How good are your reasoning skills? ... and historical background on the conception of the NT?

[Texas_Roofer]

P.S. - why is this in the “Non-Catholic Religions” section?

Because the glass transition point is not within the Catholic religion

…
I didn’t want to talk about that. I want to talk about chronological history of authors of the New Testament… more specifically, Paul and his students. There should be no religion, nor any denomination of Christianity, that knows any more about Paul than Catholics. Right?

I hope you know Paul did not follow Jesus before the crucifixion, so only if you believe there was a resurrection would you believe Paul met Jesus.

 

[grndslm]

I hope you know Paul did not follow Jesus before the crucifixion, so only if you believe there was a resurrection would you believe Paul met Jesus.

That’s pretty whack, alright.

See… this is the type of history that is need-to-know, IMHO.

Just from that one catalyst, I am about to read everything there is to know about Paul.

 

[grndslm]

A pretty timeline of all the apostles, authors, etc. would be very nice. Anybody seen such a thing?

 

[Teneas]

And there you go the key to the Immaculate Conception is the heat on damaged steel in New York

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A pretty timeline of all the apostles, authors, etc. would be very nice. Anybody seen such a thing?

Most catholic bibles have that in the introduction section.

you might like this: newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

The problem you have is this all conflicts with your eariler source.

 

[grndslm]

Most catholic bibles have that in the introduction section.

you might like this: newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

That’s the ticket!! Thank you!

I do believe I will read the NT books in that order.

Don’t suppose there’s an extra pretty Catholic Church timeline you have handy, huh?

Some highlights of what Jesus’ apostles and disciples did up until the First Council of Nicea, and what the Church did all the way up until the Council of Trent, Martin Luther, King James, etc. would be extra nice.

The problem you have is this all conflicts with your eariler source.

Not really. My sources are about the same as yours, I kinda just fudged my numbers by rounding them up, tho. But there’s no way you can look at a timeline like this and not fudge numbers. For example, even on the timeline that you gave me, Christ is born in 6 BC, yet his death is still at 30-33 AD. That puts Jesus at 36-39 years old at the time of crucifixion, which is not what the Bible says. My point is that every timeline is different and not perfectly accurate, but I’m just interested in the Church’s viewpoint on things, because I’ve seen what others outside the Church claim…

Haven’t had time to read yet… but who all was around Jesus when on the cross?? John, Mary Magdeline, Mary his mother, Peter, & and Paul??

EDIT: Or wait, was Paul not at the cross?? Why was his conversion 2 years after the crucifixion??

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s the ticket!! Thank you!

I do believe I will read the NT books in that order.

Don’t suppose there’s an extra pretty Catholic Church timeline you have handy, huh?

sure first I may have mislead you unintentional of course. The time line I linked to is not Catholic, it is just a time line. Second if you contact the local Parish/RCIA and ask for an old Bible they would probably give it to you and you could read the introductions yourself. 3) In our family bible (catholic) it lists 48-52 St Paul’s early Epistles, 62-64? St Paul’s later Epistles, 65-90 Gospels of Mark Matthew, Luke, and Books of Acts. 60-100 ( my summary most other NT books)

Some highlights of what Jesus’ apostles and disciples did up until the First Council of Nicea,

?? What the apostles did is known as Acts. The council of Nicaea would not be for 300 years

and what the Church did all the way up until the Council of Trent, Martin Luther, King James, etc. would be extra nice. …

Not really. My sources are about the same as yours,

No way,

……………….EDIT: Or wait, was Paul not at the cross?? Why was his conversion 2 years after the crucifixion??

Paul never wrote of being there. Though minimal official records exist which fit your questions it appears the arrest, trial, and condemnation occurred very quickly in a few hours. Jesus probably hung for hours with Roman guards observing so maybe all of the apostles were there at some point, we simply do not know. Of course your personal belief in the resurrection is key because if Jesus was human and no resurrection then they were preaching, however if Jesus was resurrected he returned for 40 more days (known as Pentecost)

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Here is a simple issue since the gospels were in fact written after the fact, Jesus Himself never wrote one that we know of how can we be sure they were not embellished?

I will state there are enough sources to verify Jesus lived, died and was by accounts a miracle worker and Jewish religious teacher in other words one of many during that period.

The virgin birth of a deity, miracle working, death and rising from the dead is not new the Egyptians and Indians had such stories so adding them in to beef up Jesus would not have been hard. Neither would miracles above the normal ones of healing and casting out demons that many of the miracle workers did and I will add are not accounted for outside the Bible. For a big example at the death of Jesus there was an earthquake, the curtain ripped in the Temple and dead people came back to life. Yet the Romans, Greeks and other educated foreigners never wrote about this say in such a date there was an earthquake or there were reports of dead jews graves being opened. The feeding of the multitudes again nothing.

And another concern what if the support for one church and some of the mystical practices like the Comunion were added in to fit the desires to centralize the faith. If the Apostles wanted to gain power the best way would be to add verses to give it to them and who would know for sure.

Oddly I think the Jefferson Bible is closest to the truth save I would add in miracle working that could be covered under the historical records, the standard ones. For me Jesus was modest and a teacher who was a miracle working prophet but much of the Biblical account is just wrong historically. One must be rational if something makes no sense, has no evidence outside on sources that is likely biased one must sensibly go to what the evidence shows.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Firstly, [SIGN1]Eric Bock IS NOT A CATHOLIC PRIEST.[/SIGN1]

I repeat: Eric Bock is not a Catholic Priest.

I just saw the debate I had to shut it off, it did not protray the correct Catholic faith and Understanding of Jesus full humanity and full divinity from both Scripture and Apostolic Traditional teachings.

The heresy of Arianism as one poster introduced, predates the invention of Islam. Christianity had already defeated Arianism long before Muhammad was ever born to invent Islam. Islam repeats the Arian heresy of denying Jesus divinity and Mary as Mother of God “Theotokos”, and it appears to carry with their understanding Protestant views of Catholicism.

The debate from “Bock” is a protestant view not a Catholic view.

Those who close their minds to God’s Truth made reality and revelation from Jesus Christ, brings the prophecies to fulfillment;

Mathew 13; 10 … "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 13 … because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’ 14 Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see. 15 Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’ 16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Only God can raise the dead, Only God can forgive sins, Only God can command the wind, the ocean waves, the storms, Only God can bring sight to a man born blind, and hearing to the deaf, Only God can heal the sick and excorcise demons from man at the whisper of his Word, Only God can heal from a distant on the faith of another… These things Jesus did, and more including dieing, raising from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

John 18:26
Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”
28
17** Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” **

If God can reveal himself from a burning bush, a Rock in the desert, Smoke in a tent, Fire by night in the desert, in the Whisper of the wind, how hard is it to have faith “that God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (John 3:16)

John 1:1
1 2** In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. **
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5
4 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
14
**And the Word became flesh **9 and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

The “IAM” Exodus 3:13
“But,” said Moses to God, “when I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?”
14
6 **God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you." **
52
(So) the Jews said to him, “Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’
53
Are you greater than our father Abraham, 21 who died? Or the prophets, who died? Who do you make yourself out to be?”
54
Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
55
You do not know him, but I know him. And if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you a liar. But I do know him and I keep his word.
56
Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it 22 and was glad.
57
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” 23
58
24 **Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” **
59
**So they picked up stones to throw at him; **but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.

 

[TheQuestioner]

I just don’t believe that God could expect one to believe such an account based on hearsay. How could he expect people to believe hearsay based on faith alone? And if I was created in God’s image, as a skeptic of any man’s divinity being greater than any other man… then I guess I was destined to believe Jesus was nothing more than a wise teacher.

You must first experience Christ. Not see Him with your eyes, but experience Him with your heart. Then you will know why so much of the world could have faith on “hearsay”.

To experience Christ you must first die to self, and have true humility. You must realize you are a human, and one who is fallen, like all humans. We are low compared to God, and can do nothing without Him. You must let go of the notion that we are all divine. We sin. Divinity is perfect, and we are defective. Therefore our divinity, or any goodness we have cannot be our own. You must accept that yes, Christ can be more divine, more greater than yourself (often the hardest part), and then you will then see Him as more than just a wise teacher. Finally, you must accept the graces of the Divine God, then finally you can experience Him.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I doubt the OP will care for this post, since it will create massive “cognitive dissonance”

screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Tell me, if anyone who knows ANYTHING about explosive building demolitions, explain how NO ONE in the Towers saw “agents” drilling holes in building support columns to pack the explosives into.

If you are a “troofer” your reasoning skills are suspect to begin with.

 

[Teneas]

EDIT: Or wait, was Paul not at the cross?? Why was his conversion 2 years after the crucifixion??

If I am not mistaken, there is no scripture to support Paul being there at the cross. I have never ever heard of that before in all honesty.

Scripture tells us that Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, and then Christ appeared to him. He was therefore known as an apostle because he had seen Christ. Other than that, I don’t think he had anything at all to do with Christ or Christians besides murdering them.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“Late Gospel composition”, “Q”, “markan priority” and “pseudographic authorship” are being stated as if they are incontrovertable fact.

They are not. They are positions by secular, materialist academics who have a pre-existing bias

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

P.S. - why is this in the “Non-Catholic Religions” section?

All of this has to do with how Catholics should know that Apostle Paul is the only first-hand account we have of Jesus. The 9/11 tangent was requested by someone else as an example of how a myth/lie could be believed in less than 30 years, right?

I didn’t want to talk about that. I want to talk about chronological history of authors of the New Testament… more specifically, Paul and his students. There should be no religion, nor any denomination of Christianity, that knows any more about Paul than Catholics. Right?

Acts 3:13
**Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those with evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” **
14
When the seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, tried to do this,
15
**the evil spirit said to them in reply, “Jesus I recognize, Paul I know, but who are you?” **
16
The person with the evil spirit then sprang at them and subdued them all. He so overpowered them that they fled naked and wounded from that house.
17
When this became known to all the Jews and Greeks who lived in Ephesus, fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in great esteem.

Demons tremble and fear at the name of Jesus whom Paul professes.

Your chronology argument comes too late in history; For the fact that the New Testament Catholic Christian faith was already in practice, known, persecuted, recorded by secular and Jewish sources during the time the Letters came after the faith was already in practice. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that writing about a common faith practice and teaching in full practice becomes common place. The faith came first before Apostolic Letters were written to already baptised Church Communities.
What you are trying to disprove is a bibliography of the New Testament Christian faith. That is like trying to deny Muhammad never existed because you personally did not meet him, and you reject Muhammad because another person recorded his bibliography, and he Muhammad did not write his own bibliography, so you reject him as a person that did not exist. You see the problem with your logic here.

What you fail to recognize is that a historical record of Christian persecution took place from what was practiced. The Letters or New Testament are some of the eye witness accounts given Orally first to the immediate Jewish communities, and then written to already Christian communities for new converts and new generations to come.

The Early Church Fathers who walked and talked with the original Apostles handed down the Oral and written faith from underground to escape persecution. Duplication of Letters were used in the underground Liturgies that took place and **when the persecution of Christians was lifted, it is then; that the Catholic Church was able to identify quickly and unanimously, authenticate the Apostolic letters that were used by the Apostles themselves and their successors, then removed many other books that had apostles names attached but did not pass the extreme scrutiny of having apostolic first century teachings and liturgical practice. **

Some of the original Letters may have gotten lost or destroyed during the persecution and attacks of the Catholic Church we cannot deny nor confirm this, but what “we do know is that the original New Testament Christian faith never faltered” and remained in practice unchanged confirming the teachings and writings of the Gospels and New Testament Letters. Thus the Catholic Church has martyrs and Saints including the first 30+ Popes since Peter were killed for the practiced Catholic Faith.

But you do not know this because your Muhammad founder does not come along until over 600 years later, so to argue authenticity from afar is a weak argument when history records 2000 years of New Testament biblical practice, secular recorded history, and Jewish recorded history which authenticates the New Testament Oral Sacred Traditions for which the Catholic Christians were persecuted for confirming the Sacred Written Scriptures from her members who practiced what was recorded.

Now if you want to do a scholarly study without recognizing the practiced faith which is revealed from the New Testament letters aside from what your eyes and hands can touch today, gives a false truth, and makes the lived and died for faith a Lie, of which you are failing to prove here.

**When you separate the blood from what is written, all you have is words on a page, and you cannot draw a Truth on that basis. So it is up to you to believe a Lie or accept the blood from which the New Testament was written and lived out these past 2000 years in the Catholic faith.**You have a choice?

 

[PRmerger]

]For the fact that the New Testament Catholic Christian faith was already in practice, known, persecuted, recorded by secular and Jewish sources during the time the Letters came after the faith was already in practice. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that writing about a common faith practice and teaching in full practice becomes common place. The faith came first before Apostolic Letters were written to already baptised Church Communities.]

Excellent post!

I think that argument originally offered might stump advocates of Sola Scriptura, but as Catholics we know that it was the Church which came first, not the Bible.

The faith existed and thrived and flourished for decades without a Bible–thus, we understand the chronological primacy given to Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

The virgin birth of a deity, miracle working, death and rising from the dead is not new the Egyptians and Indians had such stories so adding them in to beef up Jesus would not have been hard.

It is intellectual snobbery to disdain The Truth simply because stories from other cultures have truths which prefigure The Truth.

 

[grndslm]

I doubt the OP will care for this post, since it will create massive “cognitive dissonance”

screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Tell me, if anyone who knows ANYTHING about explosive building demolitions, explain how NO ONE in the Towers saw “agents” drilling holes in building support columns to pack the explosives into.

If you are a “troofer” your reasoning skills are suspect to begin with.

I have not looked at that site yet, but I have heard of a decent theory on how no one inside the Towers could see anybody drilling holes in the building support columns…

Hire a bunch of Zionist Jews to sit on top of the elevator shaft and ride it up and down for a weekend. There were actually reports of people OUTSIDE the Towers who saw flashing lights the weekend before 9/11… but I doubt I’ll ever find that article again.

The point is… riding along the elevator shaft is all it would’ve taken, and that is more than likely how it was done. Now that I’ve answered your question, perhaps you could answer my five questions.

As for the Jesus history lesson, I will definitely have to take a break for a while. But I will definitely return soon enough.

 

[grndslm]

It is intellectual snobbery to disdain The Truth simply because stories from other cultures have truths which prefigure The Truth.

So Jesus is The Truth and Krishna is just the truth?

 

[st_someone]

PRmerger: I am not exactly doubting the existence of a man named Jesus, Joshua, Jeshua, Yeshua, etc…

But the divinity of the man [being greater than any other man] I have always doubted. And I have even quoted him where he shares the same philosophical views that I do: (1) There is only ONE that is good - God ALONE, and (2) ALL men are part divine.

Was he lying when he said those things?

Basically… you guys got it right in the other thread that it all comes down to the Resurrection. But I just don’t know how I can believe such a thing without seeing it. If everybody is basing their belief off of authors that did not even SEE Jesus, I can totally understand how it can perpetuate itself until everybody’s saying “But see… look at all these accounts, narratives, etc. How else would 33% of the world accept that Jesus is the Son of God?”

I just don’t believe that God could expect one to believe such an account based on hearsay. How could he expect people to believe hearsay based on faith alone? And if I was created in God’s image, as a skeptic of any man’s divinity being greater than any other man… then I guess I was destined to believe Jesus was nothing more than a wise teacher.

So anyway… the accounts of Paul are about as close to the Source (Jesus) as possible. I will end up reading them soon enough, but I’m not so sure it’d help a person like me. I was just hoping anybody else could give me a history lesson on Paul, for starters… and what he wrote about.

As far as ‘reasoning skills’ go…why ask such questions about seeing something with your ears? Faith is another sense…an inner faculty that percieves an inner reality.
Have you reasoned that “You must be born from above”? You are trying to come to a natural logical conclusion of spiritual realities that can only be implied or spoken of in indirect ways.

You can’t put new wine into old wineskins.

 

[grndslm]

If I am not mistaken, there is no scripture to support Paul being there at the cross. I have never ever heard of that before in all honesty.

Scripture tells us that Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, and then Christ appeared to him. He was therefore known as an apostle because he had seen Christ. Other than that, I don’t think he had anything at all to do with Christ or Christians besides murdering them.

Very interesting.

“Late Gospel composition”, “Q”, “markan priority” and “pseudographic authorship” are being stated as if they are incontrovertable fact.

They are not. They are positions by secular, materialist academics who have a pre-existing bias

I’m gonna go ahead and say that “Markan priority” is about as factual as you can get. “Late Gospel compsition” is also pretty dern factual when you undersand that Mark had to have been written during or after 70 AD, due to something he had written that we know to have historically happened in 70 AD (can’t remember exactly what it is now, because my brain has been overloaded for the past few days, but I’ll find it again, I’m sure).

As for the Q, I have no interest in that. It is a theory alone. There is no Q, and I don’t see when or why this theory arose. I think the Q only helps out Christians, but the non-existence of it just shows that authors were copying from the ones before them and adding in their own narrative twist, if you will.

And as for pseudographic authorship, I have no idea what that is.

What you fail to recognize is that a historical record of Christian persecution took place from what was practiced. The Letters or New Testament are some of the eye witness accounts given Orally first to the immediate Jewish communities, and then written to already Christian communities for new converts and new generations to come.

Actually, I’m trying to prove the divinity of Christ Jesus. If you think that scripture is irrelevant, as do I… and that we can only rely on word of mouth of those who were persecuted… do you know of anybody who had actually witnessed the resurrection and was persecuted? Because all the authors of the New Testament never actually met him. So what historical references should I look at for those that actually knew him and were persecuted?

But you do not know this because your Muhammad founder does not come along until over 600 years later, so to argue authenticity from afar is a weak argument when history records 2000 years of New Testament biblical practice, secular recorded history, and Jewish recorded history which authenticates the New Testament Oral Sacred Traditions for which the Catholic Christians were persecuted for confirming the Sacred Written Scriptures from her members who practiced what was recorded.

Interesting that you think I’m a Muslim because I linked to Deedat’s videos. I was actually raised Catholic, and, even in Catholic elementary school… I had the same thoughts as Deedat, that Jesus was a wise teacher and became misunderstood overtime. As Deedat has said over and over again… "Show me one place where Jesus says, “I am God” and/or “Worship ME”.

What you are trying to disprove is a bibliography of the New Testament Christian faith. That is like trying to deny Muhammad never existed because you personally did not meet him, and you reject Muhammad because another person recorded his bibliography, and he Muhammad did not write his own bibliography, so you reject him as a person that did not exist. You see the problem with your logic here.

As far as I know, Muhammad wrote the Koran from front to back as a revelation he had had from God. I only know this from glancing at some website that one of Deedat’s followers created. I have no idea what’s in it… but I have a feeling that there are far fewer inconsistencies in the Koran than the Bible. I have read only pieces of the Bible and none of the Koran… so I’m not willing to pass judgement on any of these books just yet, but I am willing to admit that I think the writings about Jesus are a bit fishy.

Excellent post!

I think that argument originally offered might stump advocates of Sola Scriptura, but as Catholics we know that it was the Church which came first, not the Bible.

The faith existed and thrived and flourished for decades without a Bible–thus, we understand the chronological primacy given to Sacred Tradition.

So who wrote about their time with Jesus? Or the Resurrection that they witnessed? The best I can gather is that people did talk about it… and then Saul falls down, bumps his head, and then sees Jesus. From that point, he becomes Paul and doesn’t stop writing about what Catholics were talking about for the past couple years. (P.S. - When & where did the term ‘Catholic’ originate?) You’re right that disproving [the authenticity] of scripture doesn’t disprove the divinity of Jesus… so then what DOES prove his divinity? Some people who never met Jesus being persecuted? Who did know Jesus? Who did see the resurrection? Who then of those last two groups did write about it?

I mean… point blank… if Paul was the closest apostle/author to Jesus… wouldn’t he have known about the Virgin Birth? And if he didn’t… who added that in there? Was it from the great memories of those playing Telephone? Or what??

OK… I am really gone for now. I’ve got to take a break from all this and then research a lot more before I respond again. G’day to you all!