Believe is Shaken

  • Thread starter Thread starter James1990
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr #81
Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author
Click to expand...
Here is why such “modern scholars” fail:
“It makes man the judge of revelation, man becomes the Lord of Scriptures, since they are inspired and authoritative only if he judges them out of his own experience so to be. In this way the objective character of biblical authority, which is the matter to be elucidated, is in fact rendered problematical.” The Cambridge History of the Bible, p 318].
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
The Mark at whose house Jesus celebrated the Pasch.

Remember how in Mark it says that a young man followed after Jesus with a linen cloak.
The consensus among the fathers of the Church is that John Mark was that man!
Click to expand...
So then why don’t the other Gospels speak of this young man? As Thoro said most biblical scholars believe the Gospels were written well after the events described in them and by no means by the reported authors.
 
NM505StKate said:
So then why don’t the other Gospels speak of this young man? As Thoro said most biblical scholars believe the Gospels were written well after the events described in them and by no means by the reported authors.
Click to expand...
Most scholars today believe the gospels were written much earlier than previously thought.

All were probably written prior to 70 CE because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, something Jesus had predicted and something that would have been important to include.

“Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the Gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.”

carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom
 
NM505StKate said:
So then why don’t the other Gospels speak of this young man? As Thoro said most biblical scholars believe the Gospels were written well after the events described in them and by no means by the reported authors.
Click to expand...
Are you really a Catholic who doesn’t believe that Jesus existed?

I’m confused.

Could you please clarify?
 
About the Gospels. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels Here is a good link. As for the mentioning of the temple. It is quite possible that with the Gospels written well past the events they describe that words were added in to make it seem that the temple being destroyed is a prophecy. Just how Ishiah is commonly used but is taken out of context.
 
NM505StKate said:
About the Gospels. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels Here is a good link. As for the mentioning of the temple. It is quite possible that with the Gospels written well past the events they describe that words were added in to make it seem that the temple being destroyed is a prophecy. Just how Ishiah is commonly used but is taken out of context.
Click to expand...
Kate, how is it that you are a Catholic but don’t believe Jesus existed?
 
NM505StKate said:
About the Gospels. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels Here is a good link. As for the mentioning of the temple. It is quite possible that with the Gospels written well past the events they describe that words were added in to make it seem that the temple being destroyed is a prophecy. Just how Ishiah is commonly used but is taken out of context.
Click to expand...
Many people don’t recognize the temple prophecy. Had the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple occurred prior to the writing of the gospels, the writers of the gospels and their editors would have certainly pointed out that Jesus had correctly made that prophecy. They don’t. They were almost certainly all written prior to 70 CE, meaning some of Jesus’ contemporaries could have been alive and well and eyewitnesses to the events recorded.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Many people don’t recognize the temple prophecy. Had the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple occurred prior to the writing of the gospels, the writers of the gospels and their editors would have certainly pointed out that Jesus had correctly made that prophecy. They don’t. They were almost certainly all written prior to 70 CE, meaning some of Jesus’ contemporaries could have been alive and well and eyewitnesses to the events recorded.
Click to expand...
Proof please that shows they were written prior to 70 CE. Because a majority of scholars disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic but now I am questioning. I look up facts and data and see where they lead me.
 
NM505StKate said:
So then why don’t the other Gospels speak of this young man? As Thoro said most biblical scholars believe the Gospels were written well after the events described in them and by no means by the reported authors.
Click to expand...
It was Mark’s gospel! Mark inserted that story to say, “I was there!”
 
NM505StKate said:
I was raised Catholic but now I am questioning. I look up facts and data and see where they lead me.
Click to expand...
Ah. That’s fine. Questioning is always important.

Now, the question I have for you is: do you have the same standard you have for the existence of Jesus as you do for Julius Caesar? Do you have skepticism that Julius existed since we have no extant manuscripts attesting to his existence?
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
It was Mark’s gospel! Mark inserted that story to say, “I was there!”
Click to expand...
Again the Gospels are not written by their purposed authors. I would if there was a big enough reason to not believe that Ceasar didn’t exist.
 
NM505StKate said:
Proof please that shows they were written prior to 70 CE. Because a majority of scholars disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic but now I am questioning. I look up facts and data and see where they lead me.
Click to expand...
I already posted the link to what most mainstream scholars believe - the pre-70 CE date. It’s not me who came to that conclusion or wrote the article. I’m a professor of theology, who has worked and studied in Rome with the best biblical scholars in the world.

There will probably never exist definitive proof of the dates, but common sense tells us if they were written post-70 CE, they surely would have mentioned something as momentous and life-changing as the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple, an event Jesus predicted many years prior.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I already posted the link to what most mainstream scholars believe - the pre-70 CE date. It’s not me who came to that conclusion or wrote the article. I’m a professor of theology, who has worked and studied in Rome with the best biblical scholars in the world.

There will probably never exist definitive proof of the dates, but common sense tells us if they were written post-70 CE, they surely would have mentioned something as momentous and life-changing as the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple, an event Jesus predicted many years prior.
Click to expand...
Did he predict or was that added in by the authors to give credibility to their work?
 
NM505StKate said:
Again the Gospels are not written by their purposed authors. I would if there was a big enough reason to not believe that Ceasar didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
John was definitely written by John, one of Jesus’ inner circle, a man who knew Jesus intimately, and Mark was set down by someone who was a contemporary of Jesus, possibly Peter.

Do you believe in love? There is no “hard” evidence for love. One has to take it on faith.
 
NM505StKate said:
Did he predict or was that added in by the authors to give credibility to their work?
Click to expand...
Scholars have determined that Jesus accurately prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. More than once, actually.
 
PRmerger said:
Ah. That’s fine. Questioning is always important.

Now, the question I have for you is: do you have the same standard you have for the existence of Jesus as you do for Julius Caesar? Do you have skepticism that Julius existed since we have no extant manuscripts attesting to his existence?
Click to expand...
Or Alexander the Great. There is no proof that he existed. I believe he did, but there is no proof.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Pr Alexander the Great. There is no proof that he existed. I believe he did, but there is no proof.
Click to expand...
There you go.

I can imagine someone being at a cocktail party and announcing, “I don’t believe Alexander the Great existed.”

This would be the response most likely:

 
NM505StKate said:
Proof please that shows they were written prior to 70 CE. Because a majority of scholars disagree with you.

I was raised Catholic but now I am questioning. I look up facts and data and see where they lead me.
Click to expand...
I noticed you keep ‘stating’ that emboldened bit as though it’s a fact!

Heads up! It isn’t!!

You’re following / swallowing the opinions and conclusions of a ‘handful’, maybe 15 at best!!

The ‘majority of scholars’ in THIS century do not hold your position.
The ‘majority of scholars’ from the previous (20th) century do not hold your position.
The majority of scholars’ in the one previous (19th) also do not hold your position.
The ‘majority of scholars’ from the previous…awww, you get the picture!

There’s nothing wrong with questioning because our faith is not a blind faith. But if you appeal to a ‘majority’ for credence then be prepared to be crushed.

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top