Apostles infallible?

[Longfellow]

I don’t think that the apostles became infallible after Jesus died. They constantly misunderstood what he said and did, and I don’t see any reason to think that changed after he died.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don’t think that the apostles became infallible after Jesus died. They constantly misunderstood what he said and did, and I don’t see any reason to think that changed after he died.

Well, I think that there is some sort of confusion generated by the word 'apostle'.
I don't think that the disciples of Jesus misunderstood.

Paul (Saul) is known as an apostle .. becuse he had a change of heart, and became a follower
after Jesus' ascension.
It is very likely that Paul "misunderstood" some things .. because he was not a disciple.

 

[Longfellow]

Well, I think that there is some sort of confusion generated by the word 'apostle'.
I don't think that the disciples of Jesus misunderstood.

Paul (Saul) is known as an apostle .. becuse he had a change of heart, and became a follower
after Jesus' ascension.
It is very likely that Paul "misunderstood" some things .. because he was not a disciple.

By “apostles” I mean Paul and the twelve. In the gospels, all of the people who follow Jesus are called “disciples.”

(later) I see that possibly a few others are called “apostles,” and that one passage can be read as “disciples” meaning the twelve, so it isn’t as clear as I thought.

 

[koinonos]

I don’t think that the apostles became infallible after Jesus died. They constantly misunderstood what he said and did, and I don’t see any reason to think that changed after he died.

But there were not infallible even before the resurrection. Consider, that they were arguing who will be the first. But it does not annule the Divine Truth of the Gospel.

 

[Thomas]

I don’t think that the apostles became infallible after Jesus died. They constantly misunderstood what he said and did, and I don’t see any reason to think that changed after he died.

That being the case, then assuming the Twelve were unreliable, and that the wider group of disciples were even moreso, as Jesus never explained Himself to them as He did the Twelve ... then we're into a whole wasteland if ifs, buts and maybes.

John in his gospel states that they didn't really get it until after the resurrection. Clearly none of the followers expected Him to be raised from the dead.

So not until after the resurrection did they begin to 'see the light', as it were ...

 

[Longfellow]

That being the case, then assuming the Twelve were unreliable, and that the wider group of disciples were even moreso, as Jesus never explained Himself to them as He did the Twelve ... then we're into a whole wasteland if ifs, buts and maybes.

John in his gospel states that they didn't really get it until after the resurrection. Clearly none of the followers expected Him to be raised from the dead.

So not until after the resurrection did they begin to 'see the light', as it were ...

I might have given you the wrong impression about how I think about Paul. When Paul looks like he's disagreeing with me, I don't start by assuming that he's wrong, and I'm not sure that he is wrong about anything, but I'm not excluding the possibility that he could be wrong about some things. In fact I don't see him claiming that he's never wrong. For example, I don't think that he's promoting penal substitution, but if he were, I would still not believe it. I don't think that any of his Christology is wrong, widely misunderstood but not wrong, but I'm not excluding the possible that it might be wrong in some ways. For example, if he thought that Jesus was God or the son of God in some physical way, I would disagree.