Hostage to fear

[Spacetime]

About 55 years. Why would that be a problem? Is there some particular point that you think is thereby undermined?
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
Now, if you want to argue that Polycarp and Irenaeus were playing fast and loose with the facts of the gospel which had been handed down to them by John, then I'm interested to hear how you plan to make that case. Have you read the Martyrdom of Polycarp?

/sigh/  You're arguing my point and still failing to see it.  *What in my point would directly contradict Irenaeus that your church holds firm?*  Read Against All Heresies.  Even your Early Church Fathers devour catechism.  

What was the earliest known canonical document in the New Testament?  Who authored it?  

The Letter of James. James.

Really now?  There are three books that we can actually date to the year, with the smallest margin of error, in the new testament.  James................ not one of them.  Try again.

It's 1 Thessalonians.

What does it say about Christ's miracles?  

Nothing. It was a pastoral letter...not a biography.

Exactly.  Because those things weren't important.  Physical laws (reality) suspended... reasons to believe?  Not miracles apparently.

Then how long after that book was written were the gospels?

About eight years or so for the Gospel of Mark. And as I'm guessing you know by the way you have carefully phrased your questions, the Q document may have been in circulation before this. Additionally, Luke mentions in his prologue that many (not just Mark) had undertaken to write an account of all that Jesus had said and done. Finally, Matthew probably wrote his gospel in Aramaic first...if so, that would also have been done at a fairly early date.

Ahhh... cool.  So you believe in the "Q document".  What's *your* take on the documentary hypothesis?  Emphasis on *yours*. (no really this time... without copy/paste)

Finally, I'm intrigued by the idea that Matthew was a tax collector who probably had some skills with pen and ink. It may well have been the case that Jesus, like many of the religious teachers of his day, had students taking notes during his various sermons. Matthew would have been able to do this, and this may be one reason why he was chosen to be one of the Twelve.

Because all those notes survived.  Right.  They certainly wouldn't have been retained as relics of the tradition and kept as holy.     It's not like God preserves his word or anything.

But you must have a reason for asking all these questions...

...You see, the catholic church didn't make hell up.  It simply HAD to start taking things literally in order to make Christ divine.

You mean like the resurrection? Yep. Took that literally.
You mean like "this is my body...this is my blood" at the last Supper (and in John 6)? Yep. Took that literally.
You mean like priests have the authority to hear confessions and forgive sins? Yep. Took that literally.

And that part about stoning your own children?  

And regarding Sheol... What is *your* understanding of Sheol?

Sheol is the place of the dead. This is where Jesus went to liberate those who were waiting for their salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487

My favorite part of your post.  I ask you for your understanding... you copy/paste catechism.  

---

Might have been helpful?  Are you so far disconnected from your own species that you fail to see the certainty that a field guide from your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god would have done a better job of saving humanity?  Either you've never left your own country or you've done so on a mission from god with 10 very watchful and suspicious members of your church.

Dude, give me a break. Sure, God COULD have just put us all in some condominium somewhere in the future with lots of air conditioning and an all you can eat buffet. But then we'd all be robots with no free will. What would be the point?

Sorry, the rest of this is nonsense.

So... no need to respond to them, I suppose.  lol

Sorry... your arguments are nonsense.

You can't address the underlying issues of theodicy.  You've been prompted, but not even come close in your attempts.

Theodicy.  Address that.  Without copy/pasting.

Your arguments are flawed.  How do you know that today's ISIS suicide bombers don't *know* their deity is commanding them to their actions?   You simply don't know.  This is called argument from authority.  

Except your authority cannot be proven.  Sorry, mate... like I said, I'm sure you're a good dude... but you're more of the same.

---

BOOM!  And there it goes.  I was wondering when it would happen, but didn't suppose it would be this early.  Sacred tradition verses holy tradition.  Look it up.

I did. A long time ago. Did you? I'll do it for you:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Dude the most you can do is copy/paste from catechism?

*THIS* is exactly why I didn't go to the church looking for answers that I already knew the questions to.

Also... instead of running to catechism, try an interlineary.  Seriously.  You'll see your church MISSES THE POINT.  The words "holy" and "sacred", though translated the same in your Douay Rheims... meant ENTIRELY different things in ancient Canaan.

Again... get back to theodicy.  Especially how extra ecclesiam nulla salus relates to the catechism you love to quote when the Roman Catholic Church declares God's blood atonement was made for *all men*.

THAT is where your faith's problem is.  Theodicy.

Convince me on that, and you'll be helping.  Until then... you're just parroting.

---

Ummmmmm.... because I'm not omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent...  for starters??

/sigh/  You mean to tell me you *really* don't see the failure of logic here?

The man has a limited sphere of influence in what he can "allow"... God's sphere of influence is infinite (according to you).  So when we question God's indifference to human suffering... God says "meh... your fault!"  Your god...

...is so small.

I should get a medal for sifting through this post. Spacetime, please be a little more careful when quoting. I know it can get a little hairy with this much content, so it is okay to break it up into multiple posts.