gospels were anonymous...

[Publisher]

Thanks! But you are aware that in 20,30,50 years or more down the road,views will change again? I am not one who dwells so much as to whether Mark really wrote Mark or what have you not,because that takes away from the main message: The Gospel of Jesus.

Oh…no doubt the views will change again…but I’m sure whatever the view that are refined and redeveloped will be more credible than the pious “faith story” the established traditons have espoused to “build the faith” of it’s adherants.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh…no doubt the views will change again…but I’m sure whatever the view that are refined and redeveloped will be more credible than the pious “faith story” the established traditons have espoused to “build the faith” of it’s adherants.

Indeed. One of the problems I acknowledge today is that in our modern society we want to hard ‘proof’’ on practically everything in order to be convinced. Unfortunately we cannot always apply modern methods and principles to ancients.

 

[Publisher]

Indeed. One of the problems I acknowledge today is that in our modern society we want to hard ‘proof’’ on practically everything in order to be convinced. Unfortunately we cannot always apply modern methods and principles to ancients.

This is true…and just because a “story” come from the ancients…doesn’t mean it is historical fact…especially “ancients” whos lives were steeped in mysticism and held a “magic world view” of existence.

I do not need “hard proof” on the authorship or date of when a particular scripture book was penned. I seek to understand the reasons such writings were penned…and why they captivated the hearts and minds of the people called Christians…I don’t differentiate between “orthodox/catholic” groups and “heretical”…they are only “heretical” because the “orthodox/catholic” group gained prominence and made political alliances which gave them the political power to see that their particular view and belief system was enforced and taught…the “heretical” groups held principals which prevented them from aligning themselves to the existing political power and authority to enforce their own beliefs as “authoritive”…so “orthodoxy” was formed…and “heresy” was outlawed.

 

[Nine_Two]

I have no doubt that the CC teaches what you have outlined. Modern biblical scholars disagree with you and the Catholic church…what you outline is part of the “sacred story” of Catholicism…based on tradition, pious myth and the need to push the gospels back to as close to the time of Christ as possilbe…if you believe it…wonderful…I don’t.

That’s not an argument.

Also you might want to put a qualifier next to “biblical scholars”, since lack of a qualifier implies “all”, which is patently false. Unless that actually is what you’re saying. Is it?

 

[joe370]

_Two;7132867]Just a note, John isn’t anonymous.

Proof please?

 

[joe370]

No, I do not believe the gospels were written by the “authors” who’s name is attributed to each gospel. They were written anonymously. I do not believe they were written “shortly after” the death of Christ either. Mark was probably written between 50-65CE, Matthew around 70CE and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd.

That “tradition” put names to the gospels does not "proove’ their authorship…it is “pious myth” but not historical fact.

How do you know that church tradition did not preserve the truth regarding the authorship of the gospels?

 

[joe370]

Oldtimer_7;7133381]The human writers who put pen to paper are irrelevant to the message. I think of last Sunday’s Gospel reading from Luke 17:5-10. The idea of worthless slaves is that one could have done the work as well as any other.

Leaving the CC out of it for the moment, you believe that these 4 anonymous books are the inspired word of God because…???

 

[joe370]

It is my understanding that Luke is not anonymous either.

Where does the gospel of Luke identify the author as Luke?

 

[joe370]

It makes no difference who wrote the Gospels. Facts change based on perspective, the truth never changes. The Gospels are true, and that’s all that matters.

In Christ
Joe

Hey Joe, cool name…LOL…

My point is: we know who wrote the gospels because of church tradition. All sola scriptura advocates, including myself as a former sola scriptura advocate, unwittingly embrace catholic tradition, for scripture alone does not answer the question:

Who wrote the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or even the book of Hebrews?

 

[jrose90]

does it matter who wrote them, or what they are titled? the gospels contain the stories of Christ’s life, and that is their purpose. it’s a poor waste of time to argue about the authors rather than studying their contents.

 

[Nicea325]

This is true…and just because a “story” come from the ancients…doesn’t mean it is historical fact…especially “ancients” whos lives were steeped in mysticism and held a “magic world view” of existence.

I do not need “hard proof” on the authorship or date of when a particular scripture book was penned. I seek to understand the reasons such writings were penned…and why they captivated the hearts and minds of the people called Christians…I don’t differentiate between “orthodox/catholic” groups and “heretical”…they are only “heretical” because the “orthodox/catholic” group gained prominence and made political alliances which gave them the political power to see that their particular view and belief system was enforced and taught…the “heretical” groups held principals which prevented them from aligning themselves to the existing political power and authority to enforce their own beliefs as “authoritive”…so “orthodoxy” was formed…and “heresy” was outlawed.

Yes and precisely why any educated historian knows he or she must at times peel layer after layer of history (myths,distortions,legends,etc) to get to the truth.

 

[Publisher]

Yes and precisely why any educated historian knows he or she must at times peel layer after layer of history (myths,distortions,legends,etc) to get to the truth.

I think we agree more than we disagree…I totally agree with this statement.

 

[Erich]

they are only “heretical” because the “orthodox/catholic” group gained prominence and made political alliances which gave them the political power to see that their particular view and belief system was enforced and taught…the “heretical” groups held principals which prevented them from aligning themselves to the existing political power and authority to enforce their own beliefs as “authoritive”…so “orthodoxy” was formed…and “heresy” was outlawed.

Hmm, to which political power did the “circumcision is not required” folks in Acts 15 align themselves? It could be (and in fact has been) argued that the resulting decree was given in opposition to synagogue preaching (i.e. in opposition to the political power and authority of the day), not in harmony with it.

 

[simspt]

This is true…and just because a “story” come from the ancients…doesn’t mean it is historical fact…especially “ancients” whos lives were steeped in mysticism and held a “magic world view” of existence.

I do not need “hard proof” on the authorship or date of when a particular scripture book was penned. I seek to understand the reasons such writings were penned…and why they captivated the hearts and minds of the people called Christians…I don’t differentiate between “orthodox/catholic” groups and “heretical”…they are only “heretical” because the “orthodox/catholic” group gained prominence and made political alliances which gave them the political power to see that their particular view and belief system was enforced and taught…the “heretical” groups held principals which prevented them from aligning themselves to the existing political power and authority to enforce their own beliefs as “authoritive”…so “orthodoxy” was formed…and “heresy” was outlawed.

Not surprising that those who agree with liberal reconstructions are not interested in the dating of these writings. However there isn’t much scholarly work out there that is convincing that the Gnostic material antedates the Synoptics or Paul’s writings. Quite the opposite actually. Date of authorship is obviously important in determining historical significance especially when one claims the two groups were on equall playing ground and “orthodoxy” was not precipitated by historical but rather purely political reasons.

 

[swariffin]

I have no doubt that the CC teaches what you have outlined. Modern biblical scholars disagree with you and the Catholic church…what you outline is part of the “sacred story” of Catholicism…based on tradition, pious myth and the need to push the gospels back to as close to the time of Christ as possilbe…if you believe it…wonderful…I don’t.

I have no problem with them. Rather than claiming it to be dictated by God word by word, but proven to have some “inconsistency”.

 

[Erich]

Yes…Bishop Spong…the one you’ll be naming “heretic”…“that one.”

You must be referring to John “I reject the Virgin Birth (1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (1994)” Spong. By all rights he should have had the courage of his convictions and resigned as an Episcopal bishop if he could not hold to his own denomination’s Articles of Religion… but then, how many folks would have bought his books if the subtitles hadn’t included the words "A Bishop Rethinks "

 

[Erich]

However there isn’t much scholarly work out there that is convincing that the Gnostic material antedates the Synoptics or Paul’s writings.

The folks who canonized the Canon of Scripture weren’t convinced, either. Of course, that’s exactly why the books that are in the Canon made it into the Canon in the first place, and the ones that aren’t didn’t!

 

[Erich]

Oh…no doubt the views will change again…but I’m sure whatever the view that are refined and redeveloped will be more credible than the pious “faith story” the established traditons have espoused to “build the faith” of it’s adherants.

Just curious… would you find credible any “refined and redeveloped” scholarly view that also happens to support 2000-year-old established traditions? Or would you reject such a view outright precisely because it supports such traditions?

 

[JHow]

You must be referring to John “I reject the Virgin Birth (1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (1994)” Spong. By all rights he should have had the courage of his convictions and resigned as an Episcopal bishop if he could not hold to his own denomination’s Articles of Religion… but then, how many folks would have bought his books if the subtitles hadn’t included the words "A Bishop Rethinks "

That was essentially my point: take Spong of the list of scholars. He belongs in the “nut” category.

 

[Publisher]

Just curious… would you find credible any “refined and redeveloped” scholarly view that also happens to support 2000-year-old established traditions? Or would you reject such a view outright precisely because it supports such traditions?

Yes I would find them credible IF proof of the established traditions were verifiable…but that’s the issue…they are not verifiable.