No, I don’t know that they are reliable. My resources are just limited at the moment.
(bolding mine)
Excuse me? Is this what you really meant to say?
Then I am at a total loss as to why you posted them in the first place. Do you not care if your sources of information are reliable?
Maybe I should clarify. Within “my experience” I am including the experience of others that I have gained through reading, listening, conversation, etc.
Sorry for the confusion.
‘reasons’ != evidence - other cults give ‘reasons’ as well.
To the bolded section above (bolding mine) - this is hilarious given the number of things discussed that are neither in this very thread - and again, being a VERY subjective line of ‘reasoning’ - other cults make the same claim.
So - while you can ‘believe’ it all day long - it is also not evidence of any kind.
So - while you’ve convinced me why YOU believe what you believe - you have yet to show me any evidence for why I should accept your belief as being valid.
The resurrection, in and of itself, strains credulity. Based on the available accounts, it would not quite have been impossible, but it represents a high bar. The inconsistencies in the accounts do the opposite of helping it clear the bar. The absence of any other reports or accounts damage the credibility more. At present, it sounds like a myth with no real support.
My claim that nearly all of the Apostles died as martyrs is not a novel claim, not is it remotely outlandish. I said “per Google”, you can take that how you want. If you are truly interested in how the Apostles died, you are in a better position to research that question than I am at the moment. What I posted from the google searches is in line with Church Tradition.
I am not the one who seems to be confused, because I have much more than your experiences to rely on…and I’m betting others can say the same.
Let me know when you have actual sources, because what you said is the approximate equivalent of claiming “The Library” as your cite.
You have more than my experiences to rely on?
You have your own experiences to rely on. Different from mine, to be sure, but can your experiences be quantified in terms of more or less than mine?
And that doesn’t even address qualitative differences. Whose experiences are of a better quality? Who can say?
Agreed, I think the things I listed are evidence.
Do they? That is not my experience. In any case, if they do make those type of claims, they fail the tests of logic/reason and real world application.
Agreed. I think I have provided more evidence than just my beliefs.
You’re right.
If you’re sincerely interested, I will see what evidence exists re: the death of the Apostles and post it when I get a chance.
I have whatever experiences you relate here and my own(and all the others I have encountered over the years, to boot). To claim that we have only your experiences to draw upon is a silly statement to make, in my opinion.
John was jailed for giving Herod flack for taking his brother’s wife.
James the brother of John is the only apostle whose martyrdom is recorded in the New Testament. Peter is was told he will die as a martyr and took steps that ensured that he fulfilled that prophecy.
Paul and others claims like “For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” – Acts 4:20
Simply don’t tend to agree with the other evidence. Sure they obviously suffered due to their actions, but those actions were not typically because they were Christian but because they were violating social norms because they were Christian. That doesn’t make these actions OK, but similar to Sikhs being persecuted, beaten and killed today or the social pressure and hate directed at people who take a knee during the National Anthem or who choose to not recite the National Anthem.
By your logic Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf who paid dearly for not standing for the Anthem believes what he believes, and thus it must be true so should we assume that Muslim is the correct religion?
Oh come on, that’s not what I meant. I meant our own experiences are all we have to rely on. Was my meaning not obvious?
Yes, I can agree with this completely.
However, my argument was not to state that their suffering proves anything about the validity of their claims. My argument was that their suffering is strong evidence to the fact that they believed something.
This argument of mine was to counter other posters who had asserted that the Apostles did not even know about or believe in a resurrection. I contended that that assertion is false. The fact that the Apostles were willing to suffer is evidence that they believed what they were teaching. I also provided evidence that the resurrection was an integral part of Christian teaching from the beginning and was not invented after the fact.
Nope - its all ‘beliefs’ all the way down - it is not evidence in and of itself - further, its ‘beliefs’ by other ‘believers’ - which is even more questionable when looking for the ‘truth’ of the matter.
Many do make the claim. You realize that since Protestants ‘split’ from Catholicism, they can make the same claim going back to Peter and that the Catholic church is no longer the ‘true’ church?
The irony - it burns - there is no logical or reasoned test that the Catholic church can pass either.
You have provided no evidence - you have provided church teachings by other believers - this is not evidence.
Early churchmen elucidating theological and ecclesiastical principles that are consistent with today’s Catholic teaching is most certainly evidence that today’s Catholic Church is the same institution founded by Jesus.
As a former Protestant, I would dispute that most Protestants bother with these type of claims. However, Protestant ecclesiology is largely non-sensical and does not hold water.
Example?
What kind of evidence would you expect or need? We can trace the succession of Popes all the way back to Peter. We can show that the Church’s teachings regarding faith and morality have remained unchanged and consistent for 2,000 years.
It still isn’t proof of that, perhaps they just hated the Romans and their faith was used as a tool or their actions were misinterpretation by people who did believe.
As stated before this is marginally a syllogism.
Here is a lot of Popes to see if your first claim is correct.