Struggling to understand a few things

[Struggling323]

Please bear with me, because this may get long. Also, please forgive my ignorance. It will also appear that I do not believe in some things, but please do not make that assumption and know that I am someone who loves GOD, but is searching.

I also realize that I will be bombarded with links which will require a lot of reading, so please keep that in mind before sending me somewhere to read for 2 hours, and the answer not being there.

Last thing, I DO realize that some things are based on faith and believing and that some things cannot be proven. IF that is the case, and it is unproven, I would very much welcome the reply “its common belief” instead of turning a hypothesis into a truth.

It appears that Judaism, Catholics, and Muslims all worship the same God. All have different views on Jesus and the “right way”. What I want to know from you guys, is… is it possible that God sent different prophets, and different ways of teachings, but all end in the final conclusion that they love the one true God? Jews are still waiting. We believe it was Jesus. Muslims acknowledge much of Jesus life (which surprised me), but also believe Jesus was one of God prophets, but not the literal son of God.

We all know God can work in mysterious ways. My main question here…is it not possible that God is behind all 3 faiths, but is reaching people in different ways?

I know that I will be getting bombarded with scriptures of the gospels, but this brings up another issue that Id like some insight on. 2 of the 4 Gospels are not written by any of the 12 disciples. Both Mark and John did not “write” the books either from my research. All of the gospels are written by unknown authors. There are hypothesis as to who and why, but is this one of those “there is no real answer” types of questions? I will not get into the controversy about Paul, because I recently stumbled up on it, however there will be posts about that later I am sure. Where are the other 10? Jesus originally had 12, although many more followed him. Where are the accounts of the 10 other followers of Jesus? And how can we be sure of the validity of what Paul writes (he wrote… 14 books was it in the New Testament?) I wont get into other books that were left out just yet.

Im going to leave it at that for now so that this doesnt turn into a book, more will follow in this or other threads.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

We all know God can work in mysterious ways. My main question here…is it not possible that God is behind all 3 faiths, but is reaching people in different ways?

The short answer is no. Christianity isn’t just another religion when it comes to Judaism; it is the fulfillment of it. Christ being God did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them; meaning God has perfected them in Christ (God-Man). Islam rejects the divinity of Christ, so in the end if God was behind all three religions as they exist today then He would be for Himself while at the same time rejecting Himself. In short if God was behind all of them as they exist today then God would be going through an identity crisis.

I would recommned reading Archbishop Fulton J. Sheens remarks regarding Christ as being the only person ever pre-announced. Here is the link: copiosa.org/christology/christ_pre-announced.htm

 

[DavidFilmer]

It appears that Judaism, Catholics, and Muslims all worship the same God.

No. Catholics worship a God who is triune in nature. Jews and Muslims do not. What is not the same in nature is not the same in reality. The nature of the Catholic God is completely different, and utterly incompatible with the Jewish and Muslim versions.

is it possible that God sent different prophets, and different ways of teachings, but all end in the final conclusion that they love the one true God?

Ah, “one true God.” Would that be the triune God, or the single-Person God only?

[Muslims] also believe Jesus was one of God prophets, but not the literal son of God.

No they don’t. That’s the Muslim version of being politically correct. Muslims revere Mohammad as their Prophet.

All of the gospels are written by unknown authors.

I have never read any credible Scripture scholar who did not believe that the Gospel of John was largely the work of the Apostle. Few scholars believe that Matthew the Evangelist was the same as Matthew the Apostle, and few believe that St. John the Divine (author of Revelation) was John the Apostle.

So one out of four. But why bring that up? What does it add to the discussion?

Where are the accounts of the 10 other followers of Jesus?

Where are the writings of the other ten illiterate Apostles? Seriously?

It’s a good thing that, during his earthly ministry, Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything - he would have chosen the wrong followers if he expected this.

And how can we be sure of the validity of what Paul writes (he wrote… 14 books was it in the New Testament?)

What do you mean by “validity?” Do you mean written by Paul himself? That’s not what the Church means by “valid.” And it is almost certainly not true. No credible scholar believes that the author of Hebrews is the same person as the author of Romans. There is nothing remotely similar in the sentence structure, vocabulary, style, or theological approach.

But the Church does not give a fig who wrote any of the Bible - validity is not determined by authorship. The ONLY thing that decides if a particular writing is divinely inspired is the pronouncement of the Church. The Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture - not the authors of the various books. Nobody in the Church even cares who wrote these books. It is completely and utterly irrelevant.

We know that the Gospel of Mark is “valid” because the Church says it is valid. Nobody cares (or even really knows) who Mark was.

 

[Struggling323]

The short answer is no. Christianity isn’t just another religion when it comes to Judaism; it is the fulfillment of it. Christ being God did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them; meaning God has perfected them in Christ (God-Man). Islam rejects the divinity of Christ, so in the end if God was behind all three religions as they exist today then He would be for Himself while at the same time rejecting Himself. In short if God was behind all of them as they exist today then God would be going through an identity crisis.

I would recommned reading Archbishop Fulton J. Sheens remarks regarding Christ as being the only person ever pre-announced. Here is the link: copiosa.org/christology/christ_pre-announced.htm

Thank you for the reply, brings me to more questions.

I completely understand what you are saying. However instead of an identity crisis, it brings me back to my original question of him reaching people in different ways.

Judiasm believed that Jesus failed in 4 prophesies. (copy/paste job incoming)

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)​

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6)​

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)​

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9)​

They believe Jesus failed in his mission. We all know why we believe he didnt. For anyone who knows the Bible better, were there any prophesies about the messiah (Jesus coming), not doing everything that was supposed to be done, but then coming back at a later time to finish the prophesies?

As far as Islam, they hold Jesus in the highest respect, however do not believe he was divine, as you stated.

We base his divinity on what is written, in the New Testament, which is why i put in the part about the Bible. (the Bible is still going through “changes” or “better translations” you can call it. Not to mention any books that didnt go along with the overall theme, are omitted. Most rightfully so Im sure) I believe i counted 12 different councils that changed the context or translation of the Bible. The Torah has also been edited and changed several times as well. The Qur’an has not been changed. Now Im not saying that everyone needs to go grab a quran and convert to Islam lol, please dont get me wrong.

However, 3 completely different faiths with different sets of beliefs. One God.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

However, 3 completely different faiths with different sets of beliefs. One God.

Sorry I thought I would skip to this point since its enough to show that the same God is not behind all three faiths as they exist today. Judaism shouldn’t even be practiced anymore and Islam is so opposed to Christianity that it would be impossible for the same One God to use them both as equal paths to Himself.

The most important part you are missing is that all three faiths proclaim to be handed down through divine revelation. It would be weird for the same One God to reveal Himself in ways that contradict His other revelations and when I say this I’m referring only to Christianity and Islam.

It’s hard to talk about Judasim in this because Judasim was abrogated ( I believe thats the right word???) when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Struggling323]

No. Catholics worship a God who is triune in nature. Jews and Muslims do not. What is not the same in nature is not the same in reality. The nature of the Catholic God is completely different, and utterly incompatible with the Jewish and Muslim versions.

Ah, “one true God.” Would that be the triune God, or the single-Person God only?

I understand our way of thinking of what our road to salvation is. I dont think you understand what I meant by my post. Ill say it in a different way. Christians, Muslims, and Judaism worship the same God.

The difference come when God sent his son, Jesus, to dwell among us. We believe in the Trinity. They dont.

Gods intelligence is much greater than ours. I didnt know if anyone else thought that it was out of the realm of possibilities that he knew how big the world would get, and try to reach people in different ways because in the end, we are all worshiping the same God from what I read. God wants his message heard by all. We believe he is Triune. Im not questioning the Trinity.

No they don’t. That’s the Muslim version of being politically correct. Muslims revere Mohammad as their Prophet.

Really??

Not what ive been reading, but I do see how some could draw that conclusion

I have never read any credible Scripture scholar who did not believe that the Gospel of John was largely the work of the Apostle. Few scholars believe that Matthew the Evangelist was the same as Matthew the Apostle, and few believe that St. John the Divine (author of Revelation) was John the Apostle.

So one out of four. But why bring that up? What does it add to the discussion?

So one out of 4 isnt worth mentioning? I already stated that I wasnt a Bible scholar. However, putting the entire statement would put things into more perspective.

I stated in the next sentence:
but is this one of those “there is no real answer” types of questions

You could have just said yes. It adds to the discussion because its a discussion I started and that I am curious and hoping to get answers on. Im not here to win a discussion.

Where are the writings of the other ten illiterate Apostles? Seriously?

It’s a good thing that, during his earthly ministry, Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything - he would have chosen the wrong followers if he expected this.

I am not knowledgeable in the Bible enough to know what the other 10 did once Jesus resurrection. I just assumed that they went on to do something and preach afterwords, and maybe even have time of their lives with Jesus discussed? Not a far fetched thing to believe in my opinion.

What do you mean by “validity?” Do you mean written by Paul himself? That’s not what the Church means by “valid.” And it is almost certainly not true. No credible scholar believes that the author of Hebrews is the same person as the author of Romans. There is nothing remotely similar in the sentence structure, vocabulary, style, or theological approach.

not what I meant. I shouldnt have brought it up, it was random and i said id get back to it later.

It is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Maybe to you lol., You do understand why many people use these forums right? To learn, get questions answered? In my very first sentence of that paragraph…

We know that the Gospel of Mark is “valid” because the Church says it is valid. Nobody cares (or even really knows) who Mark was.

Not sure what this has to do about anything. I never asked if Marks gospel was valid.

And someday, someone may ask me these same very questions, and Id like to be able to say more than “its only one out of four” or “nobody cares and its irrelevant”

 

[Struggling323]

Sorry I thought I would skip to this point since its enough to show that the same God is not behind all three faiths as they exist today. Judaism shouldn’t even be practiced anymore and Islam is so opposed to Christianity that it would be impossible for the same One God to use them both as equal paths to Himself.

The only stuff I had read is what the individual books read and what I googled. Maybe I should have read Islams book but I really didnt want to read their entire book. I am working on my own faith , dont want to learn theirs. By just what I had read, they seemed to have the same message of peace and love. I assumed that just like there are Christians that dont live their lives like they should, there were Islamic people who didnt live their lives as they should as well. Some even use Islam to wage “holy war”.

I was just surprised to see they those religions spoke of Moses and Abraham and considered them prophets, just as we did and I got to thinking because we believe the same.

The most important part you are missing is that all three faiths proclaim to be handed down through divine revelation.

To be honest that never even crossed my mind. Thanks.

It’s hard to talk about Judasim in this because Judasim was abrogated ( I believe thats the right word???) when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

I wasnt aware of the way they had split off as well into different churches.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I understand our way of thinking of what our road to salvation is. I dont think you understand what I meant by my post. Ill say it in a different way. Christians, Muslims, and Judaism worship the same God.

No, we don’t.

The difference come when God sent his son, Jesus, to dwell among us. We believe in the Trinity. They dont.

We believe that God IS Trinity. They don’t. Thus, they do not believe in the same God that Catholics believe in. What is different in nature CANNOT be the same in reality.

Gods intelligence is much greater than ours. I didnt know if anyone else thought that it was out of the realm of possibilities that he knew how big the world would get, and try to reach people in different ways because in the end, we are all worshiping the same God from what I read. God wants his message heard by all.

God’s message is TRUTH. There are not many truths - there is one, and only one, Truth. Jesus Christ is Truth personified.

God does not wish to trick people who might not accept Truth into believing him by offering to them a lie that is more palatable. God does not wish us to accept whatever erroneous version of Himself that he wishes to put forth. God is not like a guy in a bar who tells some girl that he is an astronaut, or a secret agent, or a Nascar driver, or whatever else he thinks will get the girl to accept him. God tells us ONLY the Truth about himself. He will NOT tell one person that he IS Trinity, and another person that he is not, just so both persons will accept him.

We believe he is Triune. Im not questioning the Trinity.

You don’t, but others do. Either you are right, and they are wrong, or you are wrong, and you are right. It is impossible that both of you are correct.

So one out of 4 isnt worth mentioning?

If it was not worth mentioning, I would not have mentioned it. You seemed to be going for zero out of four.

However, putting the entire statement would put things into more perspective.

I stated in the next sentence:
but is this one of those “there is no real answer” types of questions

You could have just said yes. It adds to the discussion because its a discussion I started and that I am curious and hoping to get answers on. Im not here to win a discussion.

There IS a real answer. It is (according to scholarly consensus) one out of four. My point was that the answer is irrelevant, because the question (about Biblical authorship) is irrelevant. I don’t care if the answer is zero out of four or four out of four. I was only presenting the opinion of prevailing scholarship, which differed from your presentation. It is an academic point only - as I further said, nobody (at least no Catholic) really cares about authorship. I was simply clarifying a point - it was not meant as a criticism.

I am not knowledgeable in the Bible enough to know what the other 10 did once Jesus resurrection. I just assumed that they went on to do something and preach afterwords, and maybe even have time of their lives with Jesus discussed? Not a far fetched thing to believe in my opinion.

Literacy was rare in Jesus’ time, especially among the lower classes of the Holy Land. Of the Apostles, only Matthew (the Roman stooge tax collector) and John (the Temple-educated Pharisee) are generally regarded as literate (ie, able to read and write). Jesus himself, having lived for a time in Egypt (most likely Alexandria, home of most of the Dysphoria - Greek-speaking Jews who largely outnumbered their Hebrew-speaking counterparts), was probably literate and knew both Greek and Latin.

There are legends associated with the eventual fate of each of the eleven original Apostles (excluding Judas). But it is not surprising that we do not have purported firsthand written accounts from most of these.

Maybe to you lol., You do understand why many people use these forums right? To learn, get questions answered?

Not to me (lol) but to any Catholic. And I understand that non-Catholics use these forums, but I presume they are interested in what Catholics think is important (and what is not). And authorship of Scripture is utterly and completely irrelevant to Catholics. We could care less about WHO wrote it - we only care if the Church has told us that it is Scripture.

Not sure what this has to do about anything. I never asked if Marks gospel was valid.

I was using Mark as an example of the least “valid” Gospel, as far as authorship was concerned. We have no flippin’ idea who “Mark” was. He was obviously a pagan at one time (Mark - Marcus - is a pagan name). The fact that one of the four Canonical Gospels was written by some guy named “Mark” does not add one iota of credibility to this account (and could actually call it into question).

You have questioned (that is not to say “doubted”) the “validity” of various Biblical writings, but have not provided a criteria for which you consider a writing “valid” (though I asked you for one). I have attempted to explain the Church’s position on “validity.” Do you have any objection to the positions I have stated?

 

[Struggling323]

God does not wish to trick people who might not accept Truth into believing him by offering to them a lie that is more palatable.

This is a good point.

If it was not worth mentioning, I would not have mentioned it. You seemed to be going for zero out of four.

I disagree. If I am ever explaining this to someone else, I hope that I have better answers to say than “its not worth talking about, just believe what I say”

That doesnt work too much in a real discussion with a non Christian lol.

It wasnt that I am going for zero out of four, I am not going for anything. I wanted to know what the Church’s official position, a theologists theory, or something other than “just because, it doenst matter” existed.

There IS a real answer. It is (according to scholarly consensus) one out of four. My point was that the answer is irrelevant, because the question (about Biblical authorship) is irrelevant. I don’t care if the answer is zero out of four or four out of four. I was only presenting the opinion of prevailing scholarship, which differed from your presentation. It is an academic point only - as I further said, nobody (at least no Catholic) really cares about authorship. I was simply clarifying a point - it was not meant as a criticism.

Sorry I took it that way.

Ill kill two bird with one stone and ask in a more clear way right below this.

Literacy was rare in Jesus’ time, especially among the lower classes of the Holy Land. Of the Apostles, only Matthew (the Roman stooge tax collector) and John (the Temple-educated Pharisee) are generally regarded as literate (ie, able to read and write). Jesus himself, having lived for a time in Egypt (most likely Alexandria, home of most of the Dysphoria - Greek-speaking Jews who largely outnumbered their Hebrew-speaking counterparts), was probably literate and knew both Greek and Latin.

So not only were most of the apostles were illiterate, we can assume that most of the followers and people who listened to them were as well? (real question, not a sarcastic reply)

There are legends associated with the eventual fate of each of the eleven original Apostles (excluding Judas). But it is not surprising that we do not have purported firsthand written accounts from most of these.

So we basically have no clue what happened with them? Thats what I was attempting to find out.

Not to me (lol) but to any Catholic. And I understand that non-Catholics use these forums, but I presume they are interested in what Catholics think is important (and what is not). And authorship of Scripture is utterly and completely irrelevant to Catholics. We could care less about WHO wrote it - we only care if the Church has told us that it is Scripture.

Again, this is not to sound sarcastic, however you are saying that our entire Mass, which is based on scripture, but we dont care where this scripture came from?

I do understand that the Bible isnt the definitive source of all of our beliefs. We believe that the Church and tradition is where we get many of our answers. I was just hoping/figuring that if someone went up to a theologists, or even the pope and asked him the same questions, that the Church would have an official teaching on the subject. If their answer would be “it doesnt matter, we just follow it”, then thats our official position on the subject. I just thought that we would have been a little more in depth about our position.

I was using Mark as an example of the least “valid” Gospel, as far as authorship was concerned. We have no flippin’ idea who “Mark” was. He was obviously a pagan at one time (Mark - Marcus - is a pagan name). The fact that one of the four Canonical Gospels was written by some guy named “Mark” does not add one iota of credibility to this account (and could actually call it into question).

You have questioned (that is not to say “doubted”) the “validity” of various Biblical writings, but have not provided a criteria for which you consider a writing “valid” (though I asked you for one). I have attempted to explain the Church’s position on “validity.” Do you have any objection to the positions I have stated?

Its not that I question the validity of the gospels. The entire point of the word “validity” came from pauls writings. While researching, I came across quite a few links calling Paul someone who really wasnt an apostle and how some of his words contradicted Jesus himself. I read briefly but not near enough to even form questions about it. I shouldnt have mentioned the validity of Paul in the first place because I dont even have examples or questions to ask, thats why I was trying to get off of the subject.

Personally I have a lot to learn about our faith. The problem is, I have so many questions that I will research one thing, and run into 4 more things that bring up questions.

I am the only christian in my family, aside from my wife, and none of my friends are believers. We have one priest who simply does not have the time to be a spiritual adviser to everyone. When trying to explain things to my family, or friends, when the opportunity does arise, its important that I know our actual beliefs because I am not going to wake any of them up by saying “just because”. I basically have the internet, and these forums. My reading time is dedicated to improving my prayer life and dryness. So my internet time is trying to find out the official teachings (answers) on what the Church says about certain issues because I get very little time to explain anything because they already operate under the pretense that God doesnt exists.

 

[Gidras05]

Not to me (lol) but to any Catholic. And I understand that non-Catholics use these forums, but I presume they are interested in what Catholics think is important (and what is not). And authorship of Scripture is utterly and completely irrelevant to Catholics. We could care less about WHO wrote it - we only care if the Church has told us that it is Scripture.

I just wanted to comment that I think you might be slightly misinformed about this particular point. I agree with most of what you wrote but I wanted to comment on this particular argument. While it is true that the authorship of Scripture does not necessarily change doctrine or what we believe, the study of validity behind authorship of Scripture is actually a highly contended and highly valued study within the Church, which employs many theologians throughout history to help debate it.

Probably the most important reason why this study is important, is in the defense of Faith (hence this forum). Biblical Criticism is the umbrella study of what the OP is asking, and it’s a study that is recognized by the Church, especially since it offers counterarguments to those who try to invalidate Scripture.

Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose “insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies.” An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus’s sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.

This is an example of a type of Biblical Criticism that the OP is looking for. As you can see, there are varying types of Biblical Criticism that many theologians DO study.

Point being, it’s folly to say that the Church “simply does not care” about the authorship of Sacred Scripture, and that the question is “irrelevant”.