What is the accessable and repeatable standard of truth?

amci · Apr 26, 2021

Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

I'm sure there are other theories as well.

How do you test cases in which all of these theories produce contradictory answers to the same question?

I made sure to include "accessable" and "repeatable" to rule out most "religious experiences". I'm not asking a meta-epistemological question that can be answered with "Christ is the truth" or "genuinely experiencing the risen Christ".

Thank you.

Albion · Apr 26, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

Actually, you've created too many divisions there. Essentially, there are only two "camps" when it comes to all but the most fringe-like churches.

First, there is Scripture, which is considered to be divine revelation by just about all Christians, the word of God. Those who base essential doctrine upon Scripture only are one of the two groups. In addition, there are some issues as concerning how to understand the Scriptures. Some say it speaks for itself, others invoke the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and others feel that the consensus of the Christian church throughout its history (called Tradition most often) and also Reason help in the process of understanding.

In addition to that group, we have the "Catholic" type of church--the Roman church, Eastern Christianity, and some others. The matter of Tradition is made to be authoritative in itself. If the Church has always believed X, then the belief is that it represents guidance by the Holy Ghost (who, according to Christ himself, would guide the Church). As you mentioned, Tradition is judged somewhat differently by the Orthodox Eastern and Roman Catholic Church. However, it is the same basic concept.

Tolworth John · Apr 26, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

All branches of Christianity agree to the essential truths of the gospel.
That mankind is sinfull and needs to accept/receive salvation through faith in Jesus.

Yes there are different stresses placed on how we interact with Jesus, some saying there has to be conformity to certain rituals, others certain experiences.

Rather than getting bogged down in doctrin investigate the person, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Is the Bible accounts accurate and trust worthy?

Check out coldcasechristianity, Lee Strobel's the case for Christ, Dr habermass's YouTube or three on the resurrection.
If logic is your thing then the reasonable faith web site and the articles and debates by William lane Craig are for you.
You are seeking Jesus, not the wrapping paper.

HTacianas · Apr 26, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

I'm sure there are other theories as well.

How do you test cases in which all of these theories produce contradictory answers to the same question?

I made sure to include "accessable" and "repeatable" to rule out most "religious experiences". I'm not asking a meta-epistemological question that can be answered with "Christ is the truth" or "genuinely experiencing the risen Christ".

Thank you.

Sometimes it's not a matter of what is "truth", rather what is "proper". But the answer to your question is found in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. That is where decisions regarding questions within Christianity are asked and answered. Jesus said to his apostles:

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

The meaning is not merely "two" but "two out of three". A majority vote. That is a majority vote of the apostles. The first exercise of that authority was the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts when it was decided by the apostles that gentiles need not be circumcized. That authority has been handed down through their successors, their successors being the bishops of the Councils.

com7fy8 · Apr 26, 2021

amci said:
Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

We grow and mature in our ability to be enlightened.

FutureAndAHope · May 4, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

I'm sure there are other theories as well.

How do you test cases in which all of these theories produce contradictory answers to the same question?

I made sure to include "accessable" and "repeatable" to rule out most "religious experiences". I'm not asking a meta-epistemological question that can be answered with "Christ is the truth" or "genuinely experiencing the risen Christ".

Thank you.

What I would say is we need to return to the words of Jesus and the prophets. Not to rely upon modern denominations and interpretations. A lot of the established churches teach false doctrines because time and societal pressures have corrupted them. The only way to get a real understanding of God is to know the scriptures for yourself. This is not to say you should not attend a church, but just every church has some wrong teaching. I attend a church, but I do not agree with everything taught, but I would not leave it because it primarily teaches truth, and being around other believers is important.

aiki · May 7, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

I'm sure there are other theories as well.

How do you test cases in which all of these theories produce contradictory answers to the same question?

As a Protestant believer, the simplest, best answer seems to me to be: what best aligns with the teaching of Scripture. All of the denominations you've mentioned, to one degree or another, acknowledge the necessity of the Bible to the doctrines and practices of the Christian faith. This seems to me to tacitly, at least, place the Bible as the one universally-accepted standard by which all Christians from all stripes of the faith may assess the correctness of the distinctives of their particular denomination and the answers to various questions those distinctives may produce.

This is certainly what the Bible indicates about itself.

Psalm 1:1-3
1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.

Psalm 119:9-11
9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word.
10 With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments.
11 Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.

Psalm 119:102-105
102 I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Matthew 4:4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Sometimes, too, a variation in answer between denominations is not so much a matter of contradiction but of difference of emphasis or perspective that is actually ultimately complementary. This is the case in the matter of the Atonement. Dr. William Lane Craig has recently produced a book on the Atonement where he shows that the various Atonement perspectives, centered around Penal Substitutionary Atonement, produce a fuller conception of the doctrine than any one perspective would do. Rather than the perspectives countering one another, Craig shows that, in many respects, they complement one another.

amci · May 11, 2021

Tolworth John said:
All branches of Christianity agree to the essential truths of the gospel.

Yes, but when asked to demonstrate how or why something is true, there are a variety of standards. Some of which don't answer the questions.

Rather than getting bogged down in doctrin investigate the person, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Is the Bible accounts accurate and trust worthy?

Check out coldcasechristianity, Lee Strobel's the case for Christ, Dr habermass's YouTube or three on the resurrection.
If logic is your thing then the reasonable faith web site and the articles and debates by William lane Craig are for you.
You are seeking Jesus, not the wrapping paper.

Thank you for the recommendations.
I have looked at most of these things in the past. Ultimately, I tend to end up with more specific questions about the reliability of various type of accounts. I haven't found anything yet that provides sufficient answers.

Thanks for your response.

Tolworth John · May 13, 2021

amci said:
I haven't found anything yet that provides sufficient answers.

Or are your requirements unreasonable.

For a simple examination of the reliability and accuracy of the gospels check out the coldcasechristianity web site.
It is a cold case detectives examination of the gospels in the same way he would examine a cold case murder.

If you won't do that you have one question to present an answer to.

Did Jesus rise from the dead?
What evidence do you have for not believing he did?

amci · May 13, 2021

HTacianas said:
Sometimes it's not a matter of what is "truth", rather what is "proper". But the answer to your question is found in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
...
That authority has been handed down through their successors, their successors being the bishops of the Councils.

That system is coherent and has historical momentum, but how do you convince someone who has issues with the source documents of Christianity? The various councils used scriptures and other sources to substantiate their claims.

Additionally, what of the councils that disagreed with other councils and still have modern followings? Ephesus II and III? Lyons II and Florence? Crete? There must be a standard used to judge the products of a council in the same way there needs to be a standard to judge the content of scriptural texts.

amci · May 13, 2021

aiki said:
... This seems to me to tacitly, at least, place the Bible as the one universally-accepted standard by which all Christians from all stripes of the faith may assess the correctness of the distinctives of their particular denomination and the answers to various questions those distinctives may produce.

Sometimes, too, a variation in answer between denominations is not so much a matter of contradiction but of difference of emphasis or perspective that is actually ultimately complementary. This is the case in the matter of the Atonement. Dr. William Lane Craig has recently produced a book on the Atonement where he shows that the various Atonement perspectives, centered around Penal Substitutionary Atonement, produce a fuller conception of the doctrine than any one perspective would do. Rather than the perspectives countering one another, Craig shows that, in many respects, they complement one another.

What of Deuterocanonical texts? How do you establish a canon of scripture in the first place in order to have scripture as a standard?

amci · May 13, 2021

Tolworth John said:
Or are your requirements unreasonable.

I don't think they are. If Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate, died and was resurrected, and his death and resurrection have directly impactful consequences on the world and myself, I want to know about that. I would want some way of confirming some parts of each of these claims:

Finding a way to observe or interact with God thereby confirming God's existence.
Finding a way to know that Jesus of Nazareth is/was God incarnate and/or a divinely appointed/inspired person.
Having reasonable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead and that resurrection was supernatural and intentional.
Finding a way to know that Jesus's resurrection had important metaphysical consequences.

So far I have:

Accounts that are unable to be explored in additional detail in the form of early Christian writings and writings of Roman observers of the early Christian movement.
Later philosophical explorations and continuations of the ideas developed in the early Christian movement.
Accounts of mystical and otherwise spiritual experiences, both historical and modern.

For a simple examination of the reliability and accuracy of the gospels check out the coldcasechristianity web site.
It is a cold case detectives examination of the gospels in the same way he would examine a cold case murder.

I bought the book. I haven't gotten that far into it yet. There are somethings I disagree with already, as I think they are mistakes both historically and logically. For example, having to explain "the empty tomb" requires that burial in a tomb is the most likely outcome from the evidence. I'm not sure I am convinced of that.

If you won't do that you have one question to present an answer to.

Did Jesus rise from the dead?
What evidence do you have for not believing he did?

I don't know. It's unlikely that it happened. It is more likely that people within his movement thought he did in some spiritual way. After a generation had passed, when the events were written down, the notion that he was resurrected may have developed into a more concrete physical thing and with the idea of his ascension into heaven explaining what happened to him afterward.

We don't have enough evidence of what happened for me to evaluate whether it's possible or impossible. There should be something more convincing if this resurrection was a planned and universally important thing.

amci · May 13, 2021

Is there anyway to post a poll on this topic? I am curious as to what is considered the most foundational source of information or confirmation by everyone.

Scriptures?
Mystical/Religious Experiences?
Church Councils?
Logical Arguments?
Archaeological Evidence?

I will note that these can be mutually dependent and confirming, but there has to be a way into the cycle of confirmation somewhere.

mmarco · May 13, 2021

amci said:
If Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate, died and was resurrected, and his death and resurrection have directly impactful consequences on the world and myself, I want to know about that. I would want some way of confirming some parts of each of these claims:

Finding a way to observe or interact with God thereby confirming God's existence.

Finding a way to know that Jesus of Nazareth is/was God incarnate and/or a divinely appointed/inspired person.

Having reasonable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead and that resurrection was supernatural and intentional.

Finding a way to know that Jesus's resurrection had important metaphysical consequences.

The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer.
Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs; I begin with the existence of God.

Since I am a physicist, I would like to explain a couple of arguments based on a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges. The extraordinary success of the laws of physics in predicting sistematically with great accuracy natural phenomena, reveals a fundamental property of the universe, which is its close correspondence with abstract mathematical structures, to the point that abstract mathematical structures are the only means to identify general principles able to account coherently for the variety of natural phenomena. The physical reality manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical structures (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, according to modern science, the building blocks of the universe are not particles, but quantum fields, which are abstract mathematical structures which prperties are abstract mathematical properties. This close correspondence with abstract mathematical structures represents the most fundamental and relevant information that science provides about the nature of the universe and the physical reality.

On the other hand, mathematical structures are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical structure can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God. Atheism does not account for the most important and fundamental infirmation that science provides about the physical reality (i.e. its mathematical modellability) and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irreducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and that cerebral processes cannot be identified as the cause of consciousness. The basic assumption of materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) is then contradicted by this fundamental scientific result, i.e. the irreducibility of consciousness to cerebral processes. This result represents the most strong argument in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

Once you come to understand that God exists, how can we understand that the true God is the God of Jesus Christ?
I think that the strongest argument supporting the divine nature of Christ is that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and merciful, that God is near to us and that we are so precious for Him so that we may totally trust Him, open our heart to Him and let Him change our existence in true life and true love.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us from a sinful existence. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what the true meaning of love is.

ViaCrucis · May 14, 2021

amci said:
Christians have various standards for determining what is true when it comes to doctrine:

Some protestants say only what is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the sincere reader.

Charismatics may say something similar, but also require a significant emotional experience.

Other protestants have Scripture centered traditions of interpretation that require situating the Bible in the history and experience of the church.

Catholics have the Scripture, tradition, and magisterium model.

Orthodox see Scripture, teachings of the church, practices, and history of experiences as a unified whole "Tradition".

I'm sure there are other theories as well.

How do you test cases in which all of these theories produce contradictory answers to the same question?

I made sure to include "accessable" and "repeatable" to rule out most "religious experiences". I'm not asking a meta-epistemological question that can be answered with "Christ is the truth" or "genuinely experiencing the risen Christ".

Thank you.

In Lutheranism we speak of Scripture as the norma normans non normata or just Norma Normans for short, it translates to roughly to "the ruling norm that is unruled", that is, Scripture establishes the norm, standard, or rule of Christian faith and practice; and it is chief in doing so (there is no standard higher than Scripture). We also speak of the Norma Normata or "the ruled rule" or "the ruled standard"--the Ecumenical Creeds, the Lutheran Confessions--these are standards of Christian faith, but they are standards and the norm which are ruled over by, governed by, Scripture. Scripture rules over the Creeds and Confessions, and thus these are to be believed as true confession and standards of our faith and practice as Christians.

Of course there are many things which Scripture, the Creeds, the Confessions, etc don't talk about, and thus there are many questions that have no definite answers. Lutheranism recognizes that those things which are neither expressly commanded or taught; and which are not forbidden or condemned, constitute adiaphora, Greek for roughly, "indifferent things", that is, stuff that doesn't necessarily matter. An example of an adiaphoron might be what kind of bread must be used in the Eucharist, does it have to be wheat bread? Is gluten free bread okay, especially for those with wheat allergies? Fundamentally, it doesn't matter, and differences in practice and opinion on such matters are going to exist, not only in the same Lutheran denomination or national body, but probably even within the same congregation.

In my own ELCA, for example, I've moved a couple times over the last decade, and so have been part of several ELCA congregations; and in two the bread for the Eucharist was unleavened, and in one leavened bread was used. In the same way, two used a sweet kosher wine, and one uses what appears to be a more standard red wine. These things just don't matter, what matters is that there is bread and wine. Though you will find Lutherans with strong opinions on some matters, for example, it's not uncommon for Lutherans to feel strongly that the bread for the Eucharist should be unleavened, which is traditional in the Western practice (whereas the Eastern Churches have traditionally used leavened bread).

So if something is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the Creeds and the Confessions which provide--what we might call--the authoritative* interpretation of Scripture, then from a Lutheran perspective it would be in error. In other cases there may be legitimate differences of opinion on certain matters, and then questions and debates over interpretation are likely to follow, how those matters get resolved (if they get resolved) is going to be different depending on all sorts of circumstances. There is plenty of room for differences of opinion in Lutheranism, because there are a lot of things that we simply can't say dogmatically because we don't know, God hasn't told us; and if God is totally silent, then we need to be silent too--not as in expressing opinion or speculation isn't allowed, but we can't dogmatically say something based on speculation or opinion.

*(With the caveat that Lutherans do not believe the Creeds or Confessions are divinely inspired or "infallible", only that they are authoritative as biblically informed standards of faith).

-CryptoLutheran

aiki · May 15, 2021

amci said:
What of Deuterocanonical texts? How do you establish a canon of scripture in the first place in order to have scripture as a standard?

In the case of the New Testament canon, the Early Church recognized those letters and Gospels that were divinely-inspired, copying and distributing them widely within itself, and by prolonged and prominent use, settled upon the canon. Only after some three centuries, provoked by challenges rising from Marcionism and Gnosticism, were formal statements issued from Church leaders acknowledging the long-accepted canon. The process of coming to this point of a clearly-declared and closed canon was very organic, depending upon a natural sifting process that slowly but surely isolated those texts the Early Church came to recognize as divinely-inspired from the multitude of other letters and religious writings moving about within the Church at the time.

The apocryphal books are, as I understand it, only included by some denominations in the canon by happenstance:

"The Roman Catholic version of the Bible includes several books in the Old Testament canon that were not part of the canon acknowledged by the Council of Jamnia. These books are known as the Apocrypha:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
1 & 2 Maccabees
The Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah)
Additions to Daniel (including the Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Susannah, and the Song of Three Holy Children)

Although there are 250 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament, not one of them is from any apocryphal book. All the books of the Tanakh except for Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and Esther are quoted in the New Testament. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are a number of commentaries on the Old Testament, which, although they refer to virtually all of the Old Testament books, mention none of the apocryphal texts. As well, except for 1 and 2 Maccabees, none of the apocryphal books are historically-verifiable and none of them originated in Israel. Except for the books of the Maccabees, all of the apocryphal books were originally written in Greek and are, essentially, fiction. These books would not have found their way into any scriptural canon if the Jews of Alexandria, with whom the apocryphal books were popular, had not included them in a Greek version of the Old Testament – the Septuagint – which they had been commissioned by Ptolemy Philadephus to make for his library."

Tolworth John · May 17, 2021

amci said:
We don't have enough evidence of what happened for me to evaluate whether it's possible or impossible.

Sorry we do have enough evidence.
How often do the dead return to life?

Look at the gospel accounts, look at the evidence o embarrassing incidents, they are indications of honest accurate eyewitness accounts..
Now explain why men who fled when Jesus was arrested will refuse to change there behaviour.

amci · Jun 6, 2021

aiki said:
In the case of the New Testament canon, the Early Church recognized those letters and Gospels that were divinely-inspired, copying and distributing them widely within itself, and by prolonged and prominent use, settled upon the canon.

What standards were used to recognize divine inspiration of a text?

amci · Jun 6, 2021

Tolworth John said:
Sorry we do have enough evidence.

To say this is to say that there are additional written primary sources or archaeological evidences that attest to Jesus's resurrection. I'm not aware of such things. I'm only aware of the books of the New Testament. All later writings I'm aware of aren't primary sources.

How often do the dead return to life?

I don't know. If the answer was "never", then that would be a point against the believability of the gospel accounts. If that answer was "rarely/occasionally", then we would need more evidence about the effects and circumstances of Jesus's resurrection to properly evaluate whether it was the most important resurrection ever.

Look at the gospel accounts, look at the evidence o embarrassing incidents, they are indications of honest accurate eyewitness accounts..

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Those details might be accurate, but other details may not be. There's no reason to believe that a single gospel account is the recollection of a single eyewitness. They could be compilations of stories and ideas from multiple people.

Now explain why men who fled when Jesus was arrested will refuse to change there behaviour.

They were convinced of something. We don't know how many were and were not.

Furthermore, we don't know that they did ultimately. There's a lot of stories about the martyrdoms of the apostles, but there's is no way to confirm those claims. I have no idea if Peter stayed faithful but Thomas didn't. I have no better evidence for this than whether Thomas visited India, China, and Indonesia, claims found the same generation of 2nd and 3rd century texts.

Gary987 · Jun 6, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
What I would say is we need to return to the words of Jesus and the prophets. Not to rely upon modern denominations and interpretations. A lot of the established churches teach false doctrines because time and societal pressures have corrupted them. The only way to get a real understanding of God is to know the scriptures for yourself. This is not to say you should not attend a church, but just every church has some wrong teaching. I attend a church, but I do not agree with everything taught, but I would not leave it because it primarily teaches truth, and being around other believers is important.

What is the accessable and repeatable standard of truth?

Active Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Just me

Regular Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Confessional Lutheran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Grace to Keep Pace

Similar threads