Bible Facts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NHInsider said:
D-R is a translation. As such the text does not say anything about the authors of the Gospels any more than any other translation.

The position of the Church is that the names traditionally assigned to the Gospels are those of their “authors” and I don’t dispute that. That would make Luke the writer of Luke, and that’s perfectly possible as he would probably have been able to write, although even at that he would more likely have used a scribe - but he was not an eyewitness as he says in his opening, he was a researcher/compiler. Early documents recorded that Mark wrote his gospel based on what he had heard from Peter and with Peter’s approval. Peter, obviously, was an eyewitness, Mark was just a teenager at the time of the crucifixion who went on to be an assistant to both Paul (with whom he had a falling-out) and then Peter. So even in the traditional attribution, he was not an eyewitness to most of what he recorded. That leaves John and Matthew. As a taxpayer, Matthew may have had scribal skills, as a fisherman, John almost certainly did not. But even if the words were actually committed to parchment by someone who had heard Matthew or John, that doesn’t mean they aren’t the “authors” in the ancient world.

My point, however, would be that even if the accounts weren’t put into writing until the next generation, that doesn’t mean they weren’t true.
Click to expand...
Were Matthew or John eyewitnesses?
 
Faith1960 said:
How do you know that the Gospels, Acts, etc. are facts and not stories passed down from one person to another?
Click to expand...
They are stories - some of them historical and some of them teaching tools. They are not eyewitness accounts. If you really want to investigate this, read some real church documents - I highly recommend the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels which is available online (there is also an interesting commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, the english translator). You might lso want to look into Dei Verbum.
 
patg said:
They are stories - some of them historical and some of them teaching tools. They are not eyewitness accounts. If you really want to investigate this, read some real church documents - I highly recommend the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels which is available online (there is also an interesting commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, the english translator). You might lso want to look into Dei Verbum.
Click to expand...
John specifically states in his gospel he was an eyewitness.
 
Faith1960 said:
Paul personally knew the Twelve Apostles, didn’t he?
Click to expand...
Some of them, certainly.
Faith1960 said:
Were Matthew or John eyewitnesses?
Click to expand...
Yes.
patg said:
They are stories - some of them historical and some of them teaching tools. They are not eyewitness accounts. If you really want to investigate this, read some real church documents - I highly recommend the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels which is available online (there is also an interesting commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J, the english translator). You might lso want to look into Dei Verbum.
Click to expand...
It’s potentially misleading to say they are not eyewitness accounts given the difference between modern and ancient chronicles.

INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF THE GOSPELS:
X. This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing–for it soon happened that many tried “to compile a narrative of the things”[21] which concerned the Lord Jesus–was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability[22] of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose.
Click to expand...
Written in 1964 and still a good summary of the process.
 
341 Peter 5:1
The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come:

1 John 1:2
For the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us:

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

[21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. [23] This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? [24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
 
Faith1960 said:
How do you know that the Gospels, Acts, etc. are facts and not stories passed down from one person to another?
Click to expand...
because the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit, has passed these down as inspired books, so we have the Word of Christ himself that what she gives us is true, since he promised that his Spirit would assure this.
 
Faith1960 said:
The NAB and I have a NAB Study Bible. And before you say anything negative about my Bible, let me say that I like it.
Click to expand...
The commentary is the issue:

DESTROYING THE BIBLE

…
The is radically flawed because it
approaches Scripture in a way alien to the true Christian approach.
Its spirit is secular rather than Christian. Jesus Christ, the way,
the truth, and the life, is seen as a teacher who didn’t even know
the Christian Church would come into existence. With that assessment
of Christ, it is not surprising when the commentators ignore the
authority of the evangelists, the fathers, the doctors, and the
Popes.

Yet this book is widely regarded as a sound work produced by some of
the best Catholic scholars. Carlo Cardinal Martini of Milan, in his
foreword to this edition, praises it as “born of the patient and
devoted dedication of the best of English-speaking Catholic
exegetes.” I hope he didn’t read it before writing that!
 
Because God knew these arguments would come; and that is why we have the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus instituted !😃

God Bless
:coffee:
 
The faithful believed Jesus that He would return and so they waited for Him- it wasn’t until the second (Gospel of John is dated to around 60 BC) generation that they began to write down what Jesus said and did- it was from oral tradition that the New Testament came into being. This is why the Roman Catholic church says that Scripture and Tradition are appropriate as St. Paul says “Remember the Scripture and Tradition we have taught you”.
 
Paul’s writings are one of the best reasons to know that Jesus was truly the son of God. Paul was alive when Peter and James and many other apostles and disciples were alive, and though he was not an eye witness, he heard firsthand the stories of Christ. Paul writings are the earliest writings about Christ. Paul was once a persecutor of Christians but when he was called by Jesus, he immediately became one the biggest leaders and missionaries of the new Christian movement. How someone could suddenly have this happen to him, is truly miraculous. LIkewise all of Jesus’ followers were willing to die in his name. Peter was crucified, Stephen was stoned to death, etc., etc.

Also I have heard that the Shroud of Turin may not be from the Middle Ages after all. There was some sort of bacteria on it that changed the carbon dating.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Paul’s writings are one of the best reasons to know that Jesus was truly the son of God. Paul was alive when Peter and James and many other apostles and disciples were alive, and though he was not an eye witness, he heard firsthand the stories of Christ. Paul writings are the earliest writings about Christ. Paul was once a persecutor of Christians but when he was called by Jesus, he immediately became one the biggest leaders and missionaries of the new Christian movement. How someone could suddenly have this happen to him, is truly miraculous. LIkewise all of Jesus’ followers were willing to die in his name. Peter was crucified, Stephen was stoned to death, etc., etc.

Also I have heard that the Shroud of Turin may not be from the Middle Ages after all. There was some sort of bacteria on it that changed the carbon dating.
Click to expand...
My understanding it was pollen form plants found in the Middle East and the weave of the cloth.
 
Faith1960 said:
Were Matthew and John, the writers attributed to writing the Gospels, the same Matthew and John who were two of the 12 Apostles?
Click to expand...
Yes. John is also the author of the 3 letters by that name and, traditionally, the book of Revelation (I accept the tradition but some do not, noting that the book itself does not claim to be by the Apostle.)
 
NHInsider said:
D-R is a translation. As such the text does not say anything about the authors of the Gospels any more than any other translation.

The position of the Church is that the names traditionally assigned to the Gospels are those of their “authors” and I don’t dispute that. That would make Luke the writer of Luke, and that’s perfectly possible as he would probably have been able to write, although even at that he would more likely have used a scribe - but he was not an eyewitness as he says in his opening, he was a researcher/compiler. Early documents recorded that Mark wrote his gospel based on what he had heard from Peter and with Peter’s approval. Peter, obviously, was an eyewitness, Mark was just a teenager at the time of the crucifixion who went on to be an assistant to both Paul (with whom he had a falling-out) and then Peter. So even in the traditional attribution, he was not an eyewitness to most of what he recorded. That leaves John and Matthew. As a taxpayer, Matthew may have had scribal skills, as a fisherman, John almost certainly did not. But even if the words were actually committed to parchment by someone who had heard Matthew or John, that doesn’t mean they aren’t the “authors” in the ancient world.

My point, however, would be that even if the accounts weren’t put into writing until the next generation, that doesn’t mean they weren’t true.
Click to expand...
So to sum it up:
  1. Matthew and John were among the Twelve Apostles.
  2. They may or may not have actually written the Gospels themselves. If they didn’t “write” them, they gave an oral account to someone who did write it down.
  3. Mark was an assistant to Paul and Peter who was an eyewitness to some or none of the events of Jesus.
  4. Mark received most of his information from Paul and Peter.
  5. Luke wasn’t an eyewitness to the events of Jesus but was handed down the information orally, then wrote it down.
Is that right? Did Mark know the other Apostles? Did Luke?
 
Faith1960 said:
So to sum it up:
  1. Matthew and John were among the Twelve Apostles.
  2. They may or may not have actually written the Gospels themselves. If they didn’t “write” them, they gave an oral account to someone who did write it down.
  3. Mark was an assistant to Paul and Peter who was an eyewitness to some or none of the events of Jesus.
  4. Mark received most of his information from Paul and Peter.
  5. Luke wasn’t an eyewitness to the events of Jesus but was handed down the information orally, then wrote it down.
Is that right? Did Mark know the other Apostles? Did Luke?
Click to expand...
I keep calling the original Twelve “Apostles,” but were they apostles or disciples? What’s the difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top