Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[LilyM]

“faithfully transmitting the teachings of Christ.” WHERE in Christ’s teachings did He say that Mary was born without sin? WHERE in the red letters does Jesus say that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

It wasn’t until 1950 that Mary was offically declared “assumed”. Though you can quote any body you want from 100A.D. to present, you CAN’T say that Christ taught that Mary was to be given all of the titles that the catholic religion acknowledges.

All of these are NOT teachings of Christ. If anybody declares these as infallible, then they are listening to a deceiving spirit and not the Holy Spirit. Paul says to keep “traditions” as he taught. Sure, he says that Jesus was born of a woman, but that was all.
Finally, if the catholic church put the Bible together, why not add those books that lifted up Mary? Why not mention those books who honored her more than the books in the Bible?
What is written is all that we need to know because the center of our focus should be on Christ: the ONLY One who fulfills all the Law and the Prophets. The Alpa and Omega.

Ridiculous - Paul didn’t teach that his own letters should be considered scriptural! Christ certainly didn’t teach ANYTHING regarding ANY of the books of the New Testament - they hadn’t been written yet!

So how do you know that we should have a written New Testament at all, let alone which writings should be included in it? We’re well and truly going to extrabiblical tradition for that, aren’t we!

We know the criteria under which books were placed in the New Testament - including factors like whether they dated from the time of the Apostles and whether authorship or dictation could be traced certainly enough to the Apostles or those near to them.

Most simply, the Bible wasn’t intended to be a book about Mary. Most certainly not an exhaustive catalogue of Christian doctrine either. Otherwise it would have been a heck of a lot more explicit about matters such as transubstantiation v consubstantiation v merely symbolic Eucharist. On whether the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated daily, weekly, monthly or once in a person’s lifetime. Whether only adults could be baptised or children.

The Bible instead focuses more on the life of Christ himself and the most central teachings of the Apostles. Obviously there were more pressing issues of doctrine to be sorted out before the Marian ones - little things like whether the Resurrection actually occurred, whether Christ was human, divine or both, and so on.

 

[Mannyfit75]

“faithfully transmitting the teachings of Christ.” WHERE in Christ’s teachings did He say that Mary was born without sin? WHERE in the red letters does Jesus say that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

It wasn’t until 1950 that Mary was offically declared “assumed”. Though you can quote any body you want from 100A.D. to present, you CAN’T say that Christ taught that Mary was to be given all of the titles that the catholic religion acknowledges.

165 Justin Martyr
202 Irenaeus

• Contrasted Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience.
  
  Fifth Century
• Mary’s perpetual virginity accepted.
  
  Fourth Century
  • Mary as Theotokos arose in Alexandria. Opposed by Nestorius. Accepted at the Council of Ephesus in 431
  594
• The doctrine of the bodily Assumption of Mary was formally develoed by St. Gregory of Tours

Sixth Century

• Feast of the Assumption

1854

• Pope Pius IX says Mary was immune to origional sin.

End of 4th century, taught in sixth century, speaking “ex cathedra” by Pope Pius XII in 1950

• Dogma of Assumption.

Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium 61-62)

• “in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls”
• Mary as mediatrix of All Graces.

Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix)
Petition for the Papal definition of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.

• the goal of winning formal recognition of the “fifth doctrine of Mary,” which includes Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God. The organization is currently collecting signatures that will be included with a letter to the Pope asking that he “define and proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and Advocate for the People of God.”

1965

• Mary proclaimed to be the Queen Mother of Heaven, God, Christ and the Church.

1985

• Pope John Paul II declares that God will not forgive sins directly and that forgiveness of sins can only be obtained through a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

Recently

• The Vatican declared that they signs of somebody demon possessed was that they speak in tongues and that they have great strength.
  (I guess that the apostles at Pentecost and Paul was “demon possessed”. Also, I guess Samson was, too.)

Wow at lot of Protestant bias in your post my friend. Didn’t you know the Church did not have the concept of the Trinity until 325 AD announced in the Council of Nicea, or that there was Biblical Canon until the Council of Hippo 393 and Carthage 396 AD, which included all the Deutrocanonical Books and 27 NT text?

All of these are NOT teachings of Christ. If anybody declares these as infallible, then they are listening to a deceiving spirit and not the Holy Spirit. Paul says to keep “traditions” as he taught. Sure, he says that Jesus was born of a woman, but that was all.
Finally, if the catholic church put the Bible together, why not add those books that lifted up Mary? Why not mention those books who honored her more than the books in the Bible?
What is written is all that we need to know because the center of our focus should be on Christ: the ONLY One who fulfills all the Law and the Prophets. The Alpa and Omega.

They are the teaching of Jesus Christ. If they were not, then why my friend Jesus commanded to Peter and then to the Apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bind in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.” or upon the resurrection, Jesus breathed on them, "Received the Holy Spirit, whoever sin you forgiven they are forgiven whatever you retain they shall be retain?

Jesus also said, "As the Father have sent me, so I sent you? How did the Father send Jesus? God, the Father send the Jesus granted Him Authority, likewise Jesus granted Authority to the Apostles, for they cast demons in His Name, heal the sick and raise the dead in His Name.

My friend, history disproves your claims for they contain partial truths/half truths. The Catholic Church did compelled the Bible we see today until the Protestants slowly remove them by early 1600s.

Jesus also said if there are any disagreement among you, you take it to the Church. He did not say take it to the Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

But the belief was held and the event celebrated for centuries before that.

165 Justin Martyr
202 Irenaeus

• Contrasted Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience.

 

[Contarini]

Wow at lot of Protestant bias in your post my friend. Didn’t you know the Church did not have the concept of the Trinity until 325 AD announced in the Council of Nicea,

Not true. You are falling into the same trap Protestants fall into, of confusing the formal declaration of a dogma with the origin of the idea.

or that there was Biblical Canon until the Council of Hippo 393 and Carthage 396 AD, which included all the Deutrocanonical Books and 27 NT text?

Again, this is simply false and I have pointed this out over and over. Christians had a canon for centuries before this–it was just that different Christians had somewhat different lists.

Google “Muratorian canon” some time.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[augsburger]

The belief can be in Patristic sources or Early Church Fathers, many of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves.

St. Ireneaus said;

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed.” Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).

“Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected… Nor would I hesitate to admit you to the altars of God, whose souls I would without hesitation call altars, on which Christ is daily offered for the redemption of the body. For if the virgin’s body be a temple of God, what is her soul, which, the ashes, as it were, of the body being shaken off, once more uncovered by the hand of the Eternal Priest, exhales the vapor of the divine fire. Blessed virgins, who emit a fragrance through divine grace as gardens do through flowers, temples through religion, altars through the priest.” Ambrose, On Virginity II:6,18 (A.D. 378).

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379).

this is all good and fine i do not doubt the honor due the BVM, but the abuses concerning her, such as in latin america, where she has eclipsed jesus as our mediator. the RCC teaches only god is to be worshiped and adored, but in many cases mary is worshiped. should nt these practices be quelled by the bishops?

 

[harmon3110]

1. 
   *]I’d have to find a different set of people to disagree with .

1. 
   LOL

 

[guanophore]

Just imformation that may or may not be relevant to the debate.
1828 Noah Wester.

HER’ETIC, n.
1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice. 2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

Exactly! A person who was never a Catholic, and does not understand what the Catholic Church teaches has never been “under” that religion. One of those teachings is is that scripture is NOT The only rule of faith and practice (though an important one) but the Church, to which Jesus imparted the fullness of truth. A person who rejects apostolic authority in ignorance, because such a one does not know it exists, or has been wrongly taught about that authority cannot be accused of having turned against said authority.

However, I think there are a number of Catholics that might qualify under # 2 as well.

 

[guanophore]

.

Only a partial answer to numerous questions. Where is ex cathedra in the Bible and when did Jesus teach that. Anything that exalts itself above the teachings of Christ has become an idol or a god.

You are right, of course about the teachings. Answering this here would take us even further off the topic, though, so I will refer you to a thread where it is being covered already:

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=150710&highlight=teachings+bible

 

[Lively_Stone]

“faithfully transmitting the teachings of Christ.” WHERE in Christ’s teachings did He say that Mary was born without sin? WHERE in the red letters does Jesus say that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

It wasn’t until 1950 that Mary was offically declared “assumed”. Though you can quote any body you want from 100A.D. to present, you CAN’T say that Christ taught that Mary was to be given all of the titles that the catholic religion acknowledges.

165 Justin Martyr
202 Irenaeus

• Contrasted Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience.
  
  Fifth Century
• Mary’s perpetual virginity accepted.
  
  Fourth Century
  • Mary as Theotokos arose in Alexandria. Opposed by Nestorius. Accepted at the Council of Ephesus in 431
  594
• The doctrine of the bodily Assumption of Mary was formally develoed by St. Gregory of Tours

Sixth Century

• Feast of the Assumption

1854

• Pope Pius IX says Mary was immune to origional sin.

End of 4th century, taught in sixth century, speaking “ex cathedra” by Pope Pius XII in 1950

• Dogma of Assumption.

Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium 61-62)

• “in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls”
• Mary as mediatrix of All Graces.

Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix)
Petition for the Papal definition of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.

• the goal of winning formal recognition of the “fifth doctrine of Mary,” which includes Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God. The organization is currently collecting signatures that will be included with a letter to the Pope asking that he “define and proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and Advocate for the People of God.”

1965

• Mary proclaimed to be the Queen Mother of Heaven, God, Christ and the Church.

1985

• Pope John Paul II declares that God will not forgive sins directly and that forgiveness of sins can only be obtained through a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

Recently

• The Vatican declared that they signs of somebody demon possessed was that they speak in tongues and that they have great strength.
  (I guess that the apostles at Pentecost and Paul was “demon possessed”. Also, I guess Samson was, too.)
  
  All of these are NOT teachings of Christ. If anybody declares these as infallible, then they are listening to a deceiving spirit and not the Holy Spirit. Paul says to keep “traditions” as he taught. Sure, he says that Jesus was born of a woman, but that was all.
  Finally, if the catholic church put the Bible together, why not add those books that lifted up Mary? Why not mention those books who honored her more than the books in the Bible?
  What is written is all that we need to know because the center of our focus should be on Christ: the ONLY One who fulfills all the Law and the Prophets. The Alpa and Omega.

Excellent piece of research. Must have took some time.

 

[cazayoux]

What about them?

Do I pray to them? No
Do I expect them to hear anything I say? No

So what is your point in the question above?

I do not pray to them either.
I do not expec them to hear anything I say either?
We are completely in line here.

My point is that ‘images’ are not bad, but worshipping images is.
We do not worship the images.

It seems by your questions that you think I do.
I do not.
The Catholic Church teaches NOT to worship idols.
It seems that what you have seen has led you to believe that we do something (worship statues) that we do not actually do.

Consider the statues and painting as no more significant as the photos of your family on the mantle.
They are their to help you remember your loved ones.

Hoping Christ’s love be felt by all,
michel

 

[Lively_Stone]

Ridiculous - Paul didn’t teach that his own letters should be considered scriptural! Christ certainly didn’t teach ANYTHING regarding ANY of the books of the New Testament - they hadn’t been written yet!

So how do you know that we should have a written New Testament at all, let alone which writings should be included in it? We’re well and truly going to extrabiblical tradition for that, aren’t we!

We know the criteria under which books were placed in the New Testament - including factors like whether they dated from the time of the Apostles and whether authorship or dictation could be traced certainly enough to the Apostles or those near to them.

Most simply, the Bible wasn’t intended to be a book about Mary. Most certainly not an exhaustive catalogue of Christian doctrine either. Otherwise it would have been a heck of a lot more explicit about matters such as transubstantiation v consubstantiation v merely symbolic Eucharist. On whether the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated daily, weekly, monthly or once in a person’s lifetime. Whether only adults could be baptised or children.

The Bible instead focuses more on the life of Christ himself and the most central teachings of the Apostles. Obviously there were more pressing issues of doctrine to be sorted out before the Marian ones - little things like whether the Resurrection actually occurred, whether Christ was human, divine or both, and so on.

I see the need for a final authority with infallible word, like the Bible. This gives everyone an objective standard by which to correct themselves and bring themselves into the doctrine that the apostles recorded for us. That doctrine always leads us to the the worship of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as the only mediator between God and man. This fact has clearly been defined in the scriptures. No other mediator necessary. Peter would not allow anyone to bow at his feet. He taught Jesus and him Crucified as did the other Biblical apostles. None of the Biblical apostle wanted any recognition, except to proclaim the Lord and Savior, the Bread of Life, the Rock the sure foundation. Thfen they sealed their testimony with their blood. Thats good enough for me. I think I just quoted a song. Give me that old time religion it’s good enough for me.

Love the Lord Jesus, Love the word, Love everything Jesus has done for a wretch like me. Think I just sang another song.

 

[Jedda]

Could you please list 3 reasons why you are not Catholic and elaborate.

Thanks… God bless…

I just feel a “ONENESS” when I think of God, it seems more peaceful when I think of God. When i add Jesus to the equation my inners feel uneasy. I guess that is why I will never be catholic. i need to quit searching for something that is not there.

 

[Lively_Stone]

I just feel a “ONENESS” when I think of God, it seems more peaceful when I think of God. When i add Jesus to the equation my inners feel uneasy. I guess that is why I will never be catholic. i need to quit searching for something that is not there.

Hey Jedda: Dont run off. There are some Godly people on this forum and yes, some are Catholics. Never thought I would say that. But I have tried the spirit as the Bible says and found people of great faith here that Love the Lord Jesus as much as you and I. Some exude great fruits of the spirit by putting up with me. When we are not debateing and I am not in the flesh and have to repent we actually sometimes minister and get ministered to.

The rule of thumb is Jesus is Lord of all.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I see the need for a final authority with infallible word, like the Bible. This gives everyone an objective standard by which to correct themselves and bring themselves into the doctrine that the apostles recorded for us. That doctrine always leads us to the the worship of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as the only mediator between God and man. This fact has clearly been defined in the scriptures. No other mediator necessary. Peter would not allow anyone to bow at his feet. He taught Jesus and him Crucified as did the other Biblical apostles. None of the Biblical apostle wanted any recognition, except to proclaim the Lord and Savior, the Bread of Life, the Rock the sure foundation. Thfen they sealed their testimony with their blood. Thats good enough for me. I think I just quoted a song. Give me that old time religion it’s good enough for me.

Love the Lord Jesus, Love the word, Love everything Jesus has done for a wretch like me. Think I just sang another song.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church not stated are revealed by the Holy Spirit hence Jesus told the Apostle, the Spirit of Truth will guide you in all truth.

The Bible back then were not compelled together. They were scattered throughout the ancient word and were written in Parchments or Scrolls. It was the Church in the Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage in 396 that declared the 27 NT part of the Canon of Scripture.

The Church was before the Bible we see today was compiled. How do we know this? Well, when Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

The Church is what Saul before his conversion was persecuting. The fallacy that Only the Bible is the Sole Authority is not even stated in the Scripture itself. The Scripture said that the pillar and bulwark of the Truth is Church, not the Bible. For without the Church, there would not be a Bible we have today.

At the time there were over 50 Gospels and the Church only accepted 4 Gospels, in addition with the Epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and Jude.

St. Augustine state it best.

"I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church. - (Contra Epis. Manich., Fund., n 6)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Excellent piece of research. Must have took some time.

A piece with half truths. The source of the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding moral and faith issue is the Holy Spirit. In the Patristic writings of the ECF, it was a common believe that Mary was a virgin all her life, that she was pure, and that she was taken up to heaven in the Catholic Church she was assumed into heaven by God, in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is called Dormition of Mary. A very ancient belief.

Issues like the Papacy, Marian dogma, Eucharist, Confession, are not contrary to the Scripture.

Mary’s Queenship is based on Kingship that Jesus inherited. Jesus was descended of David. In the Davidic Kingdom, kings have mothers as their Queen.

Jesus came to fulfil the Law, and he kept this. So Mary is queen of heaven and earth. The woman in Rev 12:1 is Mary so many of the belief that was reveal in later times is part of what is called Developmental Doctrine that doctrine develop over time. This woman has a crown. She is recognizes as both Mary, the Church and Israel. Both interpretation is correct. But if it was taken literally, the woman is Mary. The woman in Rev 12:1 conceived a male child who will rule all the nations, and was taken up to a throne of God in heaven. We know that Jesus is sitteth at the Right Hand of God. So this woman is Mary.

For example, in the beginning of the Church, there was concept of the Trinity. It was indeed believe by Early Christians that Jesus is God and Man.

It was not until it was challenge during the Arianism heresy and the Council of Nicea condemned Arianism and defined that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Three Persons but One God. That developed after 300 yrs after the fact since the Council of Nicea was in 325 A.D.

IF you are so curious about history, and look at the evidence you find that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded and He built it Upon Peter (The First Pope) Matt 16:18.

 

[kujo313]

Ridiculous - Paul didn’t teach that his own letters should be considered scriptural! Christ certainly didn’t teach ANYTHING regarding ANY of the books of the New Testament - they hadn’t been written yet!

So how do you know that we should have a written New Testament at all, let alone which writings should be included in it? We’re well and truly going to extrabiblical tradition for that, aren’t we!

The Bible instead focuses more on the life of Christ himself and the most central teachings of the Apostles. Obviously there were more pressing issues of doctrine to be sorted out before the Marian ones - little things like whether the Resurrection actually occurred, whether Christ was human, divine or both, and so on.

We know approximately when the Gospels and letters were written. At that given time the New Testament was lived and preached. The letters of Paul, John, James and Peter clearly show this. 2Peter 3:15-16 include the New Testament as Scripture.
Hundreds of years later, when what was written was gathered together, people gathered together and, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, put together The Bible. They, themselves, decided what should not be in the Bible.
Letters concerning Mary was not included. Why? Because even if she deserves some respect and honor by saying “yes”, she’s not to be the center of our focus. The prophecy called for a virgin and didn’t name names. If Mary would’ve said “no”, then there was obviously other virgins in the area that God would’ve chosen. However, if Jesus was not to be born, then all hope is lost.
Therefore, the early “church” leaders put the Bible together with a focus around Jesus for Salvation is through Him and Him alone. Mary called God her “savior”. Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. Jesus IS Mary’s Savior.

The surest “tradition” is to do what the Thessolanians did after the heard the words of Paul: search the Scriptures to see if it’s true.
Jesus, Himself, even said

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

 

[Contarini]

We know approximately when the Gospels and letters were written.

Most scholars think that all the Gospels except for Mark were written after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and that none of them were written by eyewitnesses. Most scholars think that the Gospels are only partly historical and contain some material that originates in the early Church’s experience rather than being an authentic record of what Jesus said and did. Most scholars think that 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus are not by Paul, and that neither 1 or 2 Peter is by Peter.

Do you agree? If not, why not? I resist the more skeptical views of modern scholars because I trust the Church. Why do you resit them?

At that given time the New Testament was lived and preached. The letters of Paul, John, James and Peter clearly show this.

How, without trusting the Church, do you know that all these letters were written by the people whose names they bear?

2Peter 3:15-16 include the New Testament as Scripture.

The most common view among modern scholars is that 2 Peter not only was not written by Peter, but was not written until well into the second century. Why do you disagree?

Edwin

 

[kujo313]

I just feel a “ONENESS” when I think of God, it seems more peaceful when I think of God. When i add Jesus to the equation my inners feel uneasy. I guess that is why I will never be catholic. i need to quit searching for something that is not there.

Jedda, Jesus is the reason you can feel the “oneness” with God. While Jesus was walking the planet 2000 years ago, He said that God is a Spirit and that we must worship Him in Spirit and Truth.
Through God’s sacrificial Lamb, Jesus, you have peace.

John 14:27 " Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

 

[kujo313]

Most scholars think that all the Gospels except for Mark were written after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and that none of them were written by eyewitnesses. Most scholars think that the Gospels are only partly historical and contain some material that originates in the early Church’s experience rather than being an authentic record of what Jesus said and did. Most scholars think that 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus are not by Paul, and that neither 1 or 2 Peter is by Peter.

Do you agree? If not, why not? I resist the more skeptical views of modern scholars because I trust the Church. Why do you resit them?

How, without trusting the Church, do you know that all these letters were written by the people whose names they bear?

The most common view among modern scholars is that 2 Peter not only was not written by Peter, but was not written until well into the second century. Why do you disagree?

Edwin

Actually, I put my trust in Biblical Historians and archeologists. They studied the names mentioned in the writings to know approximately when they was written. For example, the Gosple of Thomas was proven to be false because it mentioned 2nd century leaders that was around AFTER Thomas died. Therefore, it is false. Same as the Gospel of Mary Magdelene.

If the “church” says that parts of the New Testament is not correct, then why did they include it?

Overall, the writings in the letters all center around the Messiah and not the woman who gave birth to Him, as does the Old Testament.

Only outside Scripture (Old Testament Laws and Prophets, Gospels, Letters within the New Testament) do people start to investigate more into other matters as to perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. Such matters was not the center of focus as taught to us by Jesus and written about in the letters of the New Testament.

Outside “focus”, things get blurry .

 

[lak611]

Most scholars think that all the Gospels except for Mark were written after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and that none of them were written by eyewitnesses. Most scholars think that the Gospels are only partly historical and contain some material that originates in the early Church’s experience rather than being an authentic record of what Jesus said and did.

How, without trusting the Church, do you know that all these letters were written by the people whose names they bear?

The most common view among modern scholars is that 2 Peter not only was not written by Peter, but was not written until well into the second century. Why do you disagree?

Actually, I put my trust in Biblical Historians and archeologists.

kujo313, how do you know which of the historians to trust? How do you know that the ones that support a late date for the Gospels are wrong?