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

[Trurl]

My reasoning is simple, probably someone is either lying or unable or unwilling to provide evidence.

Your reasoning is wrong. One can browse the forums without creating an account. And I has a few accounts, then I forgot the passwords, so I created new ones. None of your business, of course. What evidence do you want? I had excellent conversations with “john doran”, for example… many, many years ago (he was a Molinist ). He never used capital letters in his posts, he did not even capitalize the word “god”. No, buddy, I do not lie, especially on a nameless board. What would be the point?

 

[Perplexity]

Yeah, Bayes’ theorem is the correct method for discerning historical probability-having been formally proven, it in fact correctly models all valid empirical reasoning. Of course, historians perhaps should employ easier heuristics for practicality’s sake, such as inference to the best explanation, which they tend to do. But, these heuristics (if correct) will derive their values from Bayes’ theorem. Thus, Bayes’ theorem functions as a litmus test for the alleged probative force of any historical argument.

When we subject the canonical Gospels to The Theorem, it becomes readily and undeniably clear that they’re replete with a-historical content, whatever their literary genre.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your reasoning is wrong. One can browse the forums without creating an account. And I has a few accounts, then I forgot the passwords, so I created new ones. None of your business, of course. What evidence do you want? I had excellent conversations with “john doran”, for example… many, many years ago (he was a Molinist ). He never used capital letters in his posts, he did not even capitalize the word “god”. No, buddy, I do not lie, especially on a nameless board. What would be the point?

This is not proof. You could merely have gone back over past threads and gleaned this information. The specificity of details do not confirm your claim. Still seeking faith, I see.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah, Bayes’ theorem is the correct method for discerning historical probability-having been formally proven, it in fact correctly models all valid empirical reasoning. Of course, historians perhaps should employ easier heuristics for practicality’s sake, such as inference to the best explanation, which they tend to do. But, these heuristics (if correct) will derive their values from Bayes’ theorem. Thus, Bayes’ theorem functions as a litmus test for the alleged probative force of any historical argument.

When we subject the canonical Gospels to The Theorem, it becomes readily and undeniably clear that they’re replete with a-historical content, whatever their literary genre.

You’d better take some Imodium for that!

 

[JDaniel]

Well, next time someone asserts that the bible was compiled by the church - which is a FACT (and not a slur) - I hope you will raise your voice against your fellow brethren. (But I do not hold my breath).

Yes, you are “SURE”. Well, you are wrong. I have no need for atheist websites. What I learned about the church, I learned from you and you fellow posters. And don’t get confused about the apparently short time of this avatar. I have been reading and sometimes (rarely) participating on this forum for well over a decade. Your knee-jerk reaction is so predictable. If one disagrees with your view, then one must be ill-informed and/or hostile. Never mind that I know probably more about the catechism than the majority of the catholics, I read quite a few of the blogs and books of apologists. Mene, tekel, ufarsin!! Their “arguments” are ridiculous nonsense. But you are “SURE” that I get my information from some atheist website. Well, rest happily and peacefully in your ignorance. Bye.

Trurl:

Then, why are you so hostile? You’re not here in “good faith,” are you? You’re here to argue, not debate. If you were here in good faith, you would ask respectful questions respectfully. But, if you feel that you are here in good faith, then why are you trying so hard to destroy the faith of Christians in these fora? One does not have to be a mind-reader. All one has to do is read your words. (No insult intended.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Portofino]

Gary Habermas has compiled a list of 39 documents that do precisely what you claim is missing including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. claim.

There’s some value in having older surviving manuscripts, but the fact remains that:

*for verification of the sayings of Jesus, the best source would have been a text whose content was written in Jesus’ own hand; second best would have been a text written by Peter or one of the 12. With the Gospels, we have neither. With Plato’ we have the latter–Plato knew Socrates personally. Even there, the historicity of his portrait of Socrates is highly questionable.

*for verification of the miracles, the best evidence would have been multiple eyewitness accounts from non-Christian sources, which we do not have (no non-Christian written attestations to Jesus having resurrected from the dead)

Content, or what is being claimed, is relevant. As Carl Sagan has stated, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinarily strong evidence… That Caesar was born of a Caesarean section cannot be proven, but is quite possible. That Christ was conceived without sexual intercourse has not been proven, either, but is much less plausible. That Caesar crossed the rubicon is not proven, but plausible; that Christ walked on water is not proven, but much less plausible. What’s more, these miraculous claims were made by early Christians who had a clear motivation-- to convince readers that Jesus was divine. Whether the source of that motivation was that Jesus was divine, in fact, is non-demonstrable.

I can take, “Jesus was born” on hearsay, especially because–if he existed–he had to be born. However, I cannot take, “Jesus ascended to heaven” on hearsay; hearsay is too weak a source of evidence, for so strong a claim.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…What’s more, these miraculous claims were made by early Christians who had a clear motivation-- to convince readers that Jesus was divine. Whether the source of that motivation was that Jesus was divine, in fact, is non-demonstrable.

“Non-demonstrable” is somewhat strong. Early Christians did have motivation to convince others that Jesus was divine and that motivation could very well have been the things he did and said, along with his resurrection, that must have deeply convinced them of otherwise difficult to believe possibilities. The fact that they could convince others in large numbers is testimony to the sincerity of their beliefs. The fact that many were willing to be martyred for their beliefs is testimony to the fact that they sincerely believed what they were testifying to. The rapid rise of Christianity demonstrates something here and cannot just be waved off.

That the claims were indeed extraordinary and yet convinced large numbers shortly after the fact also means something. It would not be difficult to convince others of some trivial belief, but to convince substantial numbers of Jewish converts of the resurrection from the dead of a man who died an ignominious death and whose grave could easily be checked, when the disciples themselves did not foresee or think important this kind of resurrection, would be a challenging enterprise.

 

[Portofino]

I was thinking the same recently, though, about the Koran; or the Book of Mormon. Even Scientology is a more recent example. The psychology of religious belief is a complex but fascinating study. Willingness to die for one’s faith is seemingly not exclusive to Christianity (cf. Islam) nor are extraordinary feats of belief that defy plausibility (cf. Mormonism).

Assessments of motivation are necessarily uncertain, but certainly valid considerations. Obviously, Jesus inspired a devoted group of disciples who believed so passionately in his mission, they were willing to die for it (not unique in history, but still saying a lot). Once Jesus was gone, it must have been challenging to convince others, who had never met him, of how extraordinary he had been. Hyperbole was one possible way of getting their attention. Also, if Jesus did die on the cross, positing his divinity could have been a means of coping with that very devastating loss. How it could it end on the cross? How could God allow that? Maybe it didn’t; through his death, he saved the world. Maybe his death was his ultimate triumph. On a human level, this is how a grieving mother consoles herself for the loss of her son – my son died heroically.

I think Christianity may have succeeded in the Greco-Roman world for a few reasons:

*it evinced a greater level of abstraction than prevailing pagan beliefs; monotheism, like monism, is a step forward intellectually in the sense that it requires the ability to think abstractly and conceptually (God is invisible; God is One); Greek philosophers had this ability to think with a greater level of abstraction, as well, but did not have much of an impact on popular religion

*part of this greater level of abstraction that Christianity represented was its ethical principles, which – again-- were more abstract and conceptual in nature, taking religious thought from the outward realm of rites and practices to the inward one of abstract ethical ideas (philosophers such as Plato had done so, but did not infiltrate popular religion)

*the content of that ethic was startling and revolutionary, as well as powerful (love your enemies; turn the other cheek; many of the last will be first and the first will be last)

*it promised eternal life (“immortality is the only goal worth striving for”–William Burroughs) and was a great source of consolation; on the other hand, it inspired a healthy fear of the possible consequences of non-belief

*its earliest followers were passionately devoted to their faith and were willing to die for their beliefs, with a psychological makeup that baffled onlookers and defied expectations (loving their enemies; blessing those who cursed them; going to their deaths with great serenity, as if they know something others didn’t )

*ironically, the very seeming absurdity of some of their claims claims baffled hearers; why would they claim such things, unless they were true? (though other religions, such as Joseph Smith’s Mormonism, drew ironic credibility from their seeming implausibility, as well)

 

[Peter_Plato]

*ironically, the very seeming absurdity of some of their claims claims baffled hearers; why would they claim such things, unless they were true? (though other religions, such as Joseph Smith’s Mormonism, drew ironic credibility from their seeming implausibility, as well)

Except that Joseph Smith alluded to historical artifacts and events that, he thought, could not be verified by his peers. The disciples of Jesus referred to events and artifacts that could readily be checked and confirmed by their peers. Joseph Smith seemed to have made deliberate choices to make his “factuals” unavailable, for example, using Egyptian hieroglyphics as source code, which he thought was indecipherable but later turned out to be quite translatable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also, if Jesus did die on the cross, positing his divinity could have been a means of coping with that very devastating loss. How it could it end on the cross? How could God allow that? Maybe it didn’t; through his death, he saved the world. Maybe his death was his ultimate triumph. On a human level, this is how a grieving mother consoles herself for the loss of her son – my son died heroically.

Heroically, perhaps, but claiming him to be divine - a blasphemy in the eyes of the very individuals you are seeking to convince of his heroic stature? The Jewish culture would not take kindly to a human being portrayed as God. That is precisely why Jesus was crucified. Why play that card again to raise the stature of someone dying an ignominious death when that would have the same consequences for his disciples. In place of one blasphemer there are now many. Stone them!

Remember when the Christian community started it was limited to a Jewish audience. This would be no way to raise the stature of Jesus in their eyes. Better to promote the story that he was falsely accused, never claimed to be God but he was a miraculous healer, wonder worker, great rabbi and teacher. Now let’s go back to fishing and the secure, quiet life we know. Why get ourselves crucified, fed to wild beasts or drawn and quartered? Jesus would not have wanted that!

 

[Perplexity]

You’d better take some Imodium for that!

 

[interestedman]

The disciples of Jesus referred to events and artifacts that could readily be checked and confirmed by their peers.

How would you go about fact checking in the ancient world?

 

[Cristiano]

Yeah, Bayes’ theorem is the correct method for discerning historical probability-having been formally proven, it in fact correctly models all valid empirical reasoning. Of course, historians perhaps should employ easier heuristics for practicality’s sake, such as inference to the best explanation, which they tend to do. But, these heuristics (if correct) will derive their values from Bayes’ theorem. Thus, Bayes’ theorem functions as a litmus test for the alleged probative force of any historical argument.

When we subject the canonical Gospels to The Theorem, it becomes readily and undeniably clear that they’re replete with a-historical content, whatever their literary genre.

Do you really believe what you are saying? Have you ever used the Bayes’ theorem in sample data analysis where you have standard quantifiable data? Words are fun mentioning statistical procedures sounds cool but I do not believe for a second that you can provide a useful metric do do anything of what you are mentioning. You are just talking big to put people down but what you are saying does not mean anything when you are serious about using statistics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How would you go about fact checking in the ancient world?

You don’t believe people were blind, deaf and mute back then, do you?

I do not understand your question other than sounding as if there was no way for people to know what was happening around them. You don’t really want to suggest that, do you?

 

[Perplexity]

Do you really believe what you are saying? Have you ever used the Bayes’ theorem in sample data analysis where you have standard quantifiable data? Words are fun mentioning statistical procedures sounds cool but I do not believe for a second that you can provide a useful metric do do anything of what you are mentioning. You are just talking big to put people down but what you are saying does not mean anything when you are serious about using statistics.

Considering I wasn’t addressing anyone in particular, and thus wasn’t talking down, I wonder why my comment made you so uncomfortable? Especially because you then turn around and talk down to me

The probability calculus has two aspects: a mathematical one-which has been proven, and a philosophical one. Which philosophical interpretation you adopt determines what gets represented by the numbers you plug into the theorem and why you select the numerical value you do for the representing. They’re are a number of such interpretations that are consistent with the probability calculus. I’d recommend subjectivism (which is the reigning position in fields from science to philosophy) which was proven consistent by the Ramsey-De Finetti Theorem. There are a number of established methods for determining the metric (since like the 20’s). But, whether they adopt subjectivism or not, since historians engage in ascribing probabilities, they’re in Bayes’ jurisdiction. Often, this is often unfortunately completely unbeknownst to the historians. But, really, how can u assign probabilities without using probability theory? :-/

 

[Perplexity]

Sorry about the typos, sent from my phone

 

[Cinette]

Considering I wasn’t addressing anyone in particular, and thus wasn’t talking down, I wonder why my comment made you so uncomfortable? Especially because you then turn around and talk down to me

The probability calculus has two aspects: a mathematical one-which has been proven, and a philosophical one. Which philosophical interpretation you adopt determines what gets represented by the numbers you plug into the theorem and why you select the numerical value you do for the representing. They’re are a number of such interpretations that are consistent with the probability calculus. I’d recommend subjectivism (which is the reigning position in fields from science to philosophy) which was proven consistent by the Ramsey-De Finetti Theorem. There are a number of established methods for determining the metric (since like the 20’s). But, whether they adopt subjectivism or not, since historians engage in ascribing probabilities, they’re in Bayes’ jurisdiction. Often, this is often unfortunately completely unbeknownst to the historians. But, really, how can u assign probabilities without using probability theory? :-/

*The most brilliant minds are nothing compared to God and we have been instructed to be like little children. Why do we stubbornly insist that WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND in order to believe??

Cinette:shrug:*

 

[Luvtosew]

=Peter Plato;9863018]Gary Habermas has compiled a list of 39 documents that do precisely what you claim is missing including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud.

Well Mr. Habermas has listed 12 historiacl facts at his site that are agreed upon and well all the facts are from the NT. Just curious have you read Josphesus, his auto and the war of the Jews, really read it.

Lets talk Paul who said he was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, and yet he knows nothing about the life of Jesus, his birth etc.

The only thing I’m saying is the NT in not historical and can’t be backed up historically.

 

[neophyte]

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. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
12. St. Peter has a preeminent place among the Apostles. (Matthew 16:17-19; Isaiah 22:20-25)
13. The Apostles, and not the believers at large, had the authority to interpret Scripture and teach binding doctrine. (Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2, 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. Numbers 16))
14. The Magesterium (the teaching authority of Christ’s Church) exercised that authority to make binding decisions on matters of faith. (Acts 15)
15. The teaching authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles extended to the Apostles’ successors. (Acts 1:20,26; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11)
16. The early Church believed in the succession of Magesterial authority. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage)

The overwhelming evidence from Sacred Scripture and from extra-biblical historical documentation is that Jesus founded a Church with a visible, hierarchical and infallible teaching authority vested in the successor to St. Peter and the Bishops in union with him.

 

[Luvtosew]

Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. (Heb. 11:1 DR)

Faith is a good answer in a theological sense. Ontologically I would go with the undeniable longevity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which has stood the test of time.

But a Pharisee in the council named Gama’li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men…So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:34-39 RSV)

Not an arguement, Islam has been around a long time as well as the Jewish people. Now if you are just referring to the RCC its because the Bible was not in laymens hand until the 1600’s, so the RCC had complete authority and power over people and their beliefs, They had Rome to back them up and became very wealthy and when Rome fell they became even more powerful.

So to use that arguement we would have to say Islam is of God also.