No - what he believes is that the New Testament was given to us by the Church in 405 AD, and that the eyewitnesses were long since dead at that time.
Well the last book of the New Testament was written prior to 90 A.D. and many of the books were written by the original twelve apostles. They were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and traveled with Him during His 3 years of ministry.
Not correct. The individual books all existed, but the COMPILATION known as the New Testament did not.
With that said, why are books like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas not included? Why were hotly contested books like 2 Peter and Revelations included? How was the canon decided?!
No, I think not. And not for lack of kindness, but out of respect for your scholarly ways. It would be more prudent for you to read the thread again from the beginning.
Sure I do, but not the 500 that observed it. I trust that they were there, by faith, because the Sacred Scriptures indicate it as such, but not on the basis of historical evidence. the Gospels were written by believers, so others could “come to believe”. They are faith based documents, not historical. They contain some history, but are based on divine revelation, not history.
Yes! Thanks!
Exactly!
So do you believe God would have given them a wrong number?
OS is not throwing mud. He is asking a perfectly legitimate question based on my contentious response to ja4.
Really? How do you account that?
And which do you deem where those? Peter, I guess, who else?
the documents that later became the NT were certainly extant and circulating. So were over 300 other documents claiming to be from authentic sources.
Really? what “public” was that?
REally? Which “most” are those? John, perhaps?
I agree with you that brainwashing has certainly gone on. Where in the Bible is the table of contents of what should be in the bible?
No, I am confident the number is accurate. But the number was given to us by the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, and I accept it by faith, not by historical confirmation. It is very weak in historical testimony outside the documents of faith produced by the same Sacred Tradition.
I sure appreciate the fact that you are honing my Catholic thinking ability but perhaps you could clarify one historical point. If it was not the Catholic Church who assembled the books of the new testaments who did, when did they do it and where is the historical evidence for your assertions? Thanks again.
This information comes to us via the Holy Tradition of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - there is no independent way to verify it at the present time. Six of the eight writers of the New Testament don’t even identify themselves in their own writings, and St. Paul and St. Luke give only the sketchiest of personal profiles - for example, the only way we know that Matthew wrote the Gospel According to Matthew is because St. Jerome (who lived from 340-420 AD) gave it the title “The Gospel According to Matthew” - information that he got from the Holy Tradition. (You don’t think that it came originally with a title page and study notes, or even “jmj” with the date neatly printed and his name and grade at the top, do you?
)Literally.
Point taken.
No Ja4, you must keep all the passages that deal with the Eucharist together in order to see what the New Testament is teaching.
My friend let me challenge you to find a parish near you that has Eucharistic Adoration and just go. They don’t check Catholic IDs at the door and there’s no secret Vatican handshake or anything, but take your Bible and just go and experience it for yourself. Just sit and read the Word of God while there and see if the Holy Spirit doesn’t move in you. I think you’ll find it one of the best times you have ever spent before the Lord. (Even if you reject the Real Presence…remember too that where two or three are gathered in His name…)
recognized her, though? Does Jesus have two mothers, now?
Ja4, Is this the only passage of scripture dealing with what it takes to be saved? You know as well as I do that that’s not the case at all and that is one reason that I have asserted that there is a very real possibility that modern post reformation n-Cs are preaching a different and deficient gospel of salvation. I point this out in my blog entry entitled. Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”? Please give that a read and maybe we can get into it a bit either via e-mail or PMs here.
Go back and start with post 2.
