong. Like the apostles

Well im not sure where you got your definition,

Heres some definitions from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...=know&x=15&y=9

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>


Also are you trying to tell me their is no difference between beliving somthing and knowing somthing? If i told you that i had can drive a car you may belive me but if i drive it to your house and then take you for a drive you now know it.
The apostles didnt just belive Jesus rose from the dead, they had many practical irrefutable experience's which from that point on they knew he had risen. After they claimed such experience's, we can only conclude that they made the whole thing up or were telling the truth. Again - Its your choice as to whether you belive they would willingly die for what they knew was not true.

[Fluffy]

As i stated befor - The apostles didnt just die for what they belived to be true, they died for what they knew to be true. Big difference. The apostles knew whether they were preaching the truth or not.

Fine. Prove it with irrefutable proof and then we will all know that the above is true. At the moment you are simply holding your own statements and the statements of men who died thousands of years ago to very different standards of validity.

What is the irrefutable proof that these men experienced and what is the difference between somebody who experiences irrefutable proof and somebody who thinks they have experienced irrefutable proof?

[Jaymes]

I didn't just believe there was alligator, I had seen things that I was convinced was an alligator. Looking back I'm sure they were other things, but at the time I was convinced it was an alligator. Same as that time I 'saw' a pteradactyl. I have a very clear memory of looking up and seeing the outline and tail of what I had seen on documentaries about dinosaurs, and for several years I just knew I had seen the last one left, even though that's obviously impossible. What I saw I considered evidence; after all, I had seen it with my own eyes!

[Ryan2065]

you didnt answer my question steve... Ill post it again, maybe you missed it...

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Im wondering, are there any reliable sources (meaning something other than the bible) that says these people died for their faith? Just a curious thought...

Also, my statement about dieing for faith was not directed at you. That was directed at AV1611. Wasn't clear on that, though good job at jumping to the defensive and trying your best to make me look bad so you could dodge my question. Now, answer my question please =)

And as far as argueing over the definition of knowing something... Jensa is using one definition, you are using another... the word means more than one thing... I would think you could follow that much. Check dictionary.com if you don't believe me on the definition. Trust me, it means both =)

[Fluffy]

And as far as argueing over the definition of knowing something... Jensa is using one definition, you are using another... the word means more than one thing... I would think you could follow that much. Check dictionary.com if you don't believe me on the definition. Trust me, it means both =)

Really? I feel that they are using the same definition. They both agree that it takes irrefutable proof in order to know something. Steve is simply asserting that these men did experience irrefutable proof whereas Jensa is describing how it is possible to convince yourself that you have experienced irrefutable proof. From Steve's posts, it seems he believes there is a meaningful difference between the two with regards to a person's actions (sorry if I have misinterpreted you though, Steve).

[Ryan2065]