When were the Gospels written? And by whom?

[Belloc_Fan]

1. “Rise, let us be on our way” and “Rise, let us go”: John 14:31 and 18:1: After delivering a speech that takes nearly a chapter and a half, Jesus says to the disciples, “Rise, let us be on our way” (14:31). But, instead of Jesus and the disciples leaving, Jesus launches into the ‘true vine’ discourse, which goes on through chapters 15, 16, and 17. Jesus and his disciples do not leave until this discourse is finished, upon which, Jesus says, “Rise, let us go” (18:1). Then they actually do get up and leave.

What translation of 18:1 are you using? I’m looking at a lot of variants here (bible.cc/john/18-1.htm)), and it seems clear that they went across the Kidron Valley after He finished speaking. That doesn’t mean that they were still at the dinner table. They easily could have left the table, gone to wherever the rest of the discourse was presented, then trekked across the Kidron Valley. For one thing, the crossing of the valley is viewed as the end of the journey - they famously arrive in the Garden. So it seems that John is signaling the start and end of the trek, and Jesus was talking on the way.

Of course, it also doesn’t mean that they left as soon as He said "Rise, let us be on our way” in John 14:31. So a second (in my opinion, weaker) explanation could be simply that He was talking as they were preparing to leave – anyone who’s ever tried to get lots of people out the door realizes how possible this is.

Let’s put this into context with an excerpt from: BXVI - Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006:

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe.

I agree, if I’m understanding him correctly. Europe was the dominant world player at this time in history, and Christianity as an event within world history must be viewed in relation to that power-dominant narrative. To paraphrase Belloc said, the history of the Church is the history of Europe. You can’t separate the two and still understand the growth and development of European (and even world) history.

Or, alternatively, we can think like those early church fathers who believed that. if someone were leaning on Jesus’ chest, it must be a young male… so, therefore, it ‘must be John’. How very Greek this is! It couldn’t be a woman? It had to be a young male?

The notion that Jesus had a close female disciple is very Modernist Euro/American. It’s feminism revisionism. *Every *Gospel lists an all male cast of disciples, and the Beloved Disciple appears in lieu of John. It doesn’t have to be John because it’s a young male. It has to be John because otherwise, John doesn’t appear in the Gospel of John, and instead, some random woman appears who is absent the historical record.

Anyone reading the text neutrally, in connection with the other historical texts, comes to the conclusion it’s John. The early Church was unanimous in this regard - it wasn’t even a question which had to be answered.

It’s only today, in our hyper-sexualized culture, that we view the intimacy of laying on Jesus’ chest as a thinly veiled sexual reference. The idea that it might be a woman, or a young boy sexually attracted to Jesus is a sorry reflection on our own culture, not upon the culture or the people we’re studying through the text.

One could say that most of the material came from a reference to an eye witness account. Even Luke, which might be based largely upon Paul’s information to Luke, depends then upon what Paul says he exclusively experienced after the fact. So, is Paul’s experience an ‘eye witness account’?

Paul didn’t see the things the Gospel of Luke is describing, so no. The things in the Book of Acts, yes. John did see the things that the Gospel of John is describing, so he’s an eyewitness, even if he’s not the author of the Gospel of John.

The author’s point is that this is recorded eyewitness testimony (whether by the eyewitness, or transmitted to a scribe or student). If someone takes your deposition after a crime, the record is still an eyewitness account, even though not written by the eyewitness him or herself.

 

[Q_Bee]

I’m saying that it’s not weird for John and Peter to be in the same place? There’s nothing unusual about this… what problem do you have with the appearance of the Beloved Disciple (John) and Peter together?

In Chapter 20 MM goes to tell the disciples. Peter and the BD run to the tomb (two of them), the BD arrives first, they check out the tomb, (and the two leave). But Mary stays outside the tomb weeping. Something’s wrong with the text in this section. One goes to tell two, two go to the tomb, two leave, one remains behind.

1. The “First Sign” and the “Second Sign”: John 2:11 and 4:54:
   He says it’s the second miracle in Galilee. Jerusalem’s not in Galilee, where John says Jesus was performing miracles in between those two points. That’s not a contradiction at all… it actually explains the intermediate period really well.

So it’s entirely possible that was literally the second miracle Jesus had performed in Galilee. I take the view that I think you’re taking: that it’s the second of the seven that John’s mentioning. That’s he’s basically saying, “this is my second point,” rather than “this is only the second miraculous thing Jesus has done.” John is clear that there were other miracles (whether in Galilee or not, he doesn’t say) which aren’t included in his Gospel account. He purposely chose seven, because of its theological significance - I don’t think anyone denies that. Even the other Gospels mention more miracles.

Your reply seems to circumvent the fact that the author of 4G is saying that it is the second sign.

1. Jerusalem and the “Land of Judea”: John 2:23 – 3:21 and 3:22
   I agree that “countryside” is a poor (and even misleading) translation. Two things could be happening.
   One, Jesus was in Capernaum. The end of John 2 mentions that He’d gone back there for a few days, but then went up to Jerusalem right before Passover, and He performed miracles “while there,” suggesting He wasn’t just permanently staying there. In fact, Capernaum claimed to have where Jesus lived during His adult life. Capernaum is in Galilee, so this would make sense.

Two, is that the use just means that He went travelling around. He went to Jerusalem for a specific purpose, but once in Judea, He went out into the land of Judea. This is what the translators are suggesting when they translate it countryside. The author of John 3 clearly knows that Jerusalem is in Judea – He knows about the Jewish ruling council there (John 3:1), so it would be a big stretch to say that someone so familiar with the specifics of Jerusalem wouldn’t know what country it was in. I think it’s more like if someone said today, “I met with x group in Moscow, and afterwards, went out and saw Russia.” If they’re accurately describing x group being in Moscow, you have to assume they know Moscow’s in Russia.

Wow! That’s stretching.

1. Jerusalem and The Other Side of the Sea of Galilee: John 5:1 and 6:1: In John 5:1
   This actually gives weight to the thing I said earlier (my 1 to the last question). John’s Gospel seems to assume that the reader knows that Jesus lived in Capernaum, or somewhere there abouts – at least, that Jesus was a Galilean. John 5:1 says that “Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews.” He’s going up for a specific purpose – if I say “so-and-so went home for Christmas,” you assume they didn’t go home permanently, and that they returned. Tiberias is on the other side of the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum. John just doesn’t include every “and then He came home again.” It’s strongly implied in the text. Same thing for your last question – Jesus went up to Jerusalem for Passover in John 2:23. He would have returned again.

Another slight of hand, but the text still says what it says.

1. “Lord, where are you going?”: John 13:36 and 16:5:
   This is the strongest of the seeming contradictions which you presented. I suspected the answer, but had to actually look this one up. lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050612.htm provides a good answer. If you put the quotes into context, Jesus isn’t saying “none of you have ever asked where I’m going.” He’s saying, “I’m telling you these things which strongly suggest I’m about to be crucified, and you’re not even wanting to find out more.” He’s speaking to their present state, not providing a history of the conversation. I think Peter’s question in 13:36 was more like, “Why are you talking like you’re leaving us?” and Thomas isn’t actually asking where He’s going. Read it in the context of 14:4 – Jesus is talking about Heaven, and Thomas is still confused on why Jesus is going to leave. I think Jesus is pointing out that they’re more worried about what’s going to happen to them when He’s gone, then about Him.

Not very convincing. If the author or groups of authors could construct such an elaborate chiastic structure, they could certainly make these passages clear as to their intent. These appear to be seems in the text, and your leaving #5 out means that you can’t quite come up with an excuse for that one.

BTW, is the following passage a reminder to yourself?

---

1 Peter 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[KLIBERA]

I Have Had Significant Coursework In This. When You Examine Timelines, Linguistic Translations, Councils, Carbon Dating, Invention Of Writing & Sealing, Use Of Paper, You Discover That The 4 Gospels Were Written More Than 4 Decades After The Death Of Christ. Next Question–how Could They Recall All These Details Unless There Was A Specific Eyewitness Journalist There In Today’s Sense? The Gospels Are Not Factual Recorders. Much Of It Is Embellished & Borrowed Off From Each Other. Could There Have Been An Eyewitness? Remotely Anything Is Possible. Parables & Miracles Are Merely Teaching Stories. Exact Sayings Of Jesus–highly Unlikely. This Is One Reason Why The Bible As Written Is Imperfect. Likely They Were Written By Individuals Who Perhaps Came To Associate With An Apostle Or They Were Written By A School Of Thought-aka A Council That Desired To Get Across A Certain Point Of View. The Early Church Likely Had Many Debates & Only Some Books Made It Into The Official Bible While Others Were Not Voted In. Therefore You Can Expect This Bias. Left Out Were The Gospels Of Thomas, Q, Peter, Mary M., Philip, Andrew. The Actual Authors Of The Apostles Is Erroneously Attributed To The Actual Disciple. The Church Errs Here & Would Do Best To Simple Infer That The Person Who Wrote Say Mark Is An Individual Associated With Mark, Mark’s Work, Or A Follower. Mark Was The First Gospel Out. Mathew Was 2nd Followed By Luke. Each Has Its Own Emphasis & They Borrowed Off What They Thought Was Important. John Was Not The Beloved Apostle Of Jesus For His Gospel Is So Harsh & Antisemitic. One Would Not Expect This Of The Apostle That Jesus Chose As Caretaker Of His Mother. Rather John Is Written By A School Of Thought. Paul Writes Epistles, Not Gospels. He Preached In Many Cities. On The Old Testament–we Have J, E, & P For The 1st Books. The Doctrine Is Essentially Left By Moses. The Prophets Are With Few Exceptions Who They Are. Ezra Writes Nehemiah. Isaiah Consists Of 3 Isaiahs. Solomon Is Responsible For The Songs, Wisdom, & Proverbs. David Wrote Many Of The Psalms But Not All. Chronicles & Kings Are Really One & The Same & Delivered To Us By Samuel.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

In Chapter 20 MM goes to tell the disciples. Peter and the BD run to the tomb (two of them), the BD arrives first, they check out the tomb, (and the two leave). But Mary stays outside the tomb weeping. Something’s wrong with the text in this section. One goes to tell two, two go to the tomb, two leave, one remains behind.

I still don’t see the problem with this. MM gets BD and Peter, they go to the tomb. BD waits for Peter, BD and Peter go in, check it out, leave. MM stays outside weeping the whole time. Where is the inconsistency?

I don’t understand how you can claim to be Catholic in your profile and not believe the Resurrection account. It’s at the heart of Catholicism.

Your reply seems to circumvent the fact that the author of 4G is saying that it is the second sign.

No, it’s not. It’s the second sign He performed in Galilee. bible.cc/john/4-54.htm - read the various ways it’s been translated, they almost all agree.
John is saying either: “this is the second sign He performed in Galilee,” or “this is the second of the 7 miracles He performed which I’m focusing on, and these two were both in Galilee.” What John is pretty clearly **not **saying is that Jesus performed only two miracles up to that point. Nothing I can find in the text supports that conclusion.

If there’s any circumvention here, it’s not on my part. The plain meaning of "
This is the second miracle that Jesus performed, after coming from Judaea into Galilee" supports what I’m saying. I don’t know where in the text you’re getting the idea it’s the second miracle period.

Wow! That’s stretching.

Which one? I gave you two plausible theories, and you gave a three word dismissive reply.

Another slight of hand, but the text still says what it says.

Again, you’re just dismissing the content, and accusing me of bad faith. John isn’t giving a travel log. He sets up the various accounts by saying where Jesus is at, but obviously, Jesus moved around, and did and said things which John didn’t record. I mean, he says in 21:25, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” And yet you’re acting as if every time he doesn’t spell out how Jesus ended up somewhere different from the previous passage, there’s some sort of contradiction. He’s even signaling to his reader in both John 2 and John 5 that Jesus left His home (in Galilee) and came up to Jerusalem for a specific purpose. The obvious inference being that after the purpose was over, He came back. I don’t think his not spelling that out every time is a “seam” or a contradiction at all. The account is more detailed than virtually any secular source of the period, and brevity would suggest John omit the extraneous details.

Not very convincing. If the author or groups of authors could construct such an elaborate chiastic structure, they could certainly make these passages clear as to their intent.

This isn’t a chiastic structure. I’m not suggesting that it is. Does that answer what you were saying?

These appear to be seems in the text, and your leaving #5 out means that you can’t quite come up with an excuse for that one.

Once again, you’re assigning bad faith recklessly and without cause. Had you read on, you’d have seen that I did address #5, but in the next post, because my replies were taking too long since I was actually addressing the substance of what you said.

BTW, is the following passage a reminder to yourself?

---

1 Peter 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Yeah, to myself and others, but probably mostly to myself. Why? You seem to have a problem with me, but for the life of me, I don’t know what it is. I’m trying to answer your questions directly and honestly, and you’re just accusing me of “slight of hand,” “feigned insult,” and the like. After accusing me of being judgmental (for asking you not to be rude to the other person answering your questions), you’ve just judged every answer I’ve given you in the worst light, and in at least a few cases, done some in spite of evidence to the contrary (e.g., assuming I just couldn’t come up with an “excuse” for number 5, rather than looking at my next post).

Are you even interested in the answers to your questions, or are you just looking for a fight? If you’re Catholic, like you claim to be, just prayerfully consider whether your attitude brings honor and glory to the name of Christ. I’m trying to do the same, even though I know that I fail sometimes.

 

[turtleoompa]

Boy are you wrong! Everything in the Bible is written prior to year 100. The Catholic church did not put all that other stuff in it because they were written after the last apostle died. You obviously need to do a lot more research.

 

[Q_Bee]

I still don’t see the problem with this. MM gets BD and Peter, they go to the tomb. BD waits for Peter, BD and Peter go in, check it out, leave. MM stays outside weeping the whole time. Where is the inconsistency?

I think you missed something. Only two people go to the tomb and then two leave, but one remains behind.

I don’t understand how you can claim to be Catholic in your profile and not believe the Resurrection account. It’s at the heart of Catholicism.

Perhaps you are not familiar with text criticism. It has nothing to do with whether one believes in the resurrection or not. This is the kind of comment that makes the trolley jump the track when someone points out a difficulty in the text.

This isn’t a chiastic structure. I’m not suggesting that it is. Does that answer what you were saying?

Again, an obtuse response… I was saying that the gospel itself is laced with chiastic structure. Certainly, if one is sophisticated enough to create the structure, they don’t make leaps in the text that need a magician to explain sequence.

Had you read on, you’d have seen that I did address #5, but in the next post, because my replies were taking too long since I was actually addressing the substance of what you said.

My error. I’m reading one post at a time.

Yeah, to myself and others, but probably mostly to myself. Why? You seem to have a problem with me, but for the life of me, I don’t know what it is. :shrug

After accusing me of being judgmental (for asking you not to be rude to the other person answering your questions), you’ve just judged every answer I’ve given you in the worst light, and in at least a few cases, done some in spite of evidence to the contrary (e.g., assuming I just couldn’t come up with an “excuse” for number 5, rather than looking at my next post).

I’m always interested in why someone does a certain thing repetitively. Often these are signs to throw people off of the actual intent. It would seem that one posting of a quote would suffice. Why the repetitions?

Are you even interested in the answers to your questions, or are you just looking for a fight? If you’re Catholic, like you claim to be, just prayerfully consider whether your attitude brings honor and glory to the name of Christ. I’m trying to do the same, even though I know that I fail sometimes.

I’ll go read the post after I meet with a seminarian this evening.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I think you missed something. Only two people go to the tomb and then two leave, but one remains behind.

I’m saying that she went and got them… meaning three go back to the tomb (MM, BD, Peter). Two leave (BD, Peter). One stays, weeping (MM).

Perhaps you are not familiar with text criticism. It has nothing to do with whether one believes in the resurrection or not. This is the kind of comment that makes the trolley jump the track when someone points out a difficulty in the text.

I understand textual criticism. But there is a point where fidelity to the Church means you don’t just comport the worst motives to everyone you read, and assume everyone besides yourself is idiotic. And this includes Gospel writers inspired by the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict XVI handily addresses the benefits, and the limitations, of textual criticism in the first part of Jesus of Nazareth.

My point was that if a person doesn’t believe the Resurrection, they’re not Catholic, regardless of whether it’s because of “textual criticism” or honest agnosticism.

Again, an obtuse response…

For the last time, please behave like a Christian.

I was saying that the gospel itself is laced with chiastic structure. Certainly, if one is sophisticated enough to create the structure, they don’t make leaps in the text that need a magician to explain sequence.

So are you saying it’s not a chiastic structure, or that there are not leaps? Because so far you (and only you) have claimed:

A. It’s a chiastic structure (in the preceding quote)
B. there are leaps in the text (your original claim)
C. People sophisticated enough to do A don’t do B. (the preceding quote, again).

I don’t follow your logic.

My error. I’m reading one post at a time.

Apology accepted.

I’m always interested in why someone does a certain thing repetitively. Often these are signs to throw people off of the actual intent. It would seem that one posting of a quote would suffice. Why the repetitions?

It’s a signature line. It does that every time. Hopefully that answers whatever pseudo-psychological reason you’re comporting to me. Honestly, you’ve done it again with the assuming bad faith, and being easily refuted. If you gave me even an iota of “benefit of the doubt,” you wouldn’t find yourself in such embarrassing positions.

I’ll go read the post after I meet with a seminarian this evening.

Are you in some sort of position of authority within the Church? Is that what you’re signaling? Or are you trying to say something else. Maybe I’m being “obtuse” again, but I’m not following what you’re saying.

 

[Q_Bee]

I’m saying that she went and got them… meaning three go back to the tomb (MM, BD, Peter). Two leave (BD, Peter). One stays, weeping (MM).

That’s not what the text says.

My point was that if a person doesn’t believe the Resurrection, they’re not Catholic, regardless of whether it’s because of “textual criticism” or honest agnosticism.

You are making a leap from the text to the faith of a person, which is antagonistic and certainly not Christian.

For the last time, please behave like a Christian.

When in Rome.

So are you saying it’s not a chiastic structure, or that there are not leaps? Because so far you (and only you) have claimed:

A. It’s a chiastic structure (in the preceding quote)
B. there are leaps in the text (your original claim)
C. People sophisticated enough to do A don’t do B. (the preceding quote, again).

I don’t follow your logic.

You are stringing dissimilar ideas together, though you have not understood what I wrote or the context, so that yyou have a batch you are addressing.

It’s a signature line. It does that every time. Hopefully that answers whatever pseudo-psychological reason you’re comporting to me. Honestly, you’ve done it again with the assuming bad faith, and being easily refuted. If you gave me even an iota of “benefit of the doubt,” you wouldn’t find yourself in such embarrassing positions.

It tends to get tiresome, though, doesn’t it? I’ve only read it a few times and it’s already quite stale. I wonder how you can acuse/propose that I may not believe in the resurrection and then not see something as trivial as the monotony of your signature line.

 

[Q_Bee]

I Have Had Significant Coursework In This. When You Examine Timelines, Linguistic Translations, Councils, Carbon Dating, Invention Of Writing & Sealing, Use Of Paper, You Discover That The 4 Gospels Were Written More Than 4 Decades After The Death Of Christ.

Next Question–how Could They Recall All These Details Unless There Was A Specific Eyewitness Journalist There In Today’s Sense? The Gospels Are Not Factual Recorders. Much Of It Is Embellished & Borrowed Off From Each Other. Could There Have Been An Eyewitness? Remotely Anything Is Possible. Parables & Miracles Are Merely Teaching Stories. Exact Sayings Of Jesus–highly Unlikely. This Is One Reason Why The Bible As Written Is Imperfect. Likely They Were Written By Individuals Who Perhaps Came To Associate With An Apostle Or They Were Written By A School Of Thought-aka A Council That Desired To Get Across A Certain Point Of View.

The Early Church Likely Had Many Debates & Only Some Books Made It Into The Official Bible While Others Were Not Voted In. Therefore You Can Expect This Bias. Left Out Were The Gospels Of Thomas, Q, Peter, Mary M., Philip, Andrew. The Actual Authors Of The Apostles Is Erroneously Attributed To The Actual Disciple. The Church Errs Here & Would Do Best To Simple Infer That The Person Who Wrote Say Mark Is An Individual Associated With Mark, Mark’s Work, Or A Follower. Mark Was The First Gospel Out.

Other than the fact that the four gospels are anonymous and only “attributed” to the person named, I agree. Attribution to an actual disciple tended to promote the reading of the material. It is a feature of that time that authors borrowed the name of one who was known in order to be recognized as credible.

Mathew Was 2nd Followed By Luke. Each Has Its Own Emphasis & They Borrowed Off What They Thought Was Important. John Was Not The Beloved Apostle Of Jesus For His Gospel Is So Harsh & Antisemitic.

Here, I think you nay have not considered that “the Jews” may have been referring to the group that remained under the Law, as opposed to those who had already been marginalized from the synagogues and were forming very separated communities. In this context, the material reads less as semitic slurs, though still somewhat divisively, since these had rejected Jesus.

I try to imagine what it would be like to be completely separated from one’s family and community. These were traumatic times for the founding communities.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

That’s not what the text says.

You are making a leap from the text to the faith of a person, which is antagonistic and certainly not Christian.

When in Rome.

You are stringing dissimilar ideas together, though you have not understood what I wrote or the context, so that yyou have a batch you are addressing.

It tends to get tiresome, though, doesn’t it? I’ve only read it a few times and it’s already quite stale. I wonder how you can acuse/propose that I may not believe in the resurrection and then not see something as trivial as the monotony of your signature line.

My question about your faith in the Resurrection was just that - a question. If you read back, I started with the assumption that you are what you claim to be - a Catholic. Then I asked how a Catholic could come to the conclusion the Resurrection account was false - from what I understood, you answered, “through textual criticism.” I re-stated my belief that the Resurrection is at the heart of Catholicism, and tried to word it in a way which couldn’t be read as attacking you specifically - just this particular belief of yours which I felt was incongruous with your professed faith.

At this point, I feel that you’re you’re just being hateful to me, and even when I try and steer the conversation on course, I feel my efforts have been futile. I’m sorry for whatever I did or said that you felt wasn’t Christian, and genuinely request your forgiveness. If you read over your most recent round of responses, all but one are petty personal attacks. I’ll say a prayer for you, and encourage you to do the same for me. Unless and until the tenor of this dialogue changes, I’m going to sit the rest of it out, I think.

 

[Q_Bee]

My question about your faith in the Resurrection was just that - a question. If you read back, I started with the assumption that you are what you claim to be - a Catholic.

The question is - why would you question?

Then I asked how a Catholic could come to the conclusion the Resurrection account was false - from what I understood, you answered, “through textual criticism.”

Once again, you seem to read selectively. I never said that the resurrection acount was false. You somehow are claiming that has been interjected. What I questioned was whether there was a seam in the text at that point since one goes and tells two, two go to the tomb, two return home, but one remains behind.

I re-stated my belief that the Resurrection is at the heart of Catholicism, and tried to word it in a way which couldn’t be read as attacking you specifically - just this particular belief of yours which I felt was incongruous with your professed faith.

It’s the heart of Christianity, not just the RCC. Why were you questioning my beliefs in the first place?

At this point, I feel that you’re you’re just being hateful to me, and even when I try and steer the conversation on course, I feel my efforts have been futile. I’m sorry for whatever I did or said that you felt wasn’t Christian, and genuinely request your forgiveness. If you read over your most recent round of responses, all but one are petty personal attacks. I’ll say a prayer for you, and encourage you to do the same for me. Unless and until the tenor of this dialogue changes, I’m going to sit the rest of it out, I think.

Prayers going forth.

 

[Ignatius]

I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus,

The canonical Gospels were indeed written between 40 and 100 A.D. But that is after the birth of Chist. 40 would be 7 years after the death of Christ. The Gospel of John, written about 100 A.D. was indeed written by John who know Christ personally, so it is a first hand account. As to the authorship, those who were actually there when they were written attest to the authors identity. When did theose guys who say the Gospels were not written by them live? Surly not 2000 years later!

 

[joe370]

Hey Klibera…

Your profiles says you are somewhere between R.C., E.O and Judaism. Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Judaism teach that Jesus was not the Messiah? Isn’t that declaration a bit of an oxymoron, if you don’t mind me saying? Either one believes that Jesus is the Messiah, or one doesn’t?

I Have Had Significant Coursework In This. When You Examine Timelines, Linguistic Translations, Councils, Carbon Dating, Invention Of Writing & Sealing, Use Of Paper, You Discover That The 4 Gospels Were Written More Than 4 Decades After The Death Of Christ.

Yup! The teachings of Jesus Christ were disseminated orally (Oral Tradition) via Jesus’ Apostolic Church and those teachings were/are protected by Jesus’ Apostolic Church, in perpetuity. That was the very reason why Jesus built His Apostolic Church, and said nothing would vanquish His Body, the Church. If one belongs to the C.C. or the E.O.C., one has faith that ALL of Jesus’ teachings were/are safeguarded. If Jesus is the Head and Savior of His Body, the Church, and His One Apostolic Church is “forever” guided by the Holy Spirit, then the 4 Gospels, written more Than 4 Decades after the death of Jesus Christ are indeed the correct gospels as opposed to the pseudo-gospels…

Next Question–how Could They Recall All These Details Unless There Was A Specific Eyewitness Journalist There In Today’s Sense? The Gospels Are Not Factual Recorders. Much Of It Is Embellished & Borrowed Off From Each Other. Could There Have Been An Eyewitness?

There were many things said that the Apostles couldn’t possibly have known, e.g. the conversation between Jesus and Pilate; the conversation between Jesus and His Father at Gethsemane. However, ALL was revealed at Pentecost, as well as the ability to speak other languages, allowing then to preach and teach to both Jew and Gentile.

If you don’t believe that the Gospels are factual (or, are you referring to the gnostic/apocryphal writings) --and do believe "much of it is embellished, then why are you aspiring to belong to either the C.C. or the E.O.C. ?

Just because you and I weren’t eyewitness, doesn’t mean there weren’t eyewitnesses! There was/is an unbroken line of successors, after the Apostles passed on, and they too belonged to Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, doing just as the Apostle were told —to “preach” and “teach” the Good News.

Remotely Anything Is Possible. Parables & Miracles Are Merely Teaching Stories. Exact Sayings Of Jesus–highly Unlikely.

If these sayings can’t be trusted as sayings of Jesus, then perhaps the sayings of Moses can’t be trusted either. If that’s the case, why even bother with Christianity. After all, one of the sayings of Moses was a prophecy of the Messiah.

**This Is One Reason Why The Bible As Written Is Imperfect. Likely They Were Written By Individuals Who Perhaps Came To Associate With An Apostle Or They Were Written By A School Of Thought-aka A Council That Desired To Get Across A Certain Point Of View. **

If the Bible is imperfect vis-a-vis faith and morals, then Jesus’ Apostolic Church is imperfect; if the Apostolic Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body with Him as the Head and Savior of His Mystical Body is imperfect, then as St. Paul say, we are all still in our sins and Judaism teaches correctly; Is this what you are saying; If so, then again, why are you aspiring to belong to the C.C. or the E.O.C.?

**The Early Church Likely Had Many Debates & Only Some Books Made It Into The Official Bible While Others Were Not Voted In.
**
Jesus’ One Apostolic Church was charged with the mission to teach and preach to the world, and that included the task of collecting, selecting, codifying and canonizing Holy Scripture versus pseudo-scripture!

Therefore You Can Expect This Bias. Left Out Were The Gospels Of Thomas, Q, Peter, Mary M., Philip, Andrew.

Thanks to the guidance and “teaching” of the Holy Spirit, sent to Jesus’ One Apostolic Church at Pentecost, the exclusion of these writings were quite apt.

The Actual Authors Of The Apostles Is Erroneously Attributed To The Actual Disciple.

Whether they wrote, or taught orally (which is probably the case) – to those who eventually wrote, matters naught! If Jesus’ Church is being guarded, guided and taught by the Holy Spirit, she can’t err vis-a-vis the deposit of faith; wouldn’t you agree, even if you are still on the theological fence?

**The Church Errs Here & Would Do Best To Simple Infer That The Person Who Wrote Say Mark Is An Individual Associated With Mark, Mark’s Work, Or A Follower. **

If the church errs…well, you know the rest!

 

[joe370]

…**Mark Was The First Gospel Out. Mathew Was 2nd Followed By Luke. **

Chronological order matters naught.; Jesus’ Church is protected from error vis-a-vis matters of faith and morals “forever” --if she is not, then that makes Jesus a liar when He said:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

*"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
*

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me…But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will* guide you into all truth.** He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.*

Wouldn’t you agree?

**Each Has Its Own Emphasis & They Borrowed Off What They Thought Was Important.
**
This would definitely be the case if Jesus’ Apostolic Church was simply a man-made church, like ALL protestant churches in the world, including the Lutheran church, to which I once belonged.

**John Was Not The Beloved Apostle Of Jesus For His Gospel Is So Harsh & Antisemitic. One Would Not Expect This Of The Apostle That Jesus Chose As Caretaker Of His Mother.
**
I abhor antisemitism! I love all people regardless of religious affiliation. However, we weren’t there when, for example, Stephan, a Christian Jew, was stoned to death by an angry crowd of non-Christian Jews, or when other fledgling Christian Jews were being beaten, jailed and killed at the hands of the Jewish leaders, including Paul for a time.

Scripture makes a distinction between Jews in general and Pharisaic, Jewish leadership. The leadership–both civil and religious-- of 1st century Jerusalem is to whom John is referring. When “Jews” is used of the hostile aristocratic leadership, it is appropriate and truthful to ascribe the primary responsibility (see John 19:11 for the relative roles of Pilate and the High Priest – "Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” --for His execution to them. When “Jews” is used of the general populace, it is used in a VERY POSITIVE sense (and in some passages, in a neutral sense), but is NEVER used in an ‘anti-Semitic’ slur. Therefore, to assert that John (and the wider Christian community) attributed the death of Jesus to the GENERAL POPULACE known as “Jews” is fundamentally flawed reasoning, and that to accuse certain first-century Jew or gentile of being ‘anti-Semitic’ because of some general Roman cultural trend is entirely without foundation.

Jesus knew the Jewish leaders were going reject Him, just as they did with those He sent in the past:

*"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! *

Yet He still said…

“Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”

Just as James said…

*He kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, don’t hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he fell asleep. *

If forgiveness is the cornerstone of Christ’s teachings, promulgated by Jesus’ One Apostolic Church in perpetuity, and Jesus is the Divine Cornerstone holding His One Apostolic Church together in perpetuity, then let us all attempt to emulate Jesus Christ when He said:

“Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi guys, I hope this is the right section for my question. I was speaking with someone at my university the other day who made quite a few claims that threw me a little. Basically he said that the Gospels were not written until at least 40-100 years after Jesus, and that they were definitley NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Furthermore, he said that in early Christianity there were numerous other Gospels (the so-called Gnostic gospels) that were not included in the Bible and hidden by the Church because they showed that Jesus was just an ordinary man, a prophet and nothing else. He then started bringing up all the Da Vinci Code nonsense, but also claimed that things such as the Resurection, Trinity, Christmas etc were just incorporated from older religions and added to Christianity.

To be honest Ive heard stuff like that before but not so much about the Gospels and their authors, and I didnt really know what to say. Anyone got any explanations or information on this as my knowledge in this area is a bit sketchy! Thanks!

God Bless.

---

Whoever gave you the information above is not too far from the truth. Here is what I have from Prefaces to the Gospels in the Catholic New American version of the Bible, sponsored by the Bishops of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrines.

Starting with the Gospel of Mark, according to Clement of Alexandria and Origen and many other Scholars, it was written in
Rome in the year 70 CE. Then, comes Luke and Acts of the Apostles that they set for 75 CE. Next, comes Matthew for 85 CE
and then John between 90 and 100 CE. Even the Letters of Peter, this Confraternity of Catholic Bishops attribute to unknown authors but not Peter.

Now, about who wrote the Gospels, they were all Gentiles disciples of Paul, because the Apostles were Nazarenes and none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, because of the controversial character of their writings vis-a-vis the Pauline writings.

And with regards to Gnostic Gospels yes, there were, or perhaps still there are hidden somewhere gospels like the one of Judas, the gospel of James, the gospel of Barnabas, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a few others, perhaps in the undergrounds of the Vatican or in Alexandria. We never know.

Ben: <*)))><

 

[Q_Bee]

---

Whoever gave you the information above is not too far from the truth. Here is what I have from Prefaces to the Gospels in the Catholic New American version of the Bible, sponsored by the Bishops of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrines.

Starting with the Gospel of Mark, according to Clement of Alexandria and Origen and many other Scholars, it was written in
Rome in the year 70 CE. Then, comes Luke and Acts of the Apostles that they set for 75 CE. Next, comes Matthew for 85 CE
and then John between 90 and 100 CE. Even the Letters of Peter, this Confraternity of Catholic Bishops attribute to unknown authors but not Peter.

Now, about who wrote the Gospels, they were all Gentiles disciples of Paul, because the Apostles were Nazarenes and none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, because of the controversial character of their writings vis-a-vis the Pauline writings.

And with regards to Gnostic Gospels yes, there were, or perhaps still there are hidden somewhere gospels like the one of Judas, the gospel of James, the gospel of Barnabas, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a few others, perhaps in the undergrounds of the Vatican or in Alexandria. We never know.

Ben: <*)))><

It is truly difficult to discuss the scholarly question at hand if doctrinal fidelity is the crux of the matter. With apologetics at this venue’s forefront, Catholics apparently rest their hand on the Church Militant’s sword-hilt with medieval vigilance.

That old Baltimore Catechism has an insidious half-life in defense of the faith, finding its communication style on web pages that teach responses against atheism. Rather than being able to examine scripture in general or a scriptural passage for what it does or doesn’t say, the lens of doctrinal overlay forces other words onto the page.

I wonder what the point is if this exercise leads to or promotes an atmosphere of paranoia about one another. Sacred scripture teaches Christians about how to treat others, but if there is an indication of solidarity in our Roman Catholics family, meeting in conversation with one another here looks more like we are part of a dysfunctional family’s forced encounters.

We shouldn’t be surprised if we’re likely to be hearing that the NAB only carries the NIHIL OBSTAT accompanied by the IMPRIMATUR of Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, DD, Archbishop of Washington. Even that can apparently be trumped by some nebulous reference to the Church Fathers as a collective.

Somehow, I think Jesus might say, “Oy!”

 

[patrick457]

---

Whoever gave you the information above is not too far from the truth. Here is what I have from Prefaces to the Gospels in the Catholic New American version of the Bible, sponsored by the Bishops of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrines.

Starting with the Gospel of Mark, according to Clement of Alexandria and Origen and many other Scholars, it was written in
Rome in the year 70 CE. Then, comes Luke and Acts of the Apostles that they set for 75 CE. Next, comes Matthew for 85 CE
and then John between 90 and 100 CE. Even the Letters of Peter, this Confraternity of Catholic Bishops attribute to unknown authors but not Peter.

Okay then. Are the theories of Markan priority or the Q Document now ex cathedra? Are we no longer free to believe in, say, the Griesbach Hypothesis or the traditional Augustinian one (both of which posit Matthean priority)?

Now, about who wrote the Gospels, they were all Gentiles disciples of Paul, because the Apostles were Nazarenes and none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, because of the controversial character of their writings vis-a-vis the Pauline writings.

 

[Q_Bee]

Okay then. Are the theories of Markan priority or the Q Document now ex cathedra? Are we no longer free to believe in, say, the Griesbach Hypothesis or the traditional Augustinian one (both of which posit Matthean priority)?

As I said, “We shouldn’t be surprised if we’re likely to be hearing that the NAB only carries the NIHIL OBSTAT accompanied by the IMPRIMATUR of Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, DD, Archbishop of Washington. Even that can apparently be trumped by some nebulous reference to the Church Fathers as a collective.”

Indeed, a 4th century ‘tradition’?

 

[buffalo]

Look at Post #10.

 

[Q_Bee]

Look at Post #10.

Does the link make Dennis Barton’s words ex cathedra?