Ask a Catholic

[Deeje]

• You must accept that none of the Gospel authors were eye witnesses. No scholar ever accepts them to be eye witnesses. The Gospels are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because, well, what else could you call them? They are also named Gospels because, well again, what else could you call them? I dont know. No one knows.

What is the point of attributing these writings to someone who is not the author? Only two of the apostles wrote a gospel account, (Matthew and John) with Mark being a close associate of the apostle Peter who was an eyewitness, whilst Luke was closer to Paul. Neither Paul or Luke were eyewitnesses concerning Jesus' ministry, both apparently being converted after Pentecost 33 C.E, but their writings in no way contradict anything written in the other gospels. Paul was personally instructed by Jesus (though not in the flesh) he communicated with Paul directly as he was not educated by the other apostles.

The 12 apostles were eye witnesses of all that happened from their calling to become Jesus' disciples until his death.
The 12 are mentioned by name in all the Gospels as well as Acts.

Bible translator Jerome of the fourth century and Origen of the third century C.E. say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was directed primarily to Jews. But there were many Hellenized Jews among the Dispersion; so it may be that it was Matthew himself who later translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel mainly with Gentile readers in view, as is indicated by his explanations of Jewish customs and teachings, by his translations of certain expressions that would not be understood by Roman readers, and by other explanations. Both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels were intended for wide circulation, and of necessity, many copies would be made and distributed.
Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully.

An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of the material contained in it is not found in the other three Gospels.

• These books are written in Greek, by highly qualified, educated authors. Of course, Mark is the first and John is the last, but we have a theory that the two other synoptic gospel writers used Mark as their primary source and other superficial sources Q & L. Thus there is no way to 100% believe they have any divine inspiration or absolute validity.

Again it must be asked if the story is a complete departure from the Gospel accounts as a whole or whether there is compatibility among all of them? Do you think that the disciples were a bunch of uneducated yobbos? (Aussie expression meaning brainless morons) I find compatibility in all of them. Minor differences in recollection, considering that they were written between 41 and 98 C.E. do not alter the story because it is based on eye witness testimony recalled individually by God's spirit upon these men. If you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we have nothing to discuss. It is therefore not men relying on their failing memory, but God's spirit vividly recalling details in what he wanted recorded in his word.

• In Mark it says that Jesus died after the Passover meal. John says that Jesus died before the passover meal or on the day of preparation. Is it before or after?

Mark 14:17-42 is his account of the Passover night and Jesus ate the Passover meal with the 12. John's account is in ch 13. I find no discrepancy.
Jesus ate the Passover meal with his apostles....even washing the feet of his betrayer. Where does it say he died before the Passover meal?

• What time did Jesus die. 9 AM as said by Mark or later in the afternoon as said by John? No point pointing out all differences.

Mark says that Jesus died about the ninth hour which is around 3pm. And John confirms that it was also in the afternoon, being about the sixth hour when Pilate handed him over to be executed.

Where did you get 9am from?

These are some of the problems. There are many discrepancies. But if you take each Gospel as a whole, these differences do not change the overall theology.

I didn't find any discrepancies. The Gospels do not contradict each other. Each adds details the others may have left out. No other event in the Bible has four accounts attesting to its authenticity, except the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. That is good enough for me.

Raymond Brown talks heavily on the evolving theology from Matthew to John. Do you agree that the theology evolved from Mark to John?

Can theology "evolve"? Can truth "evolve" without losing its truthfulness?

Yes, one can argue that they could be complementing eachother. So, does that mean Mark knew that John would exalt Jesus to the status of Divinity a generation later when he wrote his Gospel and left it to John to complete it?

Since John did no such thing I cannot see how this requires an answer. All of the apostles knew who Jesus was..."the son of God".
No one elevated him to the status of Almighty God but an apostate church over 300 years after Jesus died.
Jesus never once claimed to be Almighty God but the apostles all knew he was the divine son of the Almighty, a god (mighty one) in his own right, deserving of their respect and honor.

 

[firedragon]

What is the point of attributing these writings to someone who is not the author? Only two of the apostles wrote a gospel account, (Matthew and John) with Mark being a close associate of the apostle Peter who was an eyewitness, whilst Luke was closer to Paul. Neither Paul or Luke were eyewitnesses concerning Jesus' ministry, both apparently being converted after Pentecost 33 C.E, but their writings in no way contradict anything written in the other gospels. Paul was personally instructed by Jesus (though not in the flesh) he communicated with Paul directly as he was not educated by the other apostles.

Matthew didnt write Matthew. John didnt write John. They were just names someone cooked up. No one knows who wrote the Gospels.

I am not arguing about paul contradicting Gospels, not now. Did I? And I did not talk of Paul, if he was actually instructed by Jesus. DId I?

The 12 apostles were eye witnesses of all that happened from their calling to become Jesus' disciples until his death.
The 12 are mentioned by name in all the Gospels as well as Acts.

Anyone who reads the bible can see that plainly. That does not change the fact that we dont know who wrote the Gospels. Also that they contradict eachother as I cited.

Bible translator Jerome of the fourth century and Origen of the third century C.E. say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was directed primarily to Jews. But there were many Hellenized Jews among the Dispersion; so it may be that it was Matthew himself who later translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel mainly with Gentile readers in view, as is indicated by his explanations of Jewish customs and teachings, by his translations of certain expressions that would not be understood by Roman readers, and by other explanations. Both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels were intended for wide circulation, and of necessity, many copies would be made and distributed.
Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully.

An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of the material contained in it is not found in the other three Gospels.

Maybe. Maybe not Deeje. There is no proof, only hypothesis. Marks Gospel is the oldest, so obviously his theology and language itself is quite different.

Also there could have been Hebrew books or Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But there is no proof that the canonised gospels have anything to do with them. They could have been simply named centuries later. But scholars largely agree that these are anonymous books.

And 40% material is very vague. I dont know anyone who claims that. Nevertheless, thats why I spoke of sources. Superficial sources in biblical studies.

Mark 14:17-42 is his account of the Passover night and Jesus ate the Passover meal with the 12. John's account is in ch 13. I find no discrepancy.
Jesus ate the Passover meal with his apostles....even washing the feet of his betrayer. Where does it say he died before the Passover meal?

It was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was arout noon. Here is your king, Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. - Gospel of John

Mark says that Jesus died about the ninth hour which is around 3pm. And John confirms that it was also in the afternoon, being about the sixth hour when Pilate handed him over to be executed.

Where did you get 9am from?

Mark 15:25 (Hope I didnt get the reference wrong) says that he was crucified at 9 AM. John 19:14 says he was condemned to death after noon.

You think there's no discrepancy?

Can theology "evolve"? Can truth "evolve" without losing its truthfulness?

Yes. Theology can evolve.

 

[metis]

In regards to authorship, back during that time period it was customary at times to write in the name of one's mentor in order to give the mentor credit. Also, some of the apostles may not have been literate, and probably most could not write in Koine Greek that was the standard for the diasporah.

When Jerome was overseeing the selection of the canon in the 4th century, we know that the issue of authorship of some texts was very much a sticky-wicky, especially with Hebrews and Revelation, even though the latter says "John on Patmos".

 

[Serenity Now]

In regards to authorship, back during that time period it was customary at times to write in the name of one's mentor in order to give the mentor credit. Also, some of the apostles may not have been literate, and probably most could not write in Koine Greek that was the standard for the diasporah.

When Jerome was overseeing the selection of the canon in the 4th century, we know that the issue of authorship of some texts was very much a sticky-wicky, especially with Hebrews and Revelation, even though the latter says "John on Patmos".

Authorship in ancient times was designated in several ways:

1. Actual person wrote it - Paul's letters
2. Individual dictated the text to a subordinate
3. Individual is still considered author if he only provided an outline or ideas
4. Individual was still considered the author if the work was written in his "tradition" - Example: David is credited with writing the psalms although it is highly unlikely he wrote all of them.

 

[paarsurrey]

You're just choosing to ignore what is written to fit your own agenda.

The Gospels itself were written with an agenda and doctored by Paul and the Church, they wrote whatever suited them to carry on with their agenda against Jesus and his teachings.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, yes, the Bible is nothing to do with God...move along, nothing to see here....
God's word as an instruction to the human race was left to the contrivance of men in order to make God into an idiot. Really?
The gospels do not contradict, they complement one another. Why do you think there are four of them? What one misses, the other records. When a detail is missing from one, it is supplied by the other. It is one complete story.
Your observation is pure ignorance talking again.
Can I ask what you are an "Ordained Minister" of exactly? Sadly your lack of Bible knowledge is glaringly obvious.

Because they canonized four gospels out of many that most suited there agenda, the new religion of Paul carved out of Paganism and named "Christianity" a misnomer, nothing to do with Jesus and or his teachings.

Regards

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, yes, the Bible is nothing to do with God...move along, nothing to see here....

God's word as an instruction to the human race was left to the contrivance of men in order to make God into an idiot. Really?

The gospels do not contradict, they complement one another. Why do you think there are four of them? What one misses, the other records. When a detail is missing from one, it is supplied by the other. It is one complete story.
Your observation is pure ignorance talking again.

Can I ask what you are an "Ordained Minister" of exactly? Sadly your lack of Bible knowledge is glaringly obvious.

No, the Gospels all tell a different story about who was at the tomb. They do not compliment, they contradict. There are four because they were written decades apart, and Matthew goes out of the way to make Jesus fit the messiah mold.

As to my ordination, it is as a Christian minister. I am 41 and about to retire from my day job in a few years. In the meantime, I have worked toward a double major in theology and history, with emphasis on ancient history (pre-CE). The thing is, I am a realist and don't buy into all this hocus pocus, supernatural fluff. Do I believe I God? Yes. Was the Bible written by humans and contains human errors? Yes. Anyone with half a brain can see that...unless they have been brainwashed.

 

[paarsurrey]

• You must accept that none of the Gospel authors were eye witnesses. No scholar ever accepts them to be eye witnesses. The Gospels are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because, well, what else could you call them? They are also named Gospels because, well again, what else could you call them? I dont know. No one knows.
• These books are written in Greek, by highly qualified, educated authors. Of course, Mark is the first and John is the last, but we have a theory that the two other synoptic gospel writers used Mark as their primary source and other superficial sources Q & L. Thus there is no way to 100% believe they have any divine inspiration or absolute validity.
• In Mark it says that Jesus died after the Passover meal. John says that Jesus died before the passover meal or on the day of preparation. Is it before or after?
• What time did Jesus die. 9 AM as said by Mark or later in the afternoon as said by John? No point pointing out all differences.

These are some of the problems. There are many discrepancies. But if you take each Gospel as a whole, these differences do not change the overall theology.
Raymond Brown talks heavily on the evolving theology from Matthew to John. Do you agree that the theology evolved from Mark to John?
Yes, one can argue that they could be complementing eachother. So, does that mean Mark knew that John would exalt Jesus to the status of Divinity a generation later when he wrote his Gospel and left it to John to complete it?

A good point indeed.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.

Is he a disbeliever?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, the Gospels all tell a different story about who was at the tomb. They do not compliment, they contradict. There are four because they were written decades apart, and Matthew goes out of the way to make Jesus fit the messiah mold.
As to my ordination, it is as a Christian minister. I am 41 and about to retire from my day job in a few years. In the meantime, I have worked toward a double major in theology and history, with emphasis on ancient history (pre-CE). The thing is, I am a realist and don't buy into all this hocus pocus, supernatural fluff. Do I believe I God? Yes. Was the Bible written by humans and contains human errors? Yes. Anyone with half a brain can see that...unless they have been brainwashed.

A good "eye-witness" or "eye-opening" testimony of a Christian minister.
Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You're just choosing to ignore what is written to fit your own agenda.

Like a John fixation?

His concern for his mother's spiritual welfare was of the utmost priority to him.

Since when? Jesus bummed around Galilee with his homies all day long. When does he ever take care of Mary? The bible notes that his family thought he'd gone bonkers. Methinks there is some home drama going on.

After Jesus' death Mary would have needed consoling for her loss in such awful circumstances.

You know what Mary would've liked? NOT being dismissed as family members. NOT being called a woman instead of mother. I need aloe from all the chaffing Jesus does when discussing his family.

Why do you think there are four of them?

There were 12 apostles and four gospels. Why is THAT?

Can theology "evolve"? Can truth "evolve" without losing its truthfulness?

Why does the NT exist if not to evolve the OT?

 

[paarsurrey]

Matthew didnt write Matthew. John didnt write John. They were just names someone cooked up. No one knows who wrote the Gospels.

True.
Regards

 

[firedragon]

Because they canonized four gospels out of many that most suited there agenda, the new religion of Paul carved out of Paganism and named "Christianity" a misnomer, nothing to do with Jesus and or his teachings.

Regards

Bro. A bit outdated and movie based theory. I am Muslim, but hope you dont mind if I ask when you think the bible was canonised and when they canonised the most suitedto their agenda?

 

[paarsurrey]

Like a John fixation?
Since when? Jesus bummed around Galilee with his homies all day long. When does he ever take care of Mary? The bible notes that his family thought he'd gone bonkers. Methinks there is some home drama going on.
You know what Mary would've liked? NOT being dismissed as family members. NOT being called a woman instead of mother. I need aloe from all the chaffing Jesus does when discussing his family.
There were 12 apostles and four gospels. Why is THAT?
Why does the NT exist if not to evolve the OT?

All good points.
Regards

 

[metis]

Authorship in ancient times was designated in several ways:

1. Actual person wrote it - Paul's letters
2. Individual dictated the text to a subordinate
3. Individual is still considered author if he only provided an outline or ideas
4. Individual was still considered the author if the work was written in his "tradition" - Example: David is credited with writing the psalms although it is highly unlikely he wrote all of them.

I hear ya.

The reality is that we really can't be sure of much of anything in this arena, so speculation tends to be just that-- speculation. Personally, it's not something I lose any sleep over as my approach is to read what we do have, see which might be applicable to my life today, and then use what seems reasonable. It's an imperfect approach, to be sure, but it is something I'm quite comfortable with.

 

[Serenity Now]

The Gospels itself were written with an agenda and doctored by Paul and the Church, they wrote whatever suited them to carry on with their agenda against Jesus and his teachings.
Regards

How the Bible came to be is an incredible story and involves the old testament as well as the new testament with multiple authors over thousands of years, but the tradition remained the same. The fact is that the events in the new testament would have been vetted by the believers at the time and has a tremendous amount of credibility.

What lacks credibility is one guy writing a single volume, given to him by an angel, that absolutely could not be vetted in anyway by the believers and complete rips off the OT and NT in a twisted way. In fact it reminds me considerably of the stunt Joseph Smith pulled but worse at least he left the original source material alone.

 

[Serenity Now]

I hear ya.

The reality is that we really can't be sure of much of anything in this arena, so speculation tends to be just that-- speculation. Personally, it's not something I lose any sleep over as my approach is to read what we do have, see which might be applicable to my life today, and then use what seems reasonable. It's an imperfect approach, to be sure, but it is something I'm quite comfortable with.

It is important to remember that the first century Christians thought that Christ was coming back soon and that would live to see it so writing everything down wasn't their priority it was spreading the message. However it speaks very loudly that they spread the Gospel far and wide during their life times and all but John was martyred for it.

Jesus died innocent of any crime for our sins.
The disciples were pacifist but endured imprisonment and death for spreading the gospel.
Mohammad died by poisoning for pillaging Jewish settlements.

Think about that for a while.

 

[metis]

It is important to remember that the first century Christians thought that Christ was coming back soon and that would live to see it so writing everything down wasn't their priority it was spreading the message. However it speaks very loudly that they spread the Gospel far and wide during their life times and all but John was martyred for it.

Jesus died innocent of any crime for our sins.
The disciples were pacifist but endured imprisonment and death for spreading the gospel.
Mohammad died by poisoning for pillaging Jewish settlements.

Think about that for a while.

I taught it.

Also, just a reminder that what we read are accounts of what the authors came to believe, and they weren't always on the same page. One area of change from what probably was the reality was the deification of Jesus as well as the concept of he "dying for our sins", the latter of which is a theological construct that defies logic if taken literally. However, both of those items are not directly related to the OP, plus I have no agenda on this, so I'll beg off having any discussion on those two matters.

BTW, I don't think Thomas was martyred, but I'd have to check, and I'm sorta rushed right now.

 

[Serenity Now]

I taught it.

Also, just a reminder that what we read are accounts of what the authors came to believe, and they weren't always on the same page. One area of change from what probably was the reality was the deification of Jesus as well as the concept of he "dying for our sins", the latter of which is a theological construct that defies logic if taken literally. However, both of those items are not directly related to the OP, plus I have no agenda on this, so I'll beg off having any discussion on those two matters.

BTW, I don't think Thomas was martyred, but I'd have to check, and I'm sorta rushed right now.

There are conflicting reports on Thomas:

1. He converted the wife of a regional ruler in India and was taken to a hill and speared by 4 soldiers.
2. He was shot in a what was essentially a hunting accident (I guess by bow and arrow?), also in India. - This comes from the accounts of Marco Polo.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am well versed in Catholic Apologetics for I spent a year in a monastery studying it all.

I put this in the debate section that you may challenge and fire your arrows at the Pope!

What is the official Catholic stance on alcohol? it seems very 'liberal' compared with most religions- in practice at least!