[eddie willers]

Just look at human nature and think about the apostles. Would you die for a lie?

Did Mohammed Atta?

[lasereye]

Just look at human nature and think about the apostles. Would you die for a lie?

Did Mohammed Atta?

You're missing the point. Mohammed Atta was lied to. If the Apostles died for a lie, it was they themselves who were doing the lying.

[bigmamma]

I thought of that too. But the apostles were not murdering thugs either. They wanted to live. The apostles as well as Christ Jesus were murdered by those who did not like what they had to say and believed. Turth has a way of making individuals uncomfortable. Thanks for reply

[r9etb]

Did Mohammed Atta?

There's a huge difference between Atta and the Apostles in this regard.

Atta could be explained as a man who died as a true believer in a false cause. Lots of people are willing to die for any number of wrong causes.

In the "Christianity is a fraud" formulation, the Apostles would have been the guys making the stuff up -- it would have been their plot, which they knew to be false. And if it were false, it's not terribly likely that they -- mostly uneducated Galilean rubes -- would die as they did, without recanting what they had been preaching.

[ArGee]

Just look at human nature and think about the apostles. Would you die for a lie?

Did Mohammed Atta?

To make the distinction a little more clear - would you die for a lie that you yourself had invented and knew beyond the shadow of a doubt was a lie?

Mohammed Atta may have died for a lie, but it was not a lie he invented. He believed it.

On the other hand, if Peter or Paul died for a lie, it was a lie they knew to be a lie. Peter claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and it was this claim that lead to his death. Don't you think that sometime before he was crucified, or at least before he had to watch his wife being crucified, he would have cut a deal?

Shalom.