Bible truths, or not!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost4words
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, you have been reading really critical things.
The truth is that St Paul’s epistles are not 100 years after Christ. They literally cannot be, for St Paul wrote them. Not all of St Paul’s epistles are in the Bible, either.

We can know that the Gospels are not so late. Luke is written by the same person who wrote Acts (we know this), and the ending of Acts strongly implies it was written ~61 AD. Look where it stops. Paul’s martyrdom would have fit into the narrative very well, yet it just doesn’t include it.
So, that’s about 30 years. Very soon. Luke records miracles, Mark records miracles, in fact they all do. Don’t know where you’re getting the “no miracles until…” from.

Q is a HYPOTHETICAL document. That means there’s no physical evidence it actually exists. And though scholarly consensus is that Mark is first, the people who were very close to the time period and might actually know (as opposed to our guesses 2000 years later), say Matthew was first, and in a different language.
 
Thing is, nobody knows who really wrote Shakespeare! Nobody!

Think about it. The fake gospels of the gnostics, they named them after apostles. Those in the Church knew they were fake.

Think about the synoptic Gospels. Mark and Luke are not apostles. They were students of apostles, other writings of the early Church attest to this, and the early Church knew they were true documents. Matthew was the tax collector, who would have been disliked among the apostles. And yet again, the Church at the time accepted the gospel and didn’t deny who wrote it.
 
Lost4words said:
Thing is, nobody really knows who wrote the books in the NT! Nobody!
Click to expand...
Ya know I see this argument quite a bit but there is zero evidence to support it. Every manuscript of the gospels we have, even the oldest, give the authors of the gospels as we have them. Do some research on it. I assure you that you will not find a single early manuscript that doesn’t attribute an author. Also most of the Epistles list the author in the letters. The truth is anonymous manuscripts like Hebrews are the minority. Plus we have all sorts of testimony from the early church identifying the authors of the New Testament. Your statement is laid on a foundation of sand my friend. The new testament is a historically reliable collection of books.
 
Lost4words said:
Heresy against what?
Click to expand...
You have questioned that the Catholic Church is not the true Church and you have questioned that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Rejection or obstinate doubt about these is heresy.
 
Only heresy if the CC is the church that Jesus started!
 
Last edited:
What do you believe as a Catholic? Similar to other posters or outside the CC?
 
I truly believe that the CC is the church of Christ.

What i doubt, is if what has been assembled in the Bible is 100% truth. I feel as though bits are missing. Other books etc.

I tend to think that the early church had the wrong agenda in that it wasnt just about having a level playing field of beliefs but a way in which only one church could make sure it had the biggest wealth and following than any other!

I love the church, i do. I feel nervous about some aspects of it and a gut feeling that scripture is missing other works etc.
 
Last edited:
How would you know what books and bits were missing?

You need to do some good reading on how the Canon of Scripture was determined.
 
I know how it was determined. Did they determine right? They say the Holy Spirit guided the people who compiled it. How do they know that?
 
jordanmhall said:
Matthew and Luke just copied him and some other source people call Q (by the way we don’t know where Q is or who wrote it).
Click to expand...
I am no theologian/academic on the subject by any sense of the word so I find this fascinating. I had no idea.

How do they know that? Honest question - I am all ears.
 
Last edited:
Q is theoretical. There is so much consistency regarding the stories and words of Christ that it is assumed there must have been a universal source where this information came from.

Some Thoughts on Q

No, not that annoying guy from Star Trek. And not the gadget guy from James Bond. In biblical scholarship, Q is a hypothetical source that both Matthew and Luke...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
The Church officially approved certain books for the Bible, they left out others, because they just hadn’t approved them.
You can still read the books not in the Bible.
 
Lost4words said:
Did they determine right? They say the Holy Spirit guided the people who compiled it. How do they know that?
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is God. Are you saying you don’t have faith that God would guide His Church in the right way?

As BridgetN said, you’re still allowed to read the books that were not included in the officially approved Catholic Bible. They just aren’t considered a part of the “deposit of faith” that every Catholic is required to believe.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think that agrees historically with actual facts.

I was watching a video on YouTube by Brant Pitre. I would recommend that you watch it. It is lengthy, but quite informative.

Crushing Atheist GOSPEL Skepticism
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top