What is the evidence that the church's teachings are backed by God?

[neophyte]

Here’s the final part.

Completely unconvincing. You acknowledge that the context shows that it could not possibly have been a normal solar eclipse, and yet you proceed as if it were one. Not only that, you assign a non-zero probability that it was such an eclipse, when we already know that it wasn’t: the actual probability is 0.

This is a fundamental misapplication of the theorem. For an event in the past, it allows us to move from what we know about the event to predict the probability that something that we don’t know also happened. Was the guy holding the hammer left handed? Did he have attached or detached earlobes? What color was his hair?

But you can’t take an event that did happen and claim that it didn’t merely because the probability against it was low in advance of it actually happening. After the event happens, the probability that it *did *happen is 1. As I indicated in my previous post, the probability against you happening is vanishingly small, and yet you are here.

This is merely a fancy version of the argument that rejects out of hand the possibility of miracles, on the grounds that they are impossible. But miracles are impossible only if God does not exist, which begs the question. It’s an illogical argument.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Here’s the final part.

Unfortunately, the historical evidence trumps your Bayesian analysis.

For starters, there is a good bit of historical support for the idea that the “darkening of the sun” described in the synoptics was not an eclipse at all; the sole reference to it as such in Luke’s Gospel is most likely a mistranslation meant to imply only that the sun was totally obscured, not necessarily by the moon.

The word “eclipse” only appears in particular translations, and there is extra-Biblical, non-Christian writing on the topic of this event dating to the same period which also affirms the idea that it was not a solar eclipse. And, equally important, the prophet Joel’s vision which is linked (by Peter himself) to this event suggests that the sun was “eclipsed” by a thick, black smoke (probably heavy coverage of dark clouds).

Second, we know that Peter (again citing Joel) makes reference to a lunar eclipse occuring after the crucifixion in Acts, and Kepler’s laws have verified that a lunar eclipse indeed occured on the only day the crucifixion could have possibly taken place (April 3, 33 AD).

Finally, a geological study recently confirmed the occurence of a severe earthquake in Jerusalem around the year 33 AD.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Unfortunately, the historical evidence trumps your Bayesian analysis.

For starters, there is a good bit of historical support for the idea that the “darkening of the sun” described in the synoptics was not an eclipse at all; the sole reference to it as such in Luke’s Gospel is most likely a mistranslation meant to imply only that the sun was totally obscured, not necessarily by the moon.

The word “eclipse” only appears in particular translations, and there is extra-Biblical, non-Christian writing on the topic of this event dating to the same period which also affirms the idea that it was not a solar eclipse. And, equally important, the prophet Joel’s vision which is linked (by Peter himself) to this event suggests that the sun was “eclipsed” by a thick, black smoke (probably heavy coverage of dark clouds).

Second, we know that Peter (again citing Joel) makes reference to a lunar eclipse occuring after the crucifixion in Acts, and the application Kepler’s laws has verified that a lunar eclipse indeed occured on the only day the crucifixion could have possibly taken place (April 3, 33 AD).

Finally, a geological study recently confirmed the occurence of a severe earthquake in Jerusalem around the year 33 AD.

In fact, the only translation I have found that uses the word “eclipse” is the New American Bible. The Dhouay-Rheims and even the New American Standard (probably the most literal English translation) do not use this word. The NAS says only that “the sun was obscured.”

 

[Perplexity]

For starters, there is a good bit of historical support for the idea that the “darkening of the sun” described in the synoptics was not an eclipse at all; the sole reference to it as such in Luke’s Gospel is most likely a mistranslation meant to imply only that the sun was totally obscured, not necessarily by the moon.

Here you just say that there is a good bit of historical support for thinking the darkening of the sun didn’t refer to an eclipse, but don’t even name sources to support the claim. So, even if you’re right, you’ve given us no reason to think so.

But, by way of response, firstly it doesn’t matter if the darkening of the sun didn’t refer to an eclipse. As I argued, any darkening of the sun for three hours of the proportion Luke claims is extremely improbable, it’s just worse if he thinks it’s an eclipse.

Finally, I offered good reasons for thinking Luke had an eclipse in mind including: (i) the Greek word he uses for ‘darkening’ usually referred to an eclipse, (ii) Thayer’s Greek dictionary says this is certainly what Luke meant, (iii) in general the earliest Christians interpreted Luke as meaning an eclipse as evinced by the Church father’s I linked to and (iv) in particular, Jerome translated the Greek as ‘obscuratus’ which not only usually meant ‘eclipse’, Jerome himself interpreted it to mean eclipse! So, Jerome understood the Greek to refer to an eclipse, and translated into Latin accordingly. You don’t address any of these lines of evidence.

The word “eclipse” only appears in particular translations, and there is extra-Biblical, non-Christian writing on the topic of this event dating to the same period which also affirms the idea that it was not a solar eclipse. And, equally important, the prophet Joel’s vision which is linked (by Peter himself) to this event suggests that the sun was “eclipsed” by a thick, black smoke (probably heavy coverage of dark clouds).

The fact that only some translations use ‘eclipse’ here doesn’t diminish the evidence I put forward. You don’t even name these extra-Biblical, non-Christian sources so I’m not sure what to say to that either. I’d have to look at the Peter reference.

Second, we know that Peter (again citing Joel) makes reference to a lunar eclipse occuring after the crucifixion in Acts, and Kepler’s laws have verified that a lunar eclipse indeed occured on the only day the crucifixion could have possibly taken place (April 3, 33 AD).

The eclipse the Gospel authors describe takes place during the crucifixion, not after it. And it couldn’t have been a lunar eclipse since the moon was on the wrong side of the earth. Even if, against everything we know, it happened to be a lunar eclipse, it wouldn’t have lasted for three hours.

 

[mangy_dog]

Most of the Catholics on here would say that the church’s teachings on faith and morals are backed by God. What is the evidence that supports this?

1. Jesus Christ is God and:
2. The Catholic church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first Pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.
3. See rule #1.

 

[Luvtosew]

1. Jesus Christ is God and:
2. The Catholic church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first Pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.
3. See rule #1.

One of the several reasons I left the RCC within the last few years. Esp. since the Pope is telling everyone how Muslims worship the same God, so sad. I must thank this message board as it has made me see the light, how horrible wrong the RCC is. and the arrogance of some of its members .

 

[Peter_Plato]

One of the several reasons I left the RCC within the last few years. Esp. since the Pope is telling everyone how Muslims worship the same God, so sad. I must thank this message board as it has made me see the light, how horrible wrong the RCC is. and the arrogance of some of its members .

So your two main reasons for leaving the church are:

1. Pope has stated that the God of Islam bears resemblance to the God of Christianity
2. There are some arrogant posters on this forum.

Pardon my arrogance, but you must realize these are both very weak reasons for leaving the Church, so if these could change your mind, your reasons for being Catholic to begin with could not have been that convincing.

In addition you said,

I’m questioning Paul not Jesus. I use to take the Bible literally but obviously I don’t anymore, we don’t know who the authors of the NT are, and we really dont know who Paul is , so I believe the information is passed on, second hand info, and yes in some cases, tampered with, but I believe in God and Jesus, I’m a Christian, but also a realist.

If you believe this information was all “second hand info” and even “tampered with” then contrary to your claim, you can’t really believe in God’s power to vouchsafe his word. And since the great majority of information we have about Jesus comes from the New Testament, what precisely can you believe about Jesus that isn’t in the New Testament and therefore was not tampered with?

That, it seems to me, is the problem with your faith. Simply a lack of it.

Pauls motive? what was Joseph Smith motive. Paul (the bible Paul) had a change on the road to Damacus, was it a change of mind? a rebirth? (due to his killing?) A vision he says. In some places when I read Paul its like he is trying to make it about him. He healed many, and converted many, suffered terribly, shipwrecked, sounds a lot like Josephus too(ever read his auto). I don’t think the Bible was wrote by fishermen, but highly skilled writers of the time, mainly Greek and men of philosophy. So I take the lessons of the Bible which I feel is our insruction manual for living, (except the killing parts) . Thats where I am , I dont pretend to even know as no one does, and no one will ever know without a doubt. So I take things on faith. There is a reason we have the Bible, but I’m glad I don’t see many one handed, one eyed people walking arround, although there are writings that there were some early Christians that made themself enuchs for the kingdom of God.

So the NT is a collection of second hand information that was tampered with, that “no one will ever know without a doubt” and Paul is not to be trusted, but you still claim that you “take things on faith?”

Faith in what, exactly? Not God because he obviously has no power to protect his word against tampering. Not Jesus because, you claim, whatever we know about him is not credible.

My guess is that you find these forums too challenging to your views and do not want to put them to the test.

The vast majority of posters on these forums are not arrogant but they are sincere in their beliefs and don’t allow “gas” to enter without challenging it.

 

[Perplexity]

Completely unconvincing. You acknowledge that the context shows that it could not possibly have been a normal solar eclipse, and yet you proceed as if it were one. Not only that, you assign a non-zero probability that it was such an eclipse, when we already know that it wasn’t: the actual probability is 0.

Well, of course it’s possible such a solar eclipse happened. It’s also possible I’m a brain in a vat. Very little is actually impossible. But, it’s extremely improbable. The most important point of the argument is identifying what Luke is claiming. Only then do I examine the probability of the claim.

This is a fundamental misapplication of the theorem. For an event in the past, it allows us to move from what we know about the event to predict the probability that something that we don’t know also happened. Was the guy holding the hammer left handed? Did he have attached or detached earlobes? What color was his hair?

This isn’t right, the theorem calculates the probability of any hypothesis given some evidence and background knowledge. A hypothesis is a proposition that we assume to be the case for the purposes of discerning its probability. Any proposition is capable of being a hypothesis.

But you can’t take an event that did happen and claim that it didn’t merely because the probability against it was low in advance of it actually happening. After the event happens, the probability that it *did *happen is 1. As I indicated in my previous post, the probability against you happening is vanishingly small, and yet you are here.

Sure, but what does this have to do with anything? Are you assuming that the event Luke described occurred? Since we’re trying to figure out how historically probable this event it, you can’t just assume it: that’s just question begging.

This is merely a fancy version of the argument that rejects out of hand the possibility of miracles, on the grounds that they are impossible. But miracles are impossible only if God does not exist, which begs the question. It’s an illogical argument.

I never argued miracles are impossible-though, I tend to lean that direction. Nothing in my argument presupposes the non-existence of God, or the impossibility of miracles. It simply uses the knowledge we all have-whether we’re theist or atheist-of science, astronomy, and of the 1st century to show that it’s extremely improbable the sun went dark for three hours in the 1st century. Even inerrantists can accept this: they could just-albeit ad hocly-interpret Luke non-literally.

 

[neophyte]

…Nothing in my argument presupposes the non-existence of God, or the impossibility of miracles. It simply uses the knowledge we all have-whether we’re theist or atheist-of science, astronomy, and of the 1st century to show that it’s extremely improbable the sun went dark for three hours in the 1st century…

:banghead:
Using the same kind of analysis, how improbable is it that you were born?

 

[tonyrey]

One of the several reasons I left the RCC within the last few years. Esp. since the Pope is telling everyone how Muslims worship the same God, so sad. I must thank this message board as it has made me see the light, how horrible wrong the RCC is. and the arrogance of some of its members .

Who decided which Gospels and Letters were authentic? Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, John Smith?

 

[Luvtosew]

Who decided which Gospels and Letters were authentic? Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, John Smith?

What does it matter. Men who got togther, mainly Greek and how many years did it take them. There are not eye witnessess accounts, there are handed down, read them, they are wrote in 3rd person. Like a story or play.

 

[Luvtosew]

Peter Plato;9879738]So your two main reasons for leaving the church are:

1. Pope has stated that the God of Islam bears resemblance to the God of Christianity
2. There are some arrogant posters on this forum.

Pardon my arrogance, but you must realize these are both very weak reasons for leaving the Church, so if these could change your mind, your reasons for being Catholic to begin with could not have been that convincing.

No that would be foolish to leave a church due to some people esp since i know most RC are not like some here. Most are more like I was, unaware of church history and really church teaching, esp. thosse raised pre vatican. We didn’t have the internet at that time.

Finding and reading this websight opened my eyes to what the RCC really teaches , and forced me to do much research, and I couldn’t belong to the RCC anymore due to a lot of things, which since this is a RCC forum and one must watch what they say, thats all. Theres a list of things.

The Pope saying Muslims worship the same God , they don’t worship the Trinity God, so its not the same God. I don’t care much about that either, RC and Muslims go way back, if I was the Pope I’d be kissing their book took, ha ha, , No longer can the Church tell Christians to take up arms and fight and all their sins will be forgiven. Radical Islam has no problem still killing in the name of their God, but Christians no longer will.

If you believe this information was all “second hand info” and even “tampered with” then contrary to your claim, you can’t really believe in God’s power to vouchsafe his word. And since the great majority of information we have about Jesus comes from the New Testament, what precisely can you believe about Jesus that isn’t in the New Testament and therefore was not tampered with?

That, it seems to me, is the problem with your faith. Simply a lack of it.

Do your homework, the Bible is not to be taken literally, The NT gospels are wrote in 3rd person, not by the eye witnessess.

Faith in what, exactly? Not God because he obviously has no power to protect his word against tampering. Not Jesus because, you claim, whatever we know about him is not credible.

My guess is that you find these forums too challenging to your views and do not want to put them to the test.

I have faith in God, not in a church, no I find these forums with the same arguements, Peter got the keys, and was the first Pope, not true, maybe Simon Magnus he was in Rome, The Catholic Church is the true Church.

the Catholic church (universal ) is the body of all Christ believers. I find that many on these forums think non RC Christians are worst than whatever. They blame Luther, Luther was the result not the cause.

Yes my faith was threatened greatly when researching the early church history, but I believe in God. I was wondering how people who believed in God and the Bible could do such horrible stuff, I still wonder that.

 

[mangy_dog]

One of the several reasons I left the RCC within the last few years. Esp. since the Pope is telling everyone how Muslims worship the same God, so sad. I must thank this message board as it has made me see the light, how horrible wrong the RCC is. and the arrogance of some of its members .

The main-of the several reasons-is surely your own concupiscience. No one makes me leave the Roman Catholic Church.
Our holy pontiff is more in focus with his God-given mission than any twelve catholics put together. I don’t question his words nor motives. I just know that he is “De Gloriae Olivae”. And as such, his words have a purpose and a meaning that you and I-or anyone else for that matter, would be able to understand.

What is really horrible is that you can leave the RCC and not miss the Eucharist.

how sad- stop pouting and return to the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

 

[Perplexity]

:banghead:
Using the same kind of analysis, how improbable is it that you were born?

This is a super vague question. The improbability you’re asking about could refer to posterior probability, prior probability or likelihood. But, regardless, my existence is a necessary part of my background knowledge, and thus I have to say the prior, posterior, or likelihood probability of my existence (which entails my birth) is 1.0.

Cf. udel.edu/~jpust/CartesianKnowledge&ConfirmationWeb.pdf

For you, the prior probability that I was born could very well be extraordinarily low, but the evidence of my existence effortlessly overcomes that initial improbability. Thus, for you-and everyone else that knows I exist-the posterior probability that I was born is >> 0.5.

Aside from all this, are you assuming that the event Luke described actually happened?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Luv, So in your opinion what should we do with Islam? You do realize they are no new mystery to us? We have been in conflict with them over and over for 1400 years. The Church knows exactly what they believe, and who they are.

So what should the NO CHURCH theology do with Islam?

 

[Luvtosew]

Luv, So in your opinion what should we do with Islam? You do realize they are no new mystery to us? We have been in conflict with them over and over for 1400 years. The Church knows exactly what they believe, and who they are.

So what should the NO CHURCH theology do with Islam?

Yes I realize that, well Hopefull Mary may of helped a bit wth Fatima and all , as the Quran as a whole book entitled Mary, and the RCC and Muslims do share some commons things, but I guess at this point the Pope needs to eat crow, as the Islam pop is growing faster than the RCC"s pop and even thought there are many good Muslims, they will submit to the Radical Islamist when the time comes.

What do you suggest?

 

[Luvtosew]

The main-of the several reasons-is surely your own concupiscience. No one makes me leave the Roman Catholic Church.
Our holy pontiff is more in focus with his God-given mission than any twelve catholics put together. I don’t question his words nor motives. I just know that he is “De Gloriae Olivae”. And as such, his words have a purpose and a meaning that you and I-or anyone else for that matter, would be able to understand.

What is really horrible is that you can leave the RCC and not miss the Eucharist.

how sad- stop pouting and return to the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

I don’t believe in transubstantiation , I believe its what is in a person heart and mind when engaging in the Last Supper, spiritual communion,

 

[InJesusItrust]

This is a super vague question. The improbability you’re asking about could refer to posterior probability, prior probability or likelihood. But, regardless, my existence is a necessary part of my background knowledge, and thus I have to say the prior, posterior, or likelihood probability of my existence (which entails my birth) is 1.0.

Cf. udel.edu/~jpust/CartesianKnowledge&ConfirmationWeb.pdf

For you, the prior probability that I was born could very well be extraordinarily low, but the evidence of my existence effortlessly overcomes that initial improbability. Thus, for you-and everyone else that knows I exist-the posterior probability that I was born is >> 0.5.

Aside from all this, are you assuming that the event Luke described actually happened?

You don’t exist. You’re just a webbot. Prove to me that you exist and are not just a bot pretending to be a real person.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do your homework, the Bible is not to be taken literally,

Some of it is, some not. Parts are narrative and provide historical details, other parts are figurative to get important meaning across. Jesus used parables that were not to be taken literally, but expressed important meaning. Luke is a narrative that has many historically verifiable details and events.

The NT gospels are wrote in 3rd person, not by the eye witnessess.

The fact that the Gospels were written in the third person says nothing of their accuracy. Many historical accounts were written in the third person. Two of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by eye witnesses. There is strong evidence to support that. Mark could have been, but that is not clear. Luke was not, but he doesn’t claim to have been an eyewitness, but does claim to have written an accurate account supported by the details he adds. There is not a shred of historical data that contradicts what Luke wrote. If you think there is, you need to spend time looking at arguments from the other side. N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Tim Gray, and many others are great resources. If you choose to listen to only one side, that side will appear to be compelling because of lack of evidence from the other side.

Listen to catholic.com/sites/default/files/audio/radioshows/ca100730b.mp3

Tim is an expert on this topic who has looked at all the points that have undermined your faith and has dismissed them because they do not present a strong case at all.

I have faith in God, not in a church, no I find these forums with the same arguements, Peter got the keys, and was the first Pope, not true, maybe Simon Magnus[sic] he was in Rome, The Catholic Church is the true Church.

I am skeptical that you believe in God, because if you think Simon Magus [notice you didn’t even get his name right] was the first Pope, then you can’t have much faith in the power of God to protect the faith and his Church. You have more faith in your own understanding than in God’s ability to carry out and protect his plan for mankind.

the Catholic church (universal ) is the body of all Christ believers. I find that many on these forums think non RC Christians are worst than whatever. They blame Luther, Luther was the result not the cause.

Luther indeed was responsible for beginning and promoting a mindset that resulted in splintering the Church into some 30, 000 denominations. If the Catholic Church turns out to be the Body of Christ, then what Luther did was to savagely attack the person of Jesus, as the Romans and Jewish authorities did 1500 years before. Luther could have stayed in the Church to reform it from the inside, but chose not to, so he bears responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

Yes my faith was threatened greatly when researching the early church history, but I believe in God. I was wondering how people who believed in God and the Bible could do such horrible stuff, I still wonder that.

The evidence concerning early Church history is much stronger in support of the Catholic Church, if you are fair minded in your research, than the opposite. The only way the claims against the Church are effective is if you presume an anti-Church position to begin with.

 

[Luvtosew]

Some of it is, some not. Parts are narrative and provide historical details, other parts are figurative to get important meaning across. Jesus used parables that were not to be taken literally, but expressed important meaning. Luke is a narrative that has many historically verifiable details and events.

The fact that the Gospels were written in the third person says nothing of their accuracy. Many historical accounts were written in the third person. Two of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by eye witnesses. There is strong evidence to support that. Mark could have been, but that is not clear. Luke was not, but he doesn’t claim to have been an eyewitness, but does claim to have written an accurate account supported by the details he adds. There is not a shred of historical data that contradicts what Luke wrote. If you think there is, you need to spend time looking at arguments from the other side. N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Tim Gray, and many others are great resources. If you choose to listen to only one side, that side will appear to be compelling because of lack of evidence from the other side.

Listen to catholic.com/sites/default/files/audio/radioshows/ca100730b.mp3

Tim is an expert on this topic who has looked at all the points that have undermined your faith and has dismissed them because they do not present a strong case at all.

I am skeptical that you believe in God, because if you think Simon Magus [notice you didn’t even get his name right] was the first Pope, then you can’t have much faith in the power of God to protect the faith and his Church. You have more faith in your own understanding than in God’s ability to carry out and protect his plan for mankind.

Luther indeed was responsible for beginning and promoting a mindset that resulted in splintering the Church into some 30, 000 denominations. If the Catholic Church turns out to be the Body of Christ, then what Luther did was to savagely attack the person of Jesus, as the Romans and Jewish authorities did 1500 years before. Luther could have stayed in the Church to reform it from the inside, but chose not to, so he bears responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

The evidence concerning early Church history is much stronger in support of the Catholic Church, if you are fair minded in your research, than the opposite. The only way the claims against the Church are effective is if you presume an anti-Church position to begin with.

Oh excuse me Simon Magnus, yes was considered a God in 1st century rome, even built a stature of him upon is death, and since Peter was never in Rome or can’t be proved, and according to Paul, who never mentions Peter in his book to the Romans when he mentions over 20 names at the end, but not Peter, then its hard to believe Peter was in Rome. So yes I think they thought Simon M. may very well of been mistaken for Peter.

Well can’t write anymore now…