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.
Erich said:
I’ll grant that there aren’t many, but googling “quaker rituals”] turns up 39 results, and googling “quaker procedures”] turns up another 182 results… so there certainly appears to be some need for ritual among those whom the world calls Quakers.
Click to expand...
Sorry…I used a :“Quaker” phrase…we believe there are no rituals that in and of themselves bestow grace. Any “ritual” or “rite” meant to restore us to fellowship with God is unnecessary as we receive directly from the Presence…each of us needs no other mediator than the “Mediator, the man Jesus”.
 
Erich said:
I’ll grant that there aren’t many, but googling “quaker rituals”] turns up 39 results, and googling “quaker procedures”] turns up another 182 results… so there certainly appears to be some need for ritual among those whom the world calls Quakers.
Click to expand...
I would really like to see what they list as “rituals”.

I know that our “Meeting for Worship for Marriage” may be considered a “ritual”…however we need no “priest” or “minister” to marry us…we “marry each other in the sight of God and these Friends”…all present sign the certificate witnessing the marriage. Our “marriage ceremony” is really a “witness” that one need no priest or minister to receive the blessings of God.

The bride and groom sit on the “facing bench” until the appointed time…when they feel led by the Spirit to speak…they rise and take each others hands and say…“In the presence of God and these our Friends, I take thee to be my <wife/husband/partner>,
promising with Divine assistance to be unto theea loving and faithful <wife/husband/partner> as long as we both shall live.”…and we’re married. Then anyone led to offer “vocal ministry” may do so.

Perhaps waiting in Silence to come to a consensus during our Meeeting for Worship for Business would be considered a “ritual”…we don’t “vote” over decisions…until the “Sense of the Meeting” is discerned by the Clerk, no business is passed…the “majority” do not rule…one voice may be the Voice of the Lord…and the rest of us mistaken…we wait upon the Lord to “open to us” what to do.

Perhaps this should be broken off and discussed elsewhere…I am complicit in derailing the thread.🙂
 
Todd520 said:
It might be safer to say there is overlap in beliefs or interpretation of scripture
Click to expand...
I don’t agree; we are not dealing with scripture when it comes to identifying who wrote Matthew, Mark Luke, John and Hebrews. We are dealing with catholic tradition.
 
Okay RD, then prove that they were not anonymous? Not one scholar agrees with you. Show me where the apostle Matthew identifies himself as the apostle that wrote the gospel of Matthew just as Paul does in most of his letter? 👍
Rightlydivide said:
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

is it takes the view of scholars who deny that Matthew, Mark. Luke and John wrote and presupposes it to be correct.
Click to expand...
 
diggerdomer said:
where does the Catholic Church teach this?
Click to expand...
I will give you a non-Catholic accredited link that illustrates why the CC, via tradition, believes this. Just click on each respective books and see for yourself. If this non-Catholic link will not suffice then I can provide another:

abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/IndexNTIntr.htm

If the catholic early church fathers did not correctly identify the names of the men who wrote those gospels and the book of Hebrews then why do you believe that those men wrote those books? After all, those books never make that claim. :confused:
 
diggerdomer said:
Catholic tradition is not opposed to the Bible. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Again, the bible is silent as to who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Hebrews. Catholic tradition alone identifies those men as the authors of those books. Catholic tradition affixed those names to those books in the 2nd century. Research it yourself; don’t take my word on it…
 
diggerdomer said:
Catholic tradition is not opposed to the Bible. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Putting words in my mouth…oh well…I meant, as you know: catholic tradition **(not the bible) **- gave us the names of the authors of those books. It would be silly to continue to respond to any more posts regarding the same thing…🙂
 
joe370 said:
Okay RD, then prove that they were not anonymous? Not one scholar agrees with you. Show me where the apostle Matthew identifies himself as the apostle that wrote the gospel of Matthew just as Paul does in most of his letter? 👍
Click to expand...
So you are asking me to defend the position of people who say that Mattew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels? I will always happily defend the integrity and truth of scripture.
As far as not one scholar, that simply is not true. Not one scholar. Fascinating…
But first tell me what you consider a scholar to be. Is holding a doctorate and being published in journals and authoring books what makes one a scholar in your definition?
  1. From 130 AD on, the writers of the gospels are identified by name.
  2. Prior to 130 AD, no documents exists or any writing exists to suggest that the gospels were anyonymous. None
  3. There are no complete copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that do not have the authors name affixed to them from any time era.
  4. There are no historical accounts of the gospels being attributed to other authors. There is some confusion by a few early Christian writers to exactly which John wrote John, John the elder or John the Apostle, but that is a confusion about which John, not that John wrote it. A curious confusion if a name was not attached.
  5. Why would people years later attribute the gospels to minor figures like Mark, Matthew, and Luke when these would actually work against them as opposed to for them.
That should be enough.
 
joe370 said:
Again, the bible is silent as to who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Hebrews. Catholic tradition alone identifies those men as the authors of those books. Catholic tradition affixed those names to those books in the 2nd century. Research it yourself; don’t take my word on it…
Click to expand...
No it is not. The Bible has the names attached and no copies of the Bible or books of the BIble exist that do not or did not. The Bible is never silent about it. There is no proof the names were ever not there. None. If you know of a copy of one of these letters that would make the Bible that did not have the names attached, then produce it or quit making this claim.
 
Rightlydivide said:
No it is not. The Bible has the names attached and no copies of the Bible or books of the BIble exist that do not or did not. The Bible is never silent about it. There is no proof the names were ever not there. None. If you know of a copy of one of these letters that would make the Bible that did not have the names attached, then produce it or quit making this claim.
Click to expand...
That is a difficult claim you are making. You do mot know this for a fact, since we don’t have any of the originals
 
joe370 said:
So why do you believe that those men wrote those books??? Again, the bible is silent on the matter.
Click to expand...
The Bible is not silent. If you have proof that these books did not have titles when originally penned, prove it. Provide any person from any time in the first 300 years that says they were anonymous. Provide any codex from any time period that did not have the books with the titles of the books.
It does not exist.
 
StTommyMore said:
That is a difficult claim you are making. You do mot know this for a fact, since we don’t have any of the originals
Click to expand...
We do not have any copies or know of any copies that do not have the names attached is my claim. From any time in history. That is a true fact.
 
The arguments against these men writing these gospels all hinge on presuppositions they hold about source criticism (ie Q, the synoptic problem, etc).
 
Rightlydivide said:
We do not have any copies or know of any copies that do not have the names attached is my claim. From any time in history. That is a true fact.
Click to expand...
So your claim should reflect that. Though authorship is certain, it comes from the Church, and not the documents themselves. Authorship of the Gospels is an aspect of tradition borne out by the Fathers, not the texts.
 
=Rightlydivide;7213341]So you are asking me to defend the position of people who say that Mattew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels? I will always happily defend the integrity and truth of scripture.
Click to expand...
Scripture is silent as to who wrote the gospels.
As far as not one scholar, that simply is not true. Not one scholar. Fascinating…
Click to expand...
Name one that didn’t think the the gospels were anonymous?
But first tell me what you consider a scholar to be. Is holding a doctorate and being published in journals and authoring books what makes one a scholar in your definition?
Click to expand...
In this case I defer to non-Catholic scholarship.
  1. From 130 AD on, the writers of the gospels are identified by name.
Click to expand...
Exactly…Catholic church leaders affixed those names to those anonymous books; not Matthew Mark Luke John or Paul, regarding Hebrews.
  1. Prior to 130 AD, no documents exists or any writing exists to suggest that the gospels were anyonymous. None
Click to expand...
Prove me wrong and I will concede your point? Prior to 130 AD or around there, those 4 books as well as the book of Hebrews, had no affixed title to them regarding their authorship. Not one…
  1. There are no complete copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that do not have the authors name affixed to them from any time era.
Click to expand...
Extant copies? Agreed. The CC affixed those names to those books. Prove me wrong so we can end the debate. I have provided a non-Catholic accredited link that agrees with me; you do the same? I am at work so I have to be quick…
  1. There are no historical accounts of the gospels being attributed to other authors.
Click to expand...
Agreed…
There is some confusion by a few early Christian writers to exactly which John wrote John, John the elder or John the Apostle, but that is a confusion about which John, not that John wrote it.
Click to expand...
Catholic church settled the matter…
  1. Why would people years later attribute the gospels to minor figures like Mark, Matthew, and Luke when these would actually work against them as opposed to for them.
These catholic leaders wouldn’t…Again, prove that those books were not anonymous and I will say: I was wrong? Got to go…
 
Exactly…
StTommyMore said:
So your claim should reflect that. Though authorship is certain, it comes from the Church, and not the documents themselves. Authorship of the Gospels is an aspect of tradition borne out by the Fathers, not the texts.
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
The arguments against these men writing these gospels all hinge on presuppositions they hold about source criticism (ie Q, the synoptic problem, etc).
Click to expand...
I am probably going to get flamed for this, but the Synoptic problem is a real issue worthy of discussion that does not necessarily require an acceptance of Q or Markan priority. The proper way to address the reason for similarity of the synoptics is to examine the texts, not to pretend there is no issue!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top