Can we trust the Apostles?

[KJW5551]

The basic contours of his life are indeed confirmed: that he was a teacher and miracle worker, that he died by crucifixion, that he was worshiped as God after his death. Again, all non-Christian sources. Facts are facts.

There is not any sort of competing tradition about Jesus. All ancient sources, even unfriendly or hostile ones, concede these points about Jesus.

 

[Curious11]

No they are not. Define miracle worker. People were just repeating rumors, being worshipped as God is not proof you’re God. Buddha was claimed to have performed miracles. Muhammad was claimed to have perform miracles. They’re Chinese whispers, not proof.

 

[KJW5551]

Miracle worker: one who works miracles.

Think about it: why would the Jewish Talmud not simply say, “no, Jesus did not work miracles; these stories aren’t true”? Because his miracles were witnessed by thousands of people, that’s why. They were too well attested to possibly deny. So they called it “sorcery” instead. They don’t deny, they deflect. Same with the empty tomb.

No telephone game here, sorry. That ridiculous theory has been debunked over and over. Legends don’t develop within a few years time, they develop over decades and centuries. After Jesus’ resurrection the apostles believed right away that he was God and went out to proclaim the gospel. Ever heard of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8? That was written 3-5 years after Jesus’ death.

 

[Curious11]

That ridiculous theory has been debunked over and over

That’s what I say about God, or I would if it was good enough to even be put to the test.

After Jesus’ resurrection the apostles believed right away that he was God and went out to proclaim the gospel

That’s your angle? Seriously? There’s no other possibility than to say Jesus was God?

The thousands of people could have been exaggerated. Maybe the Talmud doesn’t reject it because they were living in a time were people believed things like this. Just like we used to believe in witches. So they just said Jesus was possessed by a demon or whatever.

Maybe Jesus was just a cult leader. Maybe he was deluded and had delusions of grandeur and began to identify himself as the son of God. Maybe the apostles made that up after his death and the historical Jesus was simply a religious free-thinker who opposed the Jewish authorities.

Legends can develop at any point in time, especially when created with an agenda. Look at how many conspiracy theories about 9/11 we have, and they developed quickly. Look at how many conspiracy theories about 2pac’s death there are. And that’s in the 21st century, are you telling me that couldn’t have happened in the time of Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Thom18]

No. You would never say that about general relativity, gravity or the heliocentric model. That’s because those things are falsifiable. Religion is not, hence it should only ever be discussed or believed in as a good moral teaching, not as a source of dogmatic truth, because it lacks the ability to prove itself unambiguously

You have to define “acceptable” and prove why that standard is the one we should use. Not everyone reduces everything down to, “If I can’t detect it with my senses, it’s not worth believing”. If you’re going to be a critical thinker, you can’t.

 

[Curious11]

I never said that. I cannot detect gravity with my senses, or emotions. Yet they both exist.

You’re making the claim that God created the universe, and he intervenes in everyday life.

Prove it. Show me evidence of him, show me traces of his intervention, show me phenomena that at the very least imply his presence. We should be able to detect some form of intervention by God. Otherwise it’s just not even a hypothesis worth considering. If you have no means to put a hypothesis to the test now or in the future, it’s not worth considering.

Higgs predicted the Higgs boson, it was proven and put to the test because it was a worthwhile hypothesis. God is not, at least not now, and I don’t think he ever will be

 

[KJW5551]

Does love exist? Prove it. Show me evidence of it. We should be able to detect it in some form.

Do you see the absurdity of your argument? Surely you wouldn’t argue that love doesn’t exist, yet you cannot prove it any more than you can God. There are things that people just know instinctively and have known since the beginning of time.

 

[neophyte]

Our Church is built on the foundation of Apostolic succession, which is the reason why we claim to be the One True Church.

Reading scripture though, the apostles seemed very fallible, often misunderstood what Christ was saying, and did some bone-headed things during Christ’s ministry.

How can we trust them to contain the fullness of the Truth and be able to pass it down for generations and generations?

Because Jesus said so.

Why I believe in Apostolic Succession Apologetics

(Sorry for the obnoxious length of this) Authority is central to all other issues. Even when we, as reasonable men with our wills fully desiring to know God’s truth and who have turned our lives over to Jesus’ care, study scripture as well as we are able, we come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it means. Because of the effects of original sin, our wills are weakened and our intellects are darkened. We are easily deceiv…

 

[Curious11]

You’re quite wrong. Love can be detected, we can detect how the brain changes when you’re in love. We know it’s a chemical in the brain, we know how it works, its properties. It’s been proven countless times, and we know that there’s a causal relationship between being in love and a particular brain reaction or activity. What cannot ever be proven is that God makes us fall in love, just like you can’t prove it’s Cupid’s arrow.

 

[KJW5551]

I am certain that a person’s brain changes would also be detected when deep in prayer, or when singing their favorite hymn in mass, or when receiving communion, or when walking into a great cathedral for the first time.

 

[Curious11]

That proves that there’s a change in brain state in response to feelings about God, but that’s all there is evidence for, feelings for God. None for God

 

[rose321]

when He said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees

Respectfully opinion only greatly pondering on the word Leaven and what it meant in Jesus time also

When Jesus mentions the leaven of the Pharisees Jesus meant what? God Spoken Word feeds us and nourishes us? His Spoken Word>> known also as > The Bread of Life?

Was Jesus teaching the Apostles to make’s them aware, about >Jeremiah 8:8?
Jesus was not pleased with the Pharisees or Sadduccee, was he?
Jesus boldly rebukes harshly, judging them and charging > them both, along with His own Temple Elders, those who served within His Temple with what?
Mathew Chapter 23 gives us the answer along with all his woes, maybe?

Jesus make’s His Apostles and us also to be aware who they are and identifies >>>>which flows, when one reads> Jeremiah 8:8 repeated 3 times?>>You are the children of your Father of Lies? God who knows all and judges all?
God’s infinite Wisdom and is He not the author of the Bible, of His Spoken Word?

Beware of the Leaven> Jeremiah 8:8 >flows with Jesus teaching >beware of the leaven> >>>beware of the doctrine?
His Spoken Word>known also as > The Bread of Life?
Jesus motto was>>I Am The Way, The Truth and The Life, follow Me, states such for a reason maybe?
Beware of the Leaven>Matthew 16:6,11,12
Jesus commands his listening audience to search the Scriptures, does he not, why?
Jesus commands us to >Test all Spirits, why?
Jesus instructs us to >Bring 2 or more witnesses, why? >>Would His Spoken Word be our witness also?

Jesus goes back to the Spoken Word in OT when brought before, questioned or when he was falsely charged by the Pharisees, Sadducees or Sanhedrin Counsel did He not?
Making them and us aware, was He not>> Follow Me?

Jesus when brought before Pharisees, Sadducees, of his own Temple Elders etc, Jesus refers to The Spoken Word, forcing them what does God say within >>His Spoken Word?
Making all know> they were entrusted with, given the responsibility to uphold>> His Spoken Word, maybe?
Do not add or subtract from?
Jesus quotes heavily from OT did He not?
Jesus asking>>
What did Isaiah say?
What did King David mean when He said, My Lord said to my Lord?
Where does it say man cannot feed himself on the Sabbath?
Abraham was happy to see my time come?
Jesus quotes heavily throughout His teaching preaching>> from, Abraham? King David? Jonah? Job? Elijah? Moses? Hosea? Samuel? Jeremiah? Psalms? Proverbs? Exodus etc etc? why?

Little leaven spoils the whole batch?
Peace

 

[rose321]

Reading scripture though, the apostles seemed very fallible, often misunderstood what Christ was saying, and did some bone-headed things during Christ’s ministry.

Respectfully opinion pondering and asking:
We are all Human Beings are we not all fallible?
God has a long history does He not of choosing the insignificant to accomplish the impossible?
1 Corinthians 3:19 " For wisdom of the world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written " He catches the wise in their craftiness."
Peace

 

[BoyGenius]

Reading scripture though, the apostles seemed very fallible, often misunderstood what Christ was saying, and did some bone-headed things during Christ’s ministry.

Let’s try this. Was Saint Joseph a carpenter?

So, would it be infallibly that he worked with wood, nails, and a hammer? And did he possibly do “bone headed” things like whacking one of his fingers by accident? Or the occasional sliver? Might be why Jesus chose being a Rabbi Joking aside on last remark.

The Apostle’s, whom Jesus knew who was going to betray Him, and who would deny Him three times, all had done idiotic and bine headed things like cutting the priest servants ear off. Yep, infallible teaching authority stumbling and falling along the way. But that is what Jesus suited and provisioned them for.

Men are infallible, but their teaching authority isn’t. Because that was instituted by Christ: True God and true man. Thus not by men alone.

The infallibility is the Sacraments. For every sinner must receive them during and in his or her own life. And nevertheless, the teaching authority of the Apostle’s who were sent, must in the same way oblige themselves. Even a teaching authority may become a heretic, and fall into heresy. Saint Peter denied Jesus three times: I do not know this man. Or I do not know what you are talking about. He essentially excommunicated himself from Christ and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So stumbling he fell. And he had remorse, guilt for what he did. Unlike Judas Iscariot (though a sad demise and outcome of what he and through), nevertheless Saint Peter reconciled (I.e. going to Confession.) In that way he was not only the first Pope, but the first Pope who fell and had to go through Confession to be restored in the suitable way to act as the Holy Father. And in this way, the other Apostle’s fell and were reconciled as Saint Thomas the Apostle needed: my Lord, and my God.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

God’s grace and common Sense

 

[Benadam]

It’s curious how other religions want to claim Jesus as theirs. The lost years of Jesus life are claimed to be years He traveled to India and became a wise guru then went back home and taught them what He learned. The Muslims claim Jesus. Not to offend but many people that are black want Jesus to be black.
It seems everybody wants a piece of Jesus. I like that don’t get me wrong. It’s good He is wanted. This doesn’t happen to Buddha or Confucious or Mohammed. That in it’self is an acknowledgment of superiority. So anytime I hear of a guru or another religion claiming to know the Truth as if it were something lost I have to shake my head because the very premise they form their revelation on denies the Person of Jesus who is eternal, Divine and Truth Personified. Once Truth materializes on earth ( Incarnation) and is transmitted and preserved in a community, being another material body, ( Church) by it’s very nature will not be lost or corrupted or need an external source to recognize what already belongs to it.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s reliable if you can prove it’s from God. You can’t.

Again, what’s your standard of proof?

You can make arguments, but they’re not the only possible true arguments.

There are a multiplicity of contradicting possible true arguments? What an interesting concept…

Yeah yours aren’t. Yours are grounded.

Mine are grounded on the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses. Yes, that’s known as “well-grounded”, especially when dealing with historical accounts in antiquity. Again… what’s the standard of ‘proof’ that you demand? Selfies from 33 A.D. ?!?

That’s a pretty usual excuse and cop-out.

Not an excuse: it’s a logical appeal to the type of evidence that might be relevant to the claim being made. Your standard works for a scientific hypothesis – that is, something that may be measured empirically. You’re attempting to make it apply in a context that doesn’t admit of such evidence. As such, it’s illogical. Sorry.

There is nothing you can do to prove beyond a doubt that God exists.

Again, what standard of proof are you demanding we apply?

you can appeal to relativism to justify your unrelative religion like most Christians do

Two thoughts: first, I’m not appealing to relativism; I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. Second, “unrelative religion”? Wait – do you mean absolute? Yes… Christianity is a religion that asserts that its truths are absolute and real.

You’re starting from asserting something and then telling people to prove you otherwise, except when they try to do it

No you didn’t. You simply claimed that “religion lacks the ability to prove itself unambiguously”. That’s not a proof, that’s just your opinion.

you come up with some clever excuse of why it doesn’t apply

Not a clever excuse: rather, I’m pointing out that your appeal to ‘general relativity’, ‘gravity’ and ‘the heliocentric model’ don’t apply in this context. Would a proof for ‘general relativity’ be able to be used in a courtroom? Of course not! That’s what you’re trying to get away with and yeah, I’m telling you that your attempt is in error.

, and then justify everything that happens as “God works in mysterious ways”.

Huh? Where’d I do that?

 

[straykat]

Not trusting the Apostles is not trusting Jesus.

Which may seem like a “pat” answer… so I’ll just add this. If these guys were liars, why would they die so horribly for this lie?