To All Protestants

[Gene_C]

To Yada and Hurst,

You’ve both written eloquently. I think all three of us are on the same page but I must say that I am in the same paragraph as Hurst!

Grace and peace,
Gene

 

[YADA]

Gene & Hurst:

Glad we are on the same page. Just thought I would post the Gospel intoduction that I found in the approved english bible on the Vatican’s web site:

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

I find it not to be productive to argue about facts that “cannot be put into the record” Scripture is inspired. The Church existed first. It is the Church who is the guardian of the deposit of faith, of which scripture is a part but not whole. If the Vatican can offer upon its web site what is found above, it is not for me to totally disregard the possibilities.

My priest (as have many parish priests that I know and have known, along with most, if not all of my scripture professors) have indicated that the Gospels were written by early Christians. Not necessarily the Apsotles but their earliest followers. They have never said that it is absolutely not the apostles Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

However, these types of discussion divert our attention from the true importance and purpose of the scriptures. What is it these works teach us about Christ and our relationship to him and our response as Christians. Do we cloth the naked, feed the hungary, love our fellow man as ourselves, etc.

PAX

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

Yes. And for that reason, one must be very careful how Paul’s epistles are interpreted. Peter gives us some insight into this:

2 Peter 3:15-18

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

Peace,
Mickey

Agreed!

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Philthy:

I agree that this would be the typical response from our Protestant friends and it seems reasonable. It effectively says that Pauls letters constitute a better source of understanding than the gospels - which is OK - but it leaves us with the nagging question of why, if that is true, did God “waste” so much time with recording the Gospels?

Phil

Admittedly, the gospels are biographical in nature rather than doctrine oriented like the epistles are. And that naturally leads to people relying more on Paul’s epistles to explain doctrines like justification, original sin, law and grace, etc.

I put them all on equal footing when you are talking about importance and inspiration. For me it’s a matter of topical substance rather than more important vs. less important. That’s a dangerous road to travel when you start categorizing different books as having different weight of importance.

They are all important in their own way. It’s a Bible - library of books showing Christian thought and practice. If you only read the gospel of John or the letter to the Romans you would get a non-comprehensive and skewed view of Christianity. I encourage people to read the whole library of books - deutero’s included

Peace…

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Yada,

You said: “I find it not to be productive to argue about facts that “cannot be put into the record” Scripture is inspired.”

ME: I don’t understand this statement. Please clarify.

You said: “The Church existed first. It is the Church who is the guardian of the deposit of faith, of which scripture is a part but not whole.”

ME: No argument here.

You said: “If the Vatican can offer upon its web site what is found above, it is not for me to totally disregard the possibilities.”

ME: That is your right. I am free to consider other possibilities, based on our Apostolic Tradition.

You said: “My priest (as have many parish priests that I know and have known, along with most, if not all of my scripture professors) have indicated that the Gospels were written by early Christians. Not necessarily the Apsotles but their earliest followers. They have never said that it is absolutely not the apostles Matthew, Mark Luke and John.”

ME: I have heard a priest say that there is error in Scripture, in clear violation of Church teaching. Does that mean I am supposed to believe him?

I have heard a professor of theology at a major Catholic university say that Jesus did not say everything that was attributed to Him in the Gospels, that the “community of faith” put those words in His mouth. (I am talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet discourse.) Does that mean I am supposed to believe the professor?

I have also heard a priest teach what you hold to, while at the same time say that there is very strong evidence in our historical tradition that the authors of the Gospels WERE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You said: “However, these types of discussion divert our attention from the true importance and purpose of the scriptures. What is it these works teach us about Christ and our relationship to him and our response as Christians. Do we cloth the naked, feed the hungary, love our fellow man as ourselves, etc.”

ME: Why do you make it an either/or situation? Do you mean that one cannot be an apologist AND clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and love our fellow man as ourselves? Tell that to Father Groeschel, who is a perfect example of a lover of the poor who is also in the marketplace of ideas defending the faith.

I will probably not be back on the Forum until next week.

Grace and peace,

Gene