Help! John 6

[Traditional_Ang]

Hi Randy,

Good job.

Many scholars now believe that Matthew and Revelation, etc. were written before 70 A.D. since in Revelation, John is instructed to measure the temple in Jerusalem. (Revelation 11:1-3) The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

There are other reasons also, but this is the main one. My new Bible time-line chart which I received reflects this change in thinking, too.

Pax,
SHW

SHW & Randy:

Here are 3 links supporting Dating the Gospel of Matthew before 62 A.D.:

Eastern Orthodox link supporting a date before the Fall of Jerusalem:
stnicholas-billings.org/Doctrine/matthewgospel.htm#Date_of_Gospel

Google Books - Pillar The Gospel According to Matthew, Pages 8 - 11 – Argument for dating before the Fall of Jerusalem

ELIM - Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Time and Origin
In closing, we shall discuss a matter that suggests that the gospel was written even before 62. What actually happened in 62? According to Eusebius, James, the brother of Jesus, died as a martyr in that year. As leader of the church of Jerusalem, he was succeeded by Simeon, the son of Clopas, the brother of Joseph (HE III,11; III,23.1-6; IV,22.4). This succession within the family through the line of the father reflects Jewish custom. Clopas, the father of Simeon, also appears in the New Testament as the husband of one of the Marys who stood by the cross (John 19:25). It is natural and most likely to identify this Mary with the one described by Matthew as the ‘mother of James and Joses’ and as ‘the other Mary’ (Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1; Meyer-Bauer 1963: 426). If Matthew had written his gospel after 62, at the very least one would have expected that he, who himself stood in the Palestinian tradition, would have indicated this Mary to be Mary the mother of Simeon. The fact that Matthew does not mention Simeon in connection with this suggests that he has written his gospel before 62 AD. (Robinson 1976: 106).
elim.nl/en/theologymatthew.html#introduction

Believe it or not, the Early Church Fathers (Post Apostolic -1st & 2nd Century) and the Traditional Dating for the Gospel of Matthew put it even earlier than that:

Haydock - Gospel of Matthew - Preface
Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour’s resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord.
haydock1859.tripod.com/id13.html

New Advent - Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son. 1 Peter 5:13 And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.
newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm

To be continued on the next post.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

SHW & Randy:

Continued from Previous Post…

Douglas Cecil - Assoc. Professor at Dallas Seminary
Zoominfo Cached Page - Old news may be good news for Gospel Studies guild
These accounts confirm that Matthew, an eyewitness to the miracles and events of Jesus’ ministry, was indeed the author of the first Gospel, and they verify both its Jewishness and early date.

We have, for example, a clear mention that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew — not Greek or Aramaic, as widely thought — and was carried out of Israel by one of the apostles to the Far East.

For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and left them [in India] the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved." Reports about Bartholomew in India, about the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew that was probably written before A.D. 50 and about the same text being returned to the West add “another piece of evidence of once again very early dating of the New Testament,” says Douglas Cecil, Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
See Also - Writer shines new light on Matthew’s Gospel

See this Book for details

The Jesus Papyrus, by Matthew D’Ancona (Author), Carsten Peter Thiede (Contributor), 2000 (Paperback)
amazon.com/Jesus-Papyrus-Matthew-DAncona/dp/038548898X

Please understand, those who quote a later date (80-120 A.D. - meaning people other than eyewitnesses to the events in the Gospels) almost always do so in order to discredit the Gospels and to cause doubt among believers.

We accept the dating and authorship of almost all ancient books on far less evidence than we have for Traditional (Eyewitness) Authorship and Earlier Dating (Matthew - 50, Mark - 55, Luke - 62 & John - 65-75) of the Gospels. If we accept the authorship and dating of the books by Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle or any of the other authors of antiquity, we must accept the Authors and Dates ascribed by Tradition.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

Augustine corrects the literal interpretation and affirms that “eating” is a positive metaphor for believing.

This is incorrect. To be sure, Augustine refers to the symbolic aspects of the bread and wine at times, but he also clearly holds to the literal interpretation as orthodox Catholic doctrine.

Augustine on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

The following statements made by St. Augustine strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His body and blood, which He poured out fo rus unto the forgiveness of sins. (Sermons 227)

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.”* (Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}*

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.* {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}*

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary…and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation…we do sin by not adoring.* {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}*

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. (Sermons, 234, 2; on p. 31)

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. (Sermons, 272; on p. 32)

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. (City of God, 10, 20; on p. 99)

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. (Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p. 134)

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. (Sermo iii. 1-2; on p. 62)

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. (Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p. 64)

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. (Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p. 65)

Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . (Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p. 65)

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort Bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. (Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p. 65)

The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” (Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p. 66)

Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. (Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p. 66)

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. (Denis, 3, 3; on p. 66)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered. (Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p. 69)

We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ. (Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p. 69)

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. (Ep. 54, 8; on p. 71)

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY. (Sermons 234:2)

How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS. (Psalms 33:1:10)

For more information:

St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence
Dave Armstrong
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/st-augustines-belief-in-real-presence.html