A
aj10
Guest
My husband says that “scholars” have proven that none of the gospels were written by the apostles, and that they were pretty much works of fiction. How would you reply to this?
- Status
S
Strider
Guest
He made the statement, the ball’s in his court. What “scholars,” and by what authority did they make this pronouncement? How did they “prove” this?
And remember, there are some Catholic theologians who are capable of this kind of nonsense, so be aware of that if he names some, especially if they’re form places like Georgetown or Notre Dame and other well-known “Catholic” colleges.
It’s up to him to back up his statement. Then, if he does, use CA and other reputable sources to refute it.
God bless
And remember, there are some Catholic theologians who are capable of this kind of nonsense, so be aware of that if he names some, especially if they’re form places like Georgetown or Notre Dame and other well-known “Catholic” colleges.
It’s up to him to back up his statement. Then, if he does, use CA and other reputable sources to refute it.
God bless
H
hermit
Guest
He is partially correct, they were not written by the apostles but they are not works of fiction. That distinction belongs to Paul.
M
Minerva
Guest
Strider,
Don’t put Notre Dame and its many wonderful, holy, intelligent priests in the same boat as Georgetown. ND is Catholic not “Catholic”. There are far more orthodox scholars there than unorthodox ones. The biggest heretic there, O’Brien, doesn’t even teach anymore.
Don’t put Notre Dame and its many wonderful, holy, intelligent priests in the same boat as Georgetown. ND is Catholic not “Catholic”. There are far more orthodox scholars there than unorthodox ones. The biggest heretic there, O’Brien, doesn’t even teach anymore.
S
Strider
Guest
Okay,
I was going on the word of Charles Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame. Maybe things have changed since he was active there. I hope so, but I also get the Newman Society newsletter, and there are plenty of pro-abortion, anti-Catholic speakers and plays, etc. invited to ND.
M
MrS
Guest
Mark and Luke were not apostles
Besides, the human writers of the NT were acting under the grace of the divine writer.
What do you possibly mean by your second comment???http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon5.gif
MrS
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
I would say that he is 50% right. Only Matthew and John were Apostles.
M
MrS
Guest
Additionally, ND is one of many Catholic colleges which do NOT take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
We have some graduates from ND in teaching positions in this area. They are teaching heresy.
Charles Rice is a credit to Catholicismhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
MrS
O
otm
Guest
Some of the scholars who get quoted, are quoted out of context; and are often quoted using terms which have one meaning to scholars, and another meaning to lay people (lay being non scholars, not as to ordination). A typical term much abused is “myth”. It has a specific scholarly meaning, and has been much abused when “translated” to (dumbed down might be a better term) common parlance.
There are numerous scripture scholars. Some are bright. Some are not. Some sound like they are located on the back side of Saturn. It is like any other profession; quoting one of them is a bit like quoting an attorney; just because they passed the bar doesn’t mean they are always right. If they were, there wouldn’t be any more lawsuits.
I don’t know who your husband is quoting, or even if he is quoting them accurately. And if he is quoting them accurately, I don’t know what their reputation is, or in what context they might be saying whatever. As someone above said, the ball is in his court.
And as to works of fiction, there is so much evidence for so much of the Gospels, it hardly merits reponse.
And just as a thought, and not meant to attack your husband, I’ve often found that someone who is spouting something as provocative as his statemtnt, often ahs an agenda that relates to behavior which they wish to justify. Pull the plug on the Bible, and you can justify just about anything…
There are numerous scripture scholars. Some are bright. Some are not. Some sound like they are located on the back side of Saturn. It is like any other profession; quoting one of them is a bit like quoting an attorney; just because they passed the bar doesn’t mean they are always right. If they were, there wouldn’t be any more lawsuits.
I don’t know who your husband is quoting, or even if he is quoting them accurately. And if he is quoting them accurately, I don’t know what their reputation is, or in what context they might be saying whatever. As someone above said, the ball is in his court.
And as to works of fiction, there is so much evidence for so much of the Gospels, it hardly merits reponse.
And just as a thought, and not meant to attack your husband, I’ve often found that someone who is spouting something as provocative as his statemtnt, often ahs an agenda that relates to behavior which they wish to justify. Pull the plug on the Bible, and you can justify just about anything…
M
MrS
Guest
Having read what some “modern scripture scholars” have presented, I tend to think they did not pass the bar. Drink of choice was probably “demon rum”.
MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
J
JimG
Guest
Only if he’s talking about the gnostic gospels.
JimG
W
whowantsumadebo
Guest
Yah, well
Many of these scholars just don’t take christian tradition seriously; they begin with the presumtion that the gospels and especially the catholic epistles are written in the late 1st century or later. Basically it’s kind of a “people don’t believe we can walk on water anymore” attitude. That’s the way it was in my junior college class on the New Testament. Mostly more conservative shcolarship is pretty much ignored, and the same old “Jesus talks about the destruction of the temple therefore Matthew was written in 85 a.d. and it’s a prophecy ex-eventu” is the norm. It’s hard to argue with these guys from the bible because they aren’t really even protestants, they’re deists. Conservative and Liberal Biblical scholarship live in two completely different worlds. Also I might be on a limb, but eventually you run out of ideas, and you have to come up with something wild to write your disertation, and make money. ??? Perhaps I’ve said to much, perhaps, you would like suma debo?
Many of these scholars just don’t take christian tradition seriously; they begin with the presumtion that the gospels and especially the catholic epistles are written in the late 1st century or later. Basically it’s kind of a “people don’t believe we can walk on water anymore” attitude. That’s the way it was in my junior college class on the New Testament. Mostly more conservative shcolarship is pretty much ignored, and the same old “Jesus talks about the destruction of the temple therefore Matthew was written in 85 a.d. and it’s a prophecy ex-eventu” is the norm. It’s hard to argue with these guys from the bible because they aren’t really even protestants, they’re deists. Conservative and Liberal Biblical scholarship live in two completely different worlds. Also I might be on a limb, but eventually you run out of ideas, and you have to come up with something wild to write your disertation, and make money. ??? Perhaps I’ve said to much, perhaps, you would like suma debo?
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Your husband has been misinformed.
I recommend that you invest in a copy of this classic apologetics textbook: Archbishop Michael Sheehan’s Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine. It was revised by Father Peter Joseph. Every serious Catholic should own a copy. Here’s a link for ordering it:
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1901157148/qid=1092718802/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1645537-4620012?v=glance&s=books
Keep and spread the Faith.
A
Apologia100
Guest
This is who wrote the Gospels.
Matthew - written by the Apostle Matthew, in Aramaic, later translated to Koine Greek. Probably the second gospel written and borrowed heavily from the Gospel according to Mark.
**Mark ** - Written by John Mark, Peter’s secretary in Rome, in Koine Greek. Suspected to be the first gospel written.
Luke - Written by Luke, a Greek physician and friend of the Apostle Paul. Third gospel written and also borrowed for Mark.
John, written by the Apostle John from exile in Ephasus, in Koine Greek.
To the poster who wrote that Pauls writings were works of fiction. If they were, they would not be included in the canon of Scripture and considered divinely inspired. God is not a liar, does not fabricate untruths, and is not the author of confusion.
H
hermit
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
We learned that in freshman theology from the Jesuits, so it is not some anti-catholic nonsense.
The Gospel of Mathew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew and John.
We learned that in freshman theology from the Jesuits, so it is not some anti-catholic nonsense.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Jesuits (may God bless them) are not infallible. Any given Jesuit group is no better or worse than its members. As I’m sure we all agree, saying that “THIS (insert topic of choice here) is CATHOLIC teaching” doesn’t make it true if it isn’t true to begin with.
Even if the people had the best of intentions, or THOUGHT they knew better than “official” church teaching, doesn’t make what that “freshman Jesuit theology class” learned TRUTH.
I have been told by the kindest and nicest priests, nuns, and laypeople so-called “Catholic teaching” that is absolutely, undeniably FALSE teaching. These people had the BEST of intentions, but they were WRONG. Abortion is NEVER acceptable. Fornication is NEVER acceptable. One’s conscience does not AUTOMATICALLY trump a “teaching”. There ARE moral absolutes. At the consecration of the Mass, the bread and wine BECOME the Body of Blood of Jesus, not just a “symbol”. Women cannot become Catholic priests. Despite all the “contraries” that I have been told, the former statements are not “negotiable” and they are TRUTH, no matter how desperately a “Catholic” would say one, or all, are NOT.
And since we have the oral apostolic tradition, passed on by the early church fathers, as to the authorship of the Gospels, I’m very sorry, but I am not going to accept, even on the say-so of your “freshman Jesuit theology class”, that the tradition is WRONG.
Even if the people had the best of intentions, or THOUGHT they knew better than “official” church teaching, doesn’t make what that “freshman Jesuit theology class” learned TRUTH.
I have been told by the kindest and nicest priests, nuns, and laypeople so-called “Catholic teaching” that is absolutely, undeniably FALSE teaching. These people had the BEST of intentions, but they were WRONG. Abortion is NEVER acceptable. Fornication is NEVER acceptable. One’s conscience does not AUTOMATICALLY trump a “teaching”. There ARE moral absolutes. At the consecration of the Mass, the bread and wine BECOME the Body of Blood of Jesus, not just a “symbol”. Women cannot become Catholic priests. Despite all the “contraries” that I have been told, the former statements are not “negotiable” and they are TRUTH, no matter how desperately a “Catholic” would say one, or all, are NOT.
And since we have the oral apostolic tradition, passed on by the early church fathers, as to the authorship of the Gospels, I’m very sorry, but I am not going to accept, even on the say-so of your “freshman Jesuit theology class”, that the tradition is WRONG.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Considering the fall of many of the Jesuit order to the doctrinal depths of modernism and heresy, I’m not surprised. What I am surprised is that anyone would take at face value as orthodox what they have learned in college above what the Church has always taught.You don’t have to be a non-Catholic to hold anti-Catholic views.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hmmm… I went to a Jesuit university and I wasn’t taught such nonesense. I suspect many mistakenly consider speculative opinions to be dogmatic theology.
- Status