No, it’s not direct evidence.
But when 11 guys who spent 3 years in a man’s immediate circle say very controversial, unpopular, and dangerous things about him after he’s gone, and are even willing to die for it, you have to at least give it some consideration, no?
No, I would say that pretty much describes “impossible”.
So all that advice he gave to others we can ignore, because it was probably meant for them alone?
:dubious:
As much consideration as I give any other group that dies for their cause.
Want a list?
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
I don’t think it’s right or safe to ignore anything Jesus said.
Even if Jesus’ advice in that instance was particular to the rich young man, I would apply the principle of it to myself to mean I have to be willing to give up whatever is demanded of me, no matter how attached I am to it.
The most precious thing in the world to the rich young man was his money. More precious than his own soul. Some people are by nature very generous, so a command for them to give up all of their wealth would be a simple one to follow.
What’s more precious to me than my own soul? That’s something worth contemplating.
Do you think that most of the first generation of Apostles who knew Jesus personally were deluded or duped? If so, by whom and by what means?
If it is your opinion that passing a camel through the eye of a needle is merely difficult, then that puts your other writings in a different light, to say the least.
Does the Church teach that perfection is possible for anyone but Jesus?
Now that I have never heard before. Is that Church doctrine?
I didn’t say that the camel would be in good shape after it came out the other side…
I don’t know what most of them believed or if they were duped-we never heard from them.
Since the Church teaches that there are people in heaven besides Jesus (the Saints), yes, perfection is possible.
Not that I know of. I was just speculating.
Huh? The Gospel of John is quite different from the rest.
Well, Luke was an associate of Paul. He wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts.
We know what Matthew and John believed since we have their gospels and John’s epistles and the Apocalypse.
We have Paul’s letters.
We have letters from Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of Peter), Mark’s gospel (also a follower of Peter), a letter written by Polycarp (a disciple of John)…
We also have letters and exhortations from 2nd and 3rd century bishops that reference apostles and their teachings.
Actually mostly because they were to a large part- obvious fakes.
The Gospel of Thomas does contain quite a bit of Q, but the additions were clearly Gnostic additions.
But they don’t. The three Synoptic Gospels of course agree with each other to quite a degree, as they are all based upon Q. Nothing surprising there.
The Gospel of John is quite different, but since John lived to quite an age, John was of course known to be authentic- altho perhaps his disciples added a bit .
So, there’s nothing surprising or unusual about it. The three synoptic were taken from a widely known collection of His sayings, and John was still alive or had just passed on. No serious biblical scholar thinks there was anything “funny” going on in their selection. They weren’t selected just because they agreed with canon- more or lass as there really wasnt much in the way of canon then. In fact, few of the other gospels really have any wide variance in canon. Indeed even if they had selected the Gospel of Thomas, it wouldn’t teach us anything really new, it doesn’t really break with established canon. We’d just add few dozen sayings of Jesus.
And the Catholics still use some of the others, even tho their provenance is doubtful. The Gospel of James (certainly not written by James the Just, Brother to Jesus) includes the idea that Mary was forever a virgin and some interesting tales of the early life of Jesus. It is even possible they were legitimately collected second or third hand. Some of the other Gospels were rejected because they were of doubtful provenance and contained nothing new.
You know, before you get all JAQ about these things, you should research a little.
Here’ read this wiki article
There was little disagreement among the early Church Fathers, no “conspiracy” .
It was hyperbole, something Jesus used on several occasions, such as
Matthew 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! or Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own.
No one actually swallowed a camel or had a whole log in their eye. :rolleyes:
There’s this book- it’s called the Gospel of John. We have heard from them. At least one.
So you’re a converted Catholic, who isn’t sure? That if is a very important qualifier you could have added much earlier instead of now.
Have you considered applying Hume’s scale to miracle claims in the Bible? Think it’s natural and common occurence that nature’s laws just get suspended, and it’s to be believed if it is in holy writ, no extraordinary evidence is required?
Also consider what physicts can do with the conservation laws, and being able to apply some of this to supernatural claims. One of the reasons Einstein didn’t think ESP was possible was due to the conservation laws, in particular the Inverse square law and what would happen to energy over a distance.
If phenonemon like this actually occurs, science knows it will occur again if the conditions are the same.
You said you disagreed with me when I said the stories are weak and credulously told in the Bible. Are you capable of finding me any biblical story that you find legit yet? Or are you you still in the if it happened stage?
I should be able to cover a few of your other questions a bit later tonight. Trying to find a link so that I don’t have to quote a lot of material verbatim here.
Just checking in to say that after researching this topic, it turns out there is more debate than I had previously though, even among Catholics.
I thought this excerpt from A Commentary on the New Testament published by the Catholic Biblical Association in 1942 was helpful:
“The Son of Man coming in his kingdom: cf. the variant expressions in Mark and Luke. It is not certain what this refers to. Some of the Apostles will see it; others will be dead before that time. It cannot refer to Christ’s coming at the end of the world when all the Apostles will long since have been dead. Nor can it refer to some event in the near future, such as the Transfiguration, Resurrection or Ascension. For all of the Apostles lived to see these events, which moreover do not contain the element of retribution demanded by the context. It probably refers to the destruction of Jerusalem [in A.D. 70] in which Christ vindicated His honor by punishing the city that slew Him. The destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the destruction of the world on the last day; as such, the expressions which refer properly to the one are also used analogously of the other.”
It is also worth noting than in Catholic theology, Jesus’ mother never died, but was assumed bodily into heaven.
When I used the qualifier “if”, I didn’t intend to suggest that I don’t believe in the resurrection. I merely meant it in a logical sense…if x, then it follows that y.
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with Hume’s works.
I do find the gospel accounts to be “legit”.
Okay, I’m giving up on this thread. It’s clearly devolved into a useless morass of pedantry and tangents. Ignorance wins this round.