Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
The supremacy of the RCC tradition??? What are you talking about??? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I think I am done talking to non-Catholics here at CAF; you people are way too defensive …One last time, as if it even matters:

CC tradition, as opposed to the bible, affixed the names of the gospels to the gospels. **I was just wondering why some non-Catholics reject catholic tradition while embracing this particular **catholic tradition… I never said anything about the “supremacy of RCC tradition…”

Take care brother…
Click to expand...
Inconsistency…is the word. Is it because they are confused themselves with what to believe or accept? Or is it an external rejection and an internal acceptance, withou ever being aware they are accepting it?
 
joe i think you are comparing apples and oranges

protestants agree with alot of catholic tradition, like the naming of the Gospels, let’s call these ‘apples’

protestants don’t agree with all catholic tradition, like the Marian doctrines or maybe infant baptism, let’s call these ‘oranges’
joe370 said:
CC tradition, as opposed to the bible, affixed the names of the gospels to the gospels. I was just wondering why some non-Catholics reject catholic tradition while embracing this particular catholic tradition…I never said anything about the “supremacy of RCC tradition…”

Take care brother…
Click to expand...
 
Todd520 said:
joe i think you are comparing apples and oranges

protestants agree with alot of catholic tradition, like the naming of the Gospels, let’s call these ‘apples’

protestants don’t agree with all catholic tradition, like the Marian doctrines or maybe infant baptism, let’s call these ‘oranges’
Click to expand...
So is Catholic Tradition dependable or isn’t it? If it isn’t dependable on infant baptism, for example, that what assurance do yo have that Tradition is correct when it comes to the Scriptures?
 
joe370 said:
Non-Catholic source:

abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/IndexNTIntr.htm
Click to expand...
This source does nothing but assert they wrere anonymous. There is no evidence that the gospels existed without these names attached to them. If there was, it would not be such a debate. The author presupposes that is the case. They simply assert it without proof.
I cannot prove that from 60 to 120 AD that the gospels had the names attached but no one can certainly prove they did not.
 
Todd520 said:
joe i think you are comparing apples and oranges

protestants agree with alot of catholic tradition, like the naming of the Gospels, let’s call these ‘apples’

protestants don’t agree with all catholic tradition, like the Marian doctrines or maybe infant baptism, let’s call these ‘oranges’
Click to expand...
So you embrace certain catholic traditions and reject certain catholic traditions. I understand. 👍
 
Rightlydivide said:
This source does nothing but assert they wrere anonymous. There is no evidence that the gospels existed without these names attached to them. If there was, it would not be such a debate. The author presupposes that is the case. They simply assert it without proof.
I cannot prove that from 60 to 120 AD that the gospels had the names attached but no one can certainly prove they did not.
Click to expand...
If they were anonymous, as you readily admit, then who affixed those names to those books? After admitting that they were anonymous you then say: There is no evidence that the gospels existed without these names attached to them. :confused: Oh well…
 
joe370 said:
If they were anonymous, as you readily admit, then who affixed those names to those books? After admitting that they were anonymous you then say: There is no evidence that the gospels existed without these names attached to them. :confused: Oh well…
Click to expand...
No need to be confused Joe.
I do not believe they were anonymous. There is no evidence that they were. It is asserted by scholars based upon their presuppositions that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write them. These scholars believe they are from a later date and cannot be from the people attributed to them.
There is no proof that any of the Gospels were once anonymous.
It has been asserted by the link you provided.
The problem with this particular question in the OP
OP
Prior to 250 AD or so, the 4 Gospels were anonymous and later affixed by the tradition of the CC, so why reject tradition and still believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the living witnesses that authored the Gospels?
Click to expand...
is it takes the view of scholars who deny that Matthew, Mark. Luke and John wrote and presupposes it to be correct.
 
joe370 said:
Woodland, I firmly believe that Matthew, Mark Luke and John are the authors of those 4 gospels and we know this thanks to the tradition of the Catholic church,.
Click to expand...
where does the Catholic Church teach this?
 
joe370 said:
I agree with you…

No doubt 2 eye witnesses to Jesus would write 2 distinctly different Gospels - each from their own vantage point. In the early centuries there were in fact some 30 Gospels written. However, prior to 313 when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, Christians were being tortured and publicly executed…around 180 it was decided to “clarify the faith” by choosing 4 widely accepted Gospels - mainly for the purpose of helping early Christians know what it was they were dying for.
Click to expand...
Christianity did not become the state religion of Rome in 313.
 
40.png
joe370:
I firmly believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of those 4 gospels and I believe it because it is a tradition of the Catholic Church.

Where does the tradition of the Catholic Church teach that?
 
Sufjon said:
Dear friends: Serious question: If the scriptures were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, all of whom knew Jesus, and they were inspired by God or guided by the Holy Spirit, why do the contradict one another? I am seriously confused by all of this and I am trying to understand.

Your freind
Sufjon
Click to expand...
No, they did not contradict one another.
 
joe370 said:
I see…you want to bait me instead of answering the question…If it can be infallibly stated that Matthew is the author of the gospel of Matthew and Mark is the author of the gospel of Mark and Luke is the author of the gospel of Luke and John is the author of the gospel of John, then yes, the CC infallibly declared…

Now, what is your response to my OP? If my supposition is wrong I will gladly admit it.
Click to expand...
Maybe it could be infallibly stated, but the fact is the Catholic Church has never done so.
 
diggerdomer said:
Christianity did not become the state religion of Rome in 313.
Click to expand...
It was Theodosius in 380 when he issued his edict De Fide Catholica declaring Catholic Christianty as the State Religion of the Roman Empire.
It was Constatine in 313 that wanted to unite the Roman Empire under a “universal” church which began the RCC.
 
rev_kevin said:
It was Theodosius in 380 when he issued his edict De Fide Catholica declaring Catholic Christianty as the State Religion of the Roman Empire.
It was Constatine in 313 that wanted to unite the Roman Empire under a “universal” church which began the RCC.
Click to expand...
Constantine in 313 issued the Edict of Toleration which legitimized the Christian Church (ended persecution, restored property, etc.). That’s all. As you note, it was only later in 380 A.D. that Christianity became the official religion of the empire.
 
diggerdomer said:
Constantine in 313 issued the Edict of Toleration which legitimized the Christian Church (ended persecution, restored property, etc.). That’s all. As you note, it was only later in 380 A.D. that Christianity became the official religion of the empire.
Click to expand...
Ok I’ll go with Constantine legitimizing the Christian Church.
 
Publisher said:
My Journey of faith has been long and changing. I once accepted the things espoused of scripture that “conservative” Christians accept. But through study, my own life experience, my experience with God and a whole lot of prayerful consideration…I have found a faith tradition that allows me to “work out” my own salvation in this world.

Could I be wrong…you bet…but I’m not too worried about “error” concerning my beliefs…for there is grace…astounding amazing grace provided from the God I have found revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.

Where do my beliefs come from…life experience, study, prayer and a whole lot of “supposition” and “this makes sense”.🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer. And as an orthodox Catholic, I also believe and accept salvation by grace alone. Also as an orthodox Catholic, I’d be remiss if I didn’t throw just one more bingo chip onto the card table. 🙂 I believe grace begins with baptism and is essential to the Christian life. I know at the same time that many faith traditions don’t believe that the outward expression of any sacrament is necessary for the inward infusion of God’s grace. While baptism may be an avenue for grace, it’s not an essential one. Here, both beliefs can’t be right. Either “Peter” in 1Peter 3:21 in saying “baptism now saves you,” really does mean baptism saves you, or it doesn’t mean that (in which case he really should have rephrased that to make it more clear that the text doesn’t mean what it actually says–smiley face again). The point that I’m driving at is that one of these beliefs is in error. Either the Catholic who believes in baptism is wrong, and essential grace isn’t infused through the sacrament, or the Evangelical is wrong by not being baptized when it is. And if grace matters, then the answer to the above question is important to all of us. So I’d invite you again to look at the Catholic Church, not because I believe it’s the truth, even though it’s obvious that I do, but because it may be the truth in spite of me or my personal opinions, and to not reject it out of hand as I think you do. I’d also invite you because we could use another brother like you. I know that last line is as subjective as it gets–but there it is. God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top