Hostage to fear

[Randy Carson]

Theorectically if a person is a good Christian and true believer he wouldn't expect his favorite ethnocentric deity to feed starving children.  He would take steps to feed the starving children himself as stated in the fairy tale.  If you know there's a need and if you don't take steps to fill that need how can you expect mercy from your deity when you never followed his commandments about feeding and clothing the needy as stated in Matthew 25:42-46?

I'm not certain as to whether you are being sarcastic or serious, but there is much truth in what you post.

[Randy Carson]

Of course they would. But that IS the kind of miracle that Jesus performed, but despite that, you're walking away from Him. Why?

So God thought it relevant to reveal his truths in the form of miracles at one time, but not anymore?  

No, lots of times. Surely you've read the OT, also?

And as a what? former Catholic now? you've read the lives of the saints. Lots of miracles there.

You won't get very far with me along this line of reasoning.

We don't deserve this sort of proof because we've lived beyond the one generation of believers that were supposed to see the fulfillment of Christian prophecy in the first have of the 1st century?  If you're going to tell me that you believe that prophecy was fulfilled when the Jewish temple was destroyed... you will admit you're, at least in part, a preterist.  You very seriously don't want to go down the road of preterism, especially when it comes to your doctrine of hell.

Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:2
2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

But to answer your question directly... because he gave me secondary sources as a proof, which isn't proof of any kind.

I see. An interesting opinion.

But multiple eyewitnesses attested to the fact that it actually happened.

And who were they?  The anonymous authors of the gospels?  The ones whose names had to be written in the margins so that their authority could take seed, when they didn't write them in the first place?  Oh... holy tradition says "Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark".  Where's the evidence?

Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Full story here. I'm using the "hide" feature because I have already posted this in my thread entitled, "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". Just click on the "Show Content" button to see the evidence.

---

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools” which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?

Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”

Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.”

Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.

“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men – meaning men who were closely associated with them – and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.”

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?

The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels” that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.

Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Papias (d. ca. AD 100)

Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and was a disciple of  Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Of Matthew, Papias writes:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)

Origen (AD 185-254)

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

---

Now, if the disciples simply made up the story to win converts, why were they willing to die for something they knew was not true? When a gun was put to their heads, why didn't at least one of them say, "Okay, enough. I admit it...we made the whole thing up."
Lots of people are willing to die for what they believe in, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The disciples knew the resurrection was true, and they were willing to die for what they knew.

Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full.  You cannot appeal to that argument when so many Manichaeans (your church called them heretics) were willing to die for their beliefs also.  Let's turn up the "time" on this argument of yours and come to present day... fundamental Islamic suicide bombers.  They get credit too?  Your argument is ... fundamentally flawed.  /sigh/  Dude.  Stop.  I'd ask "can't you see it"... but I was you when I was in my infancy of understanding about the world around us.

Nope. You missed it, and your examples prove that you missed it.

Manichaeans died for their beliefs. Lots of people do that even today as you point out.

The disciples did not die for beliefs. The didn't believe. They KNEW.

They were in a position to know whether the whole resurrection thing was a hoax, correct?

Sitting around one night after the crucifixion...having a little too much wine...then Peter says, "Hey, guys, what if we were to simply tell everyone that we saw Jesus....?"

See where I'm going with this, yet, Spacetime?

If the disciples simply made up the resurrection out of thin air, then in their heart of hearts they knew it was all bull. Now comes crunch time. Sword to the neck for some. Death by stoning for others. Not one of them admitted the lie. They died for what they knew to be true. They were willing to die rather than deny what they had seen with their own eyes.

People don't die for something that they know is a lie.

I disagree. I think God has told us why. Through the scriptures, through Sacred Tradition*** and through the Church.

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

But several people in this forum have specifically expressed the resentment that they would feel if they knew God was watching them all the time. Christopher Hitchens was very clear about this.

But you're talking to me... and I'm not several people.  Thanks for noticing.

Just pointing out that lots of people including your new best friends here in the forum have admitted that even if God were to show up, they would not serve Him. Now, that's an intelligent position to take.

Sort of a field manual or textbook of some sort? Yeah, that might have been helpful.

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.

[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.

[Randy Carson]

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? [/qoute]

/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.  


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.


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


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)


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.


And that part about stoning your own children?  

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

Dude, you have GOT to fix the formatting. Responding to this will be next to impossible.

[Randy Carson]

And by the way, Spacetime, I have gone back to your OP, several of your other posts as well as my post #24 and your post #28.

Based on that and your most recent posts, I don't think I can offer anything else to you at this time.

However, I'm sure that you will enjoy chatting with your new found friends here in the forum (2 Tim 4:3).

By the way, I did go back to double-check the dating of James. At least one source that I found tonight confirmed what I had noted in my studies a few years ago: the idea that James was written prior to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) which was held in AD 49. This would make a date of AD 45-48 possible.

However, a second source pushed the date back as late as AD 60, and that would be make 1 Thessalonians the earliest canonical book of the NT.

FWIW.

[Minimalist]

2 Tim 4:3

How typical of you to quote from a forged piece of shit.

[robvalue]

That is some awesome stuff there space time!

I thought I knew a fair bit about the problems with Christianity by now, but you're throwing out stuff I never even heard of! As well as pointing the standard problems out that never, ever get honestly addressed. I think I'm going to learn a lot from you

[Randy Carson]

It's 1 Thessalonians.

After a few hours sleep, I think I will engage a few more of your points...not that I think they will actually help you at this point...but there are others lurking.

Last night, I acquiesced regarding 1 Thessalonians based upon a conservative view which is held by many. However, I'm also aware that a case may be made for a much earlier dating of the Gospels. I've posted this before elsewhere in the forum, so I'll hide it here as a courtesy to others. Just click "Show Content" to see it.

---

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

The New Testament fails to mention the seige of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.

Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:

Luke 10:6-7
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

1 Timothy 5:17-18New International Version (NIV)
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Paul quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, and refers to it as scripture! But there’s more. In his letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 53), Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles (accepted by even skeptical scholars) and the fact that what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggest that Luke was written prior to AD 53.

Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew 250 and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke wrote around AD 53.

In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. The first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul – following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition – had memorized and passed along verbatim:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony that can be dated to within 10 years of the event itself!

The bottom line?

Given that as few as 10 years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible but highly improbable that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.

---

Now, if the material present in that line of reasoning is even remotely correct with regard to the dating of the gospels, then there was a wealth of information about the miracles of Jesus in circulation long before the Epistle of James was written.

Finally, it might be noted that the Epistles of the NT were written to existing churches concerning pastoral issues and finer points of the developing theology of Christian faith. These were not the sorts of documents in which a RE-TELLING of Jesus' miracles was necessary.

[Randy Carson]

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.

As I just noted in my previous post, it was a pastoral letter to people who had ALREADY heard the miracle stories.

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.

That's a non sequitur. If Matthew or any of the other disciples took notes that were not inspired texts, then why would God preserve them?

Only later, when the full story could be told, did the Holy Spirit inspire the books which were later canonized.

If God did not think to preserve the "relics" of the original manuscripts, why do you think you gain any mileage by pointing out that He failed to preserve the disciples "class notes" - if they EVER existed?

See, there's a lot of empty bluster in your posts...

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

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?

You've read the NT and Paul's Letter to the Romans. Are we still under Law? And if not, why not?

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.

I understand what I posted. Do you?

And if I actually answered your question by posting a spot-on passage from the Catechism which eloquently answered you, why do you mock that response and then simply move on to your next talking point?

Why? Because you knew that I nailed the answer and there was no more sport to be found in pursuing that point.

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.

If there were, I would have responded. See how this works?

Sorry... your arguments are nonsense.

Then you should have no problem dismantling them. I'm waiting and your new-found friends can't wait to see what the "new guy" will say next. Please.

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.

I did address it, and what I posted was something I put together for another poster from my own study of the matter.

What do you expect? Original material? Then you'll have to come up with an original question, because what you're posting has been answered long ago.

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.  

Moving the goal posts, eh? Smart given the blunder of your first attempt.

Neither one of us believes that terrorists are hearing from God. Is this actually worth debating?

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?

No. But it may be the BEST I can do. You, former Catholic, may have some distant recollection of the idea that the Church is infallible. So, a solid answer from an infallible Church is better than a fallible answer from me.

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*.

It's available to all, yes. But it is not automatic...we must ACCEPT the gift.

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

Heh, no, dude...that's where YOUR faith problem is. That's what's caused you to auger yourself into the turf trying to wrap your mind around it. But that's not my problem. The real question is: what is your solution or answer to the problem? Rejecting God because you can't see anything else?

Who's mind is too small here? Yours or Gods?

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

Are you open to being convinced? Or do you just want me to throw out some more clay pigeons for you???

[Pyrrho]

Spacetime, just in case this is not perfectly clear to you, you are not obligated to respond to every post directed at you.  Of course, you may respond to anything that you wish.  And you are doing a great job.  But you don't have to post in response to everything, if you do not wish to do so.

As you can see, you are presently in a discussion with someone who uses plenty of irrelevant verbiage, which can serve as a distraction from the main topic.  It is an argument style designed to both wear out one's opponent, as it is tedious to read long-winded irrelevant bullshit, and to misdirect someone away from a losing point.