Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Jaberwocky]

Because of what they wrote about themselves? Well, all I can say is that unless there is evidence that can concretely convince me that some Jewish fisherman and a tax collector orchestrated the entire affair under the pretenses of being the messengers of the incarnate God, the evidence as it exists says otherwise. There are numerous resources out there that give reasons as to why we can consider the apostles trustworthy. Dying for their message, the way they include even negative representations of themselves, that history affirms their historical observations, etc. But I don’t see any reason to rehash every reason here.

I am not sure I am communicating what I want to say properly.

Lets say the Apostles died attesting that he rose from the dead. But how do we know that they were told to teach? What if the whole thing was just about Christ coming to earth, doing some business of his own, everything was done and he left and we were just suppossed to continue on with our lives?

In essence, all I am asking is what makes you go from “Jesus rose from the dead” to trusting his Apostles? Is there some logical rule of inference you use to do that? Assuming you lived at that time, what reasoning leads you to turn to the Apostles as teaching what Christ taught?

INo.

So the Trinity is not important?

I
Does the Trinity accord with Scripture and the witness of the very earliest Christian sources and continuing down the succeeding years all the way to Nicea to today?

Does purgatory?
Does papal infallibility?
Does the treasury of merit?
Does the assumption?

Apostolic succession as defined by the modern Catholic Church? No, I don’t think so. At least, not the specifics.

Well what you are forgetting here is that the Trinity itself has no evidence of being defined by the Apostles with specifics we have today. In fact, there is no evidence (of writings from them) that the first Apostles held a Trinitarian belief in the sense we have come to define it. Does that mean the defined concept of the Trinity is false?

I think you have to ask yourself why you think that anything that was not explicitly and completely defined at the time of the Apostles cannot be defined at a later time. Why do you think that?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I will see meet your Bart Ehrman, and raise you a Luke Muehlhauser.

Last I saw Luke, Bart was running circles around him.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Depends on what you mean by that. I can ascertain historically the range of meaning the word “Christian” has had. This has relevance for the project of being a Christian, obviously, but equally obviously it only goes so far.

The short answer to the question I think you are asking is, “Because I trust the testimony of the Church, confirmed at least to a large extent by historical inquiry, rational analysis, and personal experience.”

Edwin

Rational analysis and personal experience cannot confirm or invalidate supernatural truths, right? So is it safe to say that this part of it only helps you grow in faith (better understand it and grow in relationship) rather than actually give you reason to believe?

On the matter of historical inquiry and Church testimony, I assume you first want to establish the authority of the Church before you trust its testimony as well? How would you do so?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am not sure I am communicating what I want to say properly.

Lets say the Apostles died attesting that he rose from the dead. But how do we know that they were told to teach? What if the whole thing was just about Christ coming to earth, doing some business of his own, everything was done and he left and we were just suppossed to continue on with our lives?

In essence, all I am asking is what makes you go from “Jesus rose from the dead” to trusting his Apostles? Is there some logical rule of inference you use to do that? Assuming you lived at that time, what reasoning leads you to turn to the Apostles as teaching what Christ taught?

Because if I can trust their reliability in regards to a dead man coming back to life, it kind of speaks volumes about other things He said that they recorded, don’t you think?

So the Trinity is not important?

?

Well what you are forgetting here is that the Trinity itself has no evidence of being defined by the Apostles with specifics we have today. In fact, there is no evidence (of writings from them) that the first Apostles held a Trinitarian belief in the sense we have come to define it. That does mean the defined concept of the Trinity is false?

No, but it does mean that when the Church defined it, they defined it along lines which are corroborated by the Scriptures. You don’t think they said things the way they did in a vacuum do you?

I think you have to ask yourself why you think that anything that was not explicitly and completely defined at the time of the Apostles cannot be defined at a later time. Why do you think that?

When you come to apostolic succession, you’d have to get into the specifics of what you mean by it. All of us believe in some kind of succession, of a sort. The better question, for the purposes of the infallibility of the Church, is why do Catholics and Orthodox define apostolic succession so differently, if the ancient church taught either?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Because if I can trust their reliability in regards to a dead man coming back to life, it kind of speaks volumes about other things He said that they recorded, don’t you think?

No really. No. I can die for the truth that Christ rose from the dead. But you certainly will not trust me as knowing what Christ taught. So that is actually not something that follows.

Is there anything else that can suggest they are the ones to listen to?

I
No, but it does mean that when the Church defined it, they defined it along lines which are corroborated by the Scriptures. You don’t think they said things the way they did in a vacuum do you?

But who decides what is consistent with Scripture? Every teaching can be shown to be consistent with Scripture. It just so happens that many would not like that particular interpretation of Scripture and prefer an alternative one. So I am not sure what you say resolves anything right?

For an example, Jehovah’s Witness, a broken branch from the Protestant tree interprets Scripture in a way that rejects the Holy Trinity. They will say Nicea itself erred if required.

When you come to apostolic succession, you’d have to get into the specifics of what you mean by it. All of us believe in some kind of succession, of a sort. The better question, for the purposes of the infallibility of the Church, is why do Catholics and Orthodox define apostolic succession so differently, if the ancient church taught either?

Catholics and Orthodox hold the same concept of Apostolic Succession. We only disagree on the matter of Bishop of Rome and his primacy and infallibility.

Why is it that Protestants do not accept Apostolic Succession as both these groups do?

 

[Per_Crucem]

No really. No. I can die for the truth that Christ rose from the dead. But you certainly will not trust me as knowing what Christ taught. So that is actually not something that follows.

If you found Christ’s body in a tomb, would you still have your head cut off or would you be boiled in oil for a resurrection you empirically knew didn’t happen, because you saw his corpse?

But who decides what is consistent with Scripture? Every teaching can be shown to be consistent with Scripture. It just so happens that many would not like that particular interpretation of Scripture and prefer an alternative one. So I am not sure what you say resolves anything right?

For an example, Jehovah’s Witness, a broken branch from the Protestant tree interprets Scripture in a way that rejects the Holy Trinity. They will say Nicea itself erred if required.

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

Catholics and Orthodox hold the same concept of Apostolic Succession. We only disagree on the matter of Bishop of Rome and his primacy and infallibility.

Actually, you don’t. The Orthodox do not believe succession continues if the person becomes a false teacher. Catholics do. In Orthodoxy, if a bishop becomes a heretic, any ordinations done by him are invalid and he is simply no longer a bishop. Rome doesn’t believe that. Indelible mark and all.

Why is it that Protestants do not accept Apostolic Succession as both these groups do?

There are elements in both I can agree with.

 

[Contarini]

I will see meet your Bart Ehrman, and raise you a Luke Muehlhauser.

I googled him, and did not find anywhere where he said that the Gospels are historically accurate. In fact, in his deconversion story he specifically lists historical-Jesus scholarship as the main reason he began to doubt his faith. He does criticize Ehrman for one specific argument about textual criticism. (I think, in fairness to Ehrman, that he’s not arguing that you can’t trust anything the Bible says because of textual criticism–he’s arguing against inerrancy. But still, Muehlhauser’s criticism is valid and it’s to his credit that he makes it.) But he follows that up by saying that Ehrman’s use of this argument is hard to understand because the Gospels can best be refuted through their own internal inconsistencies! (Also, to be technical he doesn’t appear to be a professional scholar, although he’s clearly very knowledgeable and on this particular point was fairer and more professional than Ehrman, in spite of Ehrman’s credentials!)

Thanks for bringing him to our attention, though. He’s definitely one of the fairest and most reasonable atheists whose work I’ve seen on the Internet.

Edwin

 

[Per_Crucem]

I googled him, and did not find anywhere where he said that the Gospels are historically accurate. In fact, in his deconversion story he specifically lists historical-Jesus scholarship as the main reason he began to doubt his faith. He does criticize Ehrman for one specific argument about textual criticism. (I think, in fairness to Ehrman, that he’s not arguing that you can’t trust anything the Bible says because of textual criticism–he’s arguing against inerrancy. But still, Muehlhauser’s criticism is valid and it’s to his credit that he makes it.) But he follows that up by saying that Ehrman’s use of this argument is hard to understand because the Gospels can best be refuted through their own internal inconsistencies! (Also, to be technical he doesn’t appear to be a professional scholar, although he’s clearly very knowledgeable and on this particular point was fairer and more professional than Ehrman, in spite of Ehrman’s credentials!)

Thanks for bringing him to our attention, though. He’s definitely one of the fairest and most reasonable atheists whose work I’ve seen on the Internet.

Edwin

Yeah, Edwin, I didn’t bring him into the equation to say he supported the reliability of the Gospels. I only did to show that those of faith are not the only ones who consider Ehrman’s scholarship to be less than stellar.

 

[Contarini]

Rational analysis and personal experience cannot confirm or invalidate supernatural truths, right?

Wrong. They can’t prove demonstratively. But they can provide good plausible reasons for choosing to believe.

So is it safe to say that this part of it only helps you grow in faith (better understand it and grow in relationship) rather than actually give you reason to believe?

No, it isn’t.

On the matter of historical inquiry and Church testimony, I assume you first want to establish the authority of the Church before you trust its testimony as well?

Again, this may just be different linguistic choices, but I’d say rather “I want to have reasonable grounds for choosing to trust the Church.” I don’t know what “establishing its authority” would mean other than “ascertaining that there are grounds for making the choice to trust the Church.”

How would you do so?

If you mean something other than what I mean by ascertaining reasonable (though not entirely conclusive) grounds for choosing to trust the Church, then I have no idea, and every attempt I’ve seen to “establish authority” in a stronger sense than I have described seems patently bogus to me.

Edwin

 

[dronald]

Could not the same be said for the Mormon church? Do they not do good, spread good will among their members (some of the nicest people I’ve ever met are Mormons!), and have a genuine bonhomie that may not be found in other churches…

Yeah, Jesus talked about false Prophets however and then talked about those who say, “Lord Lord.” Muslims are not Christians, JW’s are not Christians and Mormons are not Christians. I don’t know why Protestants are ever compared to any of them.

For an example, Jehovah’s Witness, a broken branch from the Protestant tree interprets Scripture in a way that rejects the Holy Trinity. They will say Nicea itself erred if required.

There’s a difference between, “interpret” and “change” I challenge you to find the word, “[other]” in 1 Colossians 16-17. (Greek)

So the Trinity is not important?

Trinity is simply a word we use to describe the nature of God as best we can. (Based on what has been revealed of Him)

Either Jesus was God or blaspheming, I don’t believe I need the CC to believe that when one reads the Bible.

 

[benjohnson]

If you found Christ’s body in a tomb, would you still have your head cut off or would you be boiled in oil for a resurrection you empirically knew didn’t happen, because you saw his corpse?

Now… for some entertainments…

youtube.com/watch?v=5p9CY976_kw

Best. Conspiracy. Ever.

 

[Jaberwocky]

If you found Christ’s body in a tomb, would you still have your head cut off or would you be boiled in oil for a resurrection you empirically knew didn’t happen, because you saw his corpse?

You are confusing things here my friend. No one is disagreeing with the resurrection. What you are yet to demonstrate is how you move from that to the Apostles as having authority to teach what Christ taught. Witnessing a risen Christ doesn’t tell us that they are now ready to teach what he taught.

I
The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

Well I am ok with every single line you said. But my question is why do you choose just the writings of Church fathers that support you and reject the rest?

Actually, you don’t. The Orthodox do not believe succession continues if the person becomes a false teacher. Catholics do. In Orthodoxy, if a bishop becomes a heretic, any ordinations done by him are invalid and he is simply no longer a bishop. Rome doesn’t believe that. Indelible mark and all.

Well again you are confused. Rome assumes that she is not in heresy. So the issue with respect to heretic bishops ordination of others is not an issue.

Also, are you aware that the Patriarch of Constantinople was actually in heresy during the Iconoclasm? So I am not sure any Orthodox holds what you said either.

There are elements in both I can agree with.

Yes, but how do you base what to agree on or reject?

 

[Jaberwocky]

There’s a difference between, “interpret” and “change” I challenge you to find the word, “[other]” in 1 Colossians 16-17. (Greek)

To change means you already knew prior to interpretation as to what it meant.

Trinity is simply a word we use to describe the nature of God as best we can. (Based on what has been revealed of Him)

Either Jesus was God or blaspheming, I don’t believe I need the CC to believe that when one reads the Bible.

How does Jesus not blaspheming directly translate to the existence of the concept of a Holy Trinity? It is also not a simple word by any stretch of the word. It says something that at first glance seems logically absurd but you still believe it even when its not in Scripture?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Wrong. They can’t prove demonstratively. But they can provide good plausible reasons for choosing to believe.

I see. It appears there is much difference between you and I on what constitutes plausible reasons. To better understand you, can you explain what are plausible reasons for believing God is a trinity, the existence of heaven and hell etc?

Again, this may just be different linguistic choices, but I’d say rather “I want to have reasonable grounds for choosing to trust the Church.” I don’t know what “establishing its authority” would mean other than “ascertaining that there are grounds for making the choice to trust the Church.”

Ok, so what are these reasons?

If you mean something other than what I mean by ascertaining reasonable (though not entirely conclusive) grounds for choosing to trust the Church, then I have no idea, and every attempt I’ve seen to “establish authority” in a stronger sense than I have described seems patently bogus to me.

Well for one, you haven’t given reasons. So can you explain? Is it historical? Or is it based on your personal preference? What are these reasons you speak of?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Now… for some entertainments…

youtube.com/watch?v=5p9CY976_kw

Best. Conspiracy. Ever.

Nice video but there is still a bit of a problem. How does admitting the resurrection to be a historical event then justify accepting the stories written about it to be Scripture? Also, in light of the fact that the man who rose from the dead is not even the author of any of these texts and never seems to have uttered to do so by admittance of those who wrote the “gospels”, why should we think they are following what Christ taught?

 

[dronald]

To change means you already knew prior to interpretation as to what it meant.

What I am saying is that they changed the Bible to mean what they want it to say, not what the Greek says.

How does Jesus not blaspheming directly translate to the existence of the concept of a Holy Trinity? It is also not a simple word by any stretch of the word. It says something that at first glance seems logically absurd but you still believe it even when its not in Scripture?

The word, “Trinity” seems absurd if you have not read the Bible; but if one reads the Bible, one can understand it.

To say that the Trinity is not found in Scripture just because the word Trinity does not appear is not true at all. Trinity is just the word we use to define the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working in Unity as One. We could still believe in the Trinity based on what Scripture says without calling it, “The Trinity.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Actually, you don’t. The Orthodox do not believe succession continues if the person becomes a false teacher. Catholics do. In Orthodoxy, if a bishop becomes a heretic, any ordinations done by him are invalid and he is simply no longer a bishop. Rome doesn’t believe that. Indelible mark and all.

There are elements in both I can agree with.

I see you are a member of the Lutheran Diocese of North America; does your bishop have apostolic succession?

 

[Per_Crucem]

You are confusing things here my friend. No one is disagreeing with the resurrection. What you are yet to demonstrate is how you move from that to the Apostles as having authority to teach what Christ taught. Witnessing a risen Christ doesn’t tell us that they are now ready to teach what he taught.

You asked why I thought their witness to the resurrection was reliable.

Well I am ok with every single line you said. But my question is why do you choose just the writings of Church fathers that support you and reject the rest?

You’d have to point out what it is they accept that I reject.

Well again you are confused. Rome assumes that she is not in heresy. So the issue with respect to heretic bishops ordination of others is not an issue.

I am not arguing that Rome thinks the Orthodox are in heresy. My point is, the west and east do not agree on the details of apostolic succession. Rome believes succession is irrevocable. The east does not. That is why the east does not believe the west has valid apostolic succession, because to her, the west teaches false doctrine. Therefore, their succession has been lost.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I see you are a member of the Lutheran Diocese of North America; does your bishop have apostolic succession?

In respect to the fact that he teaches apostolic doctrine, yes.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Now… for some entertainments…

youtube.com/watch?v=5p9CY976_kw

Best. Conspiracy. Ever.

Lutheran Satire is the bomb!