[B]Was the Church ever infalliable?[/B]

[Hans_A]

Jesus Christ and his disciples are characters in history. Non-Christians attest to their life and death. Concerning Jesus, he said he was God. Now, only a crazy man, a liar or God would say this in 1st century Palestine. Due to what He said, Christ was handed over to the Romans by the Jews and was crucified. Three days later, his body came up missing from the tomb, even though there were guards at its entrance.

Using logic and reason, we will look at the possibilities of Jesus being 1) crazy, 2) a liar 3) God.

Christ’s Apostles and the rest of the disciples preached that He was God and was raised from the dead. They proclaimed this even to their horrific deaths. Stephen was stoned to death, Peter crucified upside down and Paul beheaded, just to name a few. Now remember, the Apostles are the same fellas that scattered when Jesus was arrested. Peter denied knowing him three times. John was the only one at the cross with Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. These same men then died professing that Jesus, resurrected, was God even though they knew it to be a lie? That does not stand to reason. People have died for what they believed to be true, but was not. If Christ was not God and had not arose from the dead, then the Apostles would have known it. How would his body have been removed from the tomb?

Logically we must come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who he said he was…God. Therefore, being God, we must take him at his word. He instituted His Church with Peter (and his successors) at its head and gave it the authority to bind and loose. What was bound on earth would be bound in heaven; what was loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. To do so, the Church would need to it without error.

With this authority, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church stated without error which writings would make up the Canons of the Old and New Testament and professed that they are inerrant.

 

[mozart-250]

We aren’t talking about surviving a surgery. We are talking about eternal life. If the Church is not infallible we are damned, not just sick, not just physically dead, we are damned.

It does not necessarily follow “because the church is not infallible, therefore we are damned”

 

[Mirdath]

Jesus Christ and his disciples are characters in history. Non-Christians attest to their life and death. Concerning Jesus, he said he was God. Now, only a crazy man, a liar or God would say this in 1st century Palestine. Due to what He said, Christ was handed over to the Romans by the Jews and was crucified. Three days later, his body came up missing from the tomb, even though there were guards at its entrance.

Ah, Lewis’ Trilemma. It’s incomplete.

There is at the very least a fourth option: there existed a Jesus of Nazareth who was a preacher and moralist, who gathered a group of followers and was crucified after the Passover. He was not (necessarily) insane, not evil, and not a deity made flesh; he was made legend after his death.

A thing to keep in mind is that around that time there was a whole rash of would-be Messiahs. The times were ripe for mahdis and messiahs to come out of the woodwork; an ancient culture stifled by occupation and set deep in its religious practices tends to produce such things. Jesus was only one of that number, but the only one who made it stick. He was charismatic, knew the Old Law inside and out, had some truly revolutionary moral teachings, and he knew how to pick his closest hangers-on: Matthew, the recorder; Peter, the leader and successor; the sons of Zebedee, the zealots; John, the visionary; Thomas, the skeptic; Judas, the scapegoat; and so on.

 

[Aramis]

Simon Magus made a good run of it, too…

As did several Gnostic non-christian or trans-christian sects.The most successful trans-christian sect being Islam…

(Trans-Christian being a term for a faith that s decdedly not Christian, but comes from Christian roots. In the same sense, all Christians except the catholics and orthodox can be seen as trans-catholic and trans-judaic faiths.)

 

[Hans_A]

Ah, Lewis’ Trilemma. It’s incomplete.

There is at the very least a fourth option: there existed a Jesus of Nazareth who was a preacher and moralist, who gathered a group of followers and was crucified after the Passover. He was not (necessarily) insane, not evil, and not a deity made flesh; he was made legend after his death.

You forgot about the whole missing body thing. Try again.

 

[Sixtus]

Hnas A posted:

You forgot about the whole missing body thing. Try again.

So too the witnesses after the Resurrection

 

[Mirdath]

You forgot about the whole missing body thing. Try again.

Sixtus:

So too the witnesses after the Resurrection

Easily part of a legend, no? In the Deuterocanonical story of Daniel and Bel, the Babylonian priests set food out for the temple idol and it was gone in the morning. They were only exposed as frauds after generations; would there have been one as sharp as Daniel to check if the apostles were, perhaps, complicit in the disappearance of the body – or simply mistaken? Perhaps the cemetery guards took the body out as a practical joke? Perhaps the gospel accounts past the crucifixion are merely legendry created for the purpose of instruction or conversion? There are many explanations that make more sense than resurrection.

Jesus is not the only religious figure to have a legend concerning a round-trip to the lands of the dead. Orpheus, Heracles, Aeneas, Inanna, Gilgamesh, Thor – all of them made it in and out. Does that validate the Greco-Roman, Babylonian, and Norse mythoi in your eyes?

 

[Sixtus]

Mirdath posted:

would there have been one as sharp as Daniel to check if the apostles were, perhaps, complicit in the disappearance of the body – or simply mistaken? Perhaps the cemetery guards took the body out as a practical joke? Perhaps the gospel accounts past the crucifixion are merely legendry created for the purpose of instruction or conversion? There are many explanations that make more sense than resurrection

Perhaps too, James a relation of the Lord willingly allowed himself to be thrown from the temple roof for purpose of instruction. Perhaps Peter too, accepted crucifixtion because he had a death wish. Perhaps Paul too had a fascination with chains and axes!! Perhaps Mary Magdalene too was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder when whom she mistook for the gardener to hear Him say in that all to familiar voice: ‘Mary’

Some how, I think the Gospel accounts of the truth is more plausible

 

[Mirdath]

Perhaps too, James a relation of the Lord willingly allowed himself to be thrown from the temple roof for purpose of instruction. Perhaps Peter too, accepted crucifixtion because he had a death wish. Perhaps Paul too had a fascination with chains and axes!! Perhaps Mary Magdalene too was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder when whom she mistook for the gardener to hear Him say in that all to familiar voice: ‘Mary’

Some how, I think the Gospel accounts of the truth is more plausible

People have died for less and for sillier.

 

[Sixtus]

Mirdath posted;

People have died for less and for sillier.

I will have to take your word for that. But I bet they were not willing to undertake such cruel death such as crucixition, whereby death normally takes days of absolute agony, exposure and slow asphiciation [spellling mistake-getting tired now!]

Peter knew the manner by which he would die if he continued to proclaim the Gospel. I simply do not believe he agreed to it just to support a myth.

Most of the Apostles suffered martydom. Why would they for a myth. Would you?

 

[Mirdath]

I will have to take your word for that. But I bet they were not willing to undertake such cruel death such as crucixition, whereby death normally takes days of absolute agony, exposure and slow asphiciation [spellling mistake-getting tired now!]

People have died terrible, slow deaths because they wanted a different head atop the totem pole of government. Is that not a lesser issue than life eternal?

I do not accuse the apostles of intent to deceive. I think it far more likely that they were caught up in the myth that began to revolve around Jesus during his life.

Most of the Apostles suffered martydom. Why would they for a myth. Would you?

I would be perfectly willing to die so other people could believe that myth, the same one I do not believe in.

 

[porthos11]

Mirdath posted;

I will have to take your word for that. But I bet they were not willing to undertake such cruel death such as crucixition, whereby death normally takes days of absolute agony, exposure and slow asphiciation [spellling mistake-getting tired now!]

Peter knew the manner by which he would die if he continued to proclaim the Gospel. I simply do not believe he agreed to it just to support a myth.

Most of the Apostles suffered martydom. Why would they for a myth. Would you?

Right. Actually there was one aspect to the apostles’ martyrdom that cannot be duplicated. The apostles died professing what they claimed to witness, not merely what they believed. Today, those who die for sillier causes merely die as martyrs for their beliefs, but never can they claim to die for something they witness. Not even Joseph Smith died for that; he was never asked to renounce his false witness (and of course, he didn’t witness Jesus in the Americas), and he died in a prison riot, not as a martyr to Mormonism.

 

[porthos11]

People have died terrible, slow deaths because they wanted a different head atop the totem pole of government. Is that not a lesser issue than life eternal?

That doesn’t make them martyrs. It makes them mere political casualties.

The apostles died because they refused to compromise their witness to Christ, not merely their beliefs. Moreover, they had the choice to renounce him, as did the other Christians. They did not, because they gave their lives rather than deny what they knew to be true.

I do not accuse the apostles of intent to deceive. I think it far more likely that they were caught up in the myth that began to revolve around Jesus during his life.

I would be perfectly willing to die so other people could believe that myth, the same one I do not believe in.

I don’t think so. The apostles claimed to witness Jesus’ life and events surrounding them. They couldn’t have been caught up in a myth, otherwise, they would indeed have the intent to deceive. Nobody in his right mind dies as a martyr with that intent.

 

[porthos11]

Easily part of a legend, no? In the Deuterocanonical story of Daniel and Bel, the Babylonian priests set food out for the temple idol and it was gone in the morning. They were only exposed as frauds after generations; would there have been one as sharp as Daniel to check if the apostles were, perhaps, complicit in the disappearance of the body – or simply mistaken? Perhaps the cemetery guards took the body out as a practical joke? Perhaps the gospel accounts past the crucifixion are merely legendry created for the purpose of instruction or conversion? There are many explanations that make more sense than resurrection.

Jesus is not the only religious figure to have a legend concerning a round-trip to the lands of the dead. Orpheus, Heracles, Aeneas, Inanna, Gilgamesh, Thor – all of them made it in and out. Does that validate the Greco-Roman, Babylonian, and Norse mythoi in your eyes?

Merely claiming that Jesus rose from the dead is not good enough. To have that hold water, the Resurrection must be shown from history.

We can indeed start off with the Gospels. Modern textual criticism tells us that what we have are accurate representations of the originals to a very reasonable degree.

That only tells us, however that the manuscripts are accurate. It doesn’t tell us that they’re true. To do that we need to look at the Gospels as history, not as Scripture, and confirm those against actual historical events.

No one persecuted these pagan followers nor asked them to renounce their beliefs. Christians, on the other hand were given the option to renounce their beliefs so that they could live. They chose to die assenting to the Resurrection. No one but the apostolic martyrs can claim that they died for a resurrection they witnessed, and not merely believed in. That makes their martyrdom the most powerful attestation to the truth of what happened. No one dies for a hoax they actually know to be a hoax.

 

[mozart-250]

People have died for less and for sillier.

The issue here is that of a population of 12 disciples, 11 suffered cruel martyrdom for their faith and none recanted their faiths.

Their martyrdoms were at different times and different locations, so it would not be realistic to believe these events are correlated.

So thus we are into probability theory for independent unrelated events. The difference here is the difference between getting heads on one flip of a coin (0.5) and flipping heads on 11 flips of a coin (0.00048).

What you have to estimate here is the probability of one person choosing martyrdom for the resurrection of Christ if indeed the resurrection did not happen and multiply that probability by itself 11 times.

Unless your base probability is very high, you will have a very improbable scenario here. For example if the base probability is 0.7, the probability of 11 consecutive events is 0.019.

 

[porthos11]

The issue here is that of a population of 12 disciples, 11 suffered cruel martyrdom for their faith and none recanted their faiths.

Their martyrdoms were at different times and different locations, so it would not be realistic to believe these events are correlated.

So thus we are into probability theory for independent unrelated events. The difference here is the difference between getting heads on one flip of a coin (0.5) and flipping heads on 11 flips of a coin (0.00048).

What you have to estimate here is the probability of one person choosing martyrdom for the resurrection of Christ if indeed the resurrection did not happen and multiply that probability by itself 11 times.

Unless your base probability is very high, you will have a very improbable scenario here. For example if the base probability is 0.7, the probability of 11 consecutive events is 0.019.

In other words, we need to find the probability that one of the apostles was nuts, and then multiply that probability by 11 to get the actual probability that all 11 of them were nuts and died for the same lie.

Reasonably speaking, I doubt the probability of even one of them being nuts is that high. 0.5 is too generous. Psychologists can probably give us a better figure.

Nonetheless, it’s not likely indeed.

 

[Mirdath]

That doesn’t make them martyrs. It makes them mere political casualties.

Who are you to say that one person’s death means more than another’s? ‘Mere political casualties’? These people died for what they believed. If they are ‘mere’ casualties and not martyrs, every saint-martyr who was born after Jesus death is no martyr but a ‘mere’ casualty. Collateral damage, if you like.

The apostles died because they refused to compromise their witness to Christ, not merely their beliefs. Moreover, they had the choice to renounce him, as did the other Christians. They did not, because they gave their lives rather than deny what they knew to be true.

So did most other martyrs, whether religious or political, Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or secular.

I don’t think so. The apostles claimed to witness Jesus’ life and events surrounding them. They couldn’t have been caught up in a myth, otherwise, they would indeed have the intent to deceive. Nobody in his right mind dies as a martyr with that intent.

By all accounts, Jesus was an incredibly charismatic man. Cults of personality which set roots deep enough to remove fear of death are not unheard of to this day. Al-Qaeda members kill themselves for their leader. Heaven’s Gate committed group suicide. The People’s Church too. Such things are not modern developments: they’re incredibly primal, part of our condition from the start.

 

[porthos11]

Who are you to say that one person’s death means more than another’s? ‘Mere political casualties’? These people died for what they believed. If they are ‘mere’ casualties and not martyrs, every saint-martyr who was born after Jesus death is no martyr but a ‘mere’ casualty. Collateral damage, if you like.

Simply by seeing. dying for a political cause doesn’t a martyr make. If I sound cold, so be it; I couldn’t care less for politics. They are MERELY political casualties, not necessarily martyrs. Martyr is Greek for “witness” and that is the key.

The apostles died for what they saw. That’s what makes the possibility that the were dying for a hoax so remote, because they didn’t only claim to believe, but claimed to see and paid for it in their blood. No one else died for such things. It’s impossible after that generation. All martyrs from that point on died, yes, MERELY for what they believed.

So did most other martyrs, whether religious or political, Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or secular.

Same thing. None of them died for what they saw. Only for what they believed.

By all accounts, Jesus was an incredibly charismatic man. Cults of personality which set roots deep enough to remove fear of death are not unheard of to this day. Al-Qaeda members kill themselves for their leader. Heaven’s Gate committed group suicide. The People’s Church too. Such things are not modern developments: they’re incredibly primal, part of our condition from the start.

And none of them ever claimed that their leaders rose from the dead. So if ever, they are the most pitiable of creatures, and will be remembered as such if they are even remembered. But the blood of those first-generation missionaries who said they saw Jesus alive after he died did not recant. That’s what differs.

So who am I to say that one person’s death means more than another? Simple. I am a human being endowed with reason. I know that a suicide bomber’s death brings only sorrow and destruction. They call themselves martyrs. I call them evil murderers. A modern-day Christian’s death in China or Saudi Arabia means more to me and doubtless they will bear much fruit. But even those deaths are only martyrdoms for beliefs. They draw their value from the deaths of the ancient apostles and first-generation Christians who died still claiming to have seen Jesus alive after he died.

 

[Zooey]

If the Church doesn’t know the way and it turns out the Zoroastrians are right, we’re all saved. On the other hand, if Lovecraft was right, we’ll all be eaten.

Amazing shot and I didn’t even aim.

Anyway, care to explain where I’m wrong about the nature of salvation if a universalist or universally-devouring religion happens to be correct?

You & I will be about equal, if Zoroaster was right. If H.P.L. was right, you & I will both be, well… toast.
In re: Christianity, on the other hand, if I’m right, I’m OK…and you?? :crying: :crying:
You gotta think these things through…

 

[Mirdath]

You & I will be about equal, if Zoroaster was right. If H.P.L. was right, you & I will both be, well… toast.
In re: Christianity, on the other hand, if I’m right, I’m OK…and you?? :crying: :crying:
You gotta think these things through…

If Christianity is right, you’re not sure you won’t die in the state of mortal sin, and I’m not sure I’ll get a pass as a virtuous heathen. I’d say we’re about equal there too.

And of course if I’m right we’ll both be taking dirtnaps