Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Jon Miller]

I consider the beggining of the catholic church to be in the 3rd/4th centuries when there was a great uniting, and the beginning of the dominance of rome..

I am well aware of the catholic churchs claims.. and reject them

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure you know that the historical meaning of words is sometimes lost.

Yes, and this we sometimes see in the Old Testament, particularly in the Pentateuch, just because of how old these books are compared with the rest of the bible. Not so much in the NT since it is much newer than the Old Testament.

[Ben Kenobi]

I consider the beggining of the catholic church to be in the 3rd/4th centuries when there was a great uniting, and the beginning of the dominance of rome..

What great uniting, or is this the establishment of the church by Constantine? The Catholic church existed well before that, and it really does not make sense to say that the church before Constantine is separate from the one after. The biggest difference is that the Christians rather than facing persecution inside the Roman Empire, became an essential part of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Writing a decade or so after the second temple was destroyed in the failed jewish uprising....matthew was determined to explain to the jewish world just who jesus was and to show judaism that there was an alternative to the rabby tradition that was developing at that time

Interesting. Is this because of Christ's prophecies to the destruction of the temple actually proved true, and since we know prophecies can't happen, the text must have been written after the destruction of the temple?

Most scholars put Matthew well before that, in the middle 50s to early 60s.

[Ben Kenobi]

and as far as that goes.. all we have are the words of people who knew people who knew Jesus (very few claim nowadays that the gospels were written by people who knew Him, since there is no evidence for this, and there is some against it)

Paul says in Corinthians, in the earliest portion written, that the testimony of the Christians is true, and that if one doubts, one is to ask many among the 500 who saw the risen Christ.

Many people believe that the Gospels were written by the people that they are attributed to, and that two of the 4 authors were disciples of Christ, and who were with him throughout his ministry here on Earth. I'm not sure why you claim there is evidence to the contrary that the Gospels were written by someone else.

and we don't have His actual words (except maybe as a source that the writers used.. which many theologians claim is the source for Mathew/Mark/Luke)

And neither do we have the actual words of Julius Caesar, rather do we have the accounts of his words. The Gospels are no different, other than the fact that they were written closer to the date, and by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

DBTS:

true but are the 'fragments' in greek or latin?

Didn't they teach that in your class? It seems to me that if you are assessing the merits of the historical sources you would at least learn which language they were originally written.

Latin was not the original language of any of the NT, the fragments of the NT that are currently extant, are in the Greek. The only Gospel that is suspected to have been written originally in Aramaic is Matthew's Gospel, because he intended the book to be written for Jewish people.

i had to read the st thomas book with explanation with it for my college even if it isnt 'correct' and 'part of the story of jesus' acording to a 'lot of people' the book shows how, why and when translations and totally changes in texts happen...proving my point that even the earliest texts can not be trusted...especially because of the policital and social time it happened.

Perhaps the reason the ancients rejected this gospel is for the reasons that you cite here, because of it's untrustworthiness.

the debate about the bible is so much more then only finding and early version and saying well if we translate this we have the correct story...even if you find the first version you have to put it a) in to context of the time b) find out what is symbolic and what is not c) find out what the motivation of the writer/writers is/are

Yes, but with respect to history, unless one has contradictory evidence, one must accept the account as true. In the case of the Gospels, it is good to ask the question of the motivations and when and where the text was written, in order to glean more insight into why they wrote what they did, and not other things. It cannot cast doubts on the authenticity of the document, unless one finds information that does not corroborate with the source at hand.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Interesting. Is this because of Christ's prophecies to the destruction of the temple actually proved true, and since we know prophecies can't happen, the text must have been written after the destruction of the temple?

Most scholars put Matthew well before that, in the middle 50s to early 60s.

there are two schools of thought on the subject

but yeah, one of the reasons why many scholars place it afterwards is becuase of the prophecy's of the destruction of the temple...

and that many scholars dont' beleive in prophecy

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Many people believe that the Gospels were written by the people that they are attributed to, and that two of the 4 authors were disciples of Christ, and who were with him throughout his ministry here on Earth. I'm not sure why you claim there is evidence to the contrary that the Gospels were written by someone else.

actually, the only claim of authorship by a desciple is John...

and I do think that that book was written by him..

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, yes, but that's question begging. To assume prophecy cannot happen, well why believe in any miracles, or Christ died and rose again? That's the trouble with those who date them later, is they tend to doubt all of the content of the gospels.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon Miller:

What about Matthew, the Tax collector?

[Jon Miller]

I am fine with it being placed afterwards..

but I still beleive in prophecy, and I think that Christ said it before hand...

but traditionally (I don't know why), John, which is the one most likely written by an eyewitness, is the last to be written

which would place all of the rest pre AD 80..

looking at Mathew, Mark, and Luke, I can definitely see the argument that they shared a common, earlier, source..

one thing that would suggest that Mathew was pre the destruction of the temple, is that I believe when the jews started rebeling, that the christians tried to show that they were different, so as to not be lumped in with the jews (originally christianity was just viewed as a type of judahism)

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/trustgospels.htm

With respect to the historicity of the Gospels, this makes the point well. Compared to any other historical source in antiquity, the Gospels stack up very favourably. Essentially the argument is this, if one can believe in the sources upon which we base most of our knowledge of the ancient world, one ought by the same standards, believe in the testimony of the Gospels.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Jon Miller:

What about Matthew, the Tax collector?

I am aware of him as a disciple

but I don't see anywhere in Mathew.. nor have I heard of anything else, that would place the two as the same Mathew

I would assume that there were many Mathew's at that time...

I think the association of Mathew the author, and Mathew the disciple came at a later date.. when people looked at the names and saw them being the same...

unlike in John (where John is treated special.. and stuff is relayed that he would have known and others would not have), there is nothing in Mathew to suggest that the apostle Mathew was the author

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

but traditionally (I don't know why), John, which is the one most likely written by an eyewitness, is the last to be written

For a couple of reasons. The biggest one being the differences in how John writes about Christ in his Gospel. It is different from Matthew, Mark and Luke which are generally lumped together as the synoptic gospels.

Now, I don't know about the common source between the three synoptics, I've heard plenty of discussions about the common source, but it also is possible that the three wrote their accounts separately.

[Jon Miller]

they use the exact same language at times

which if you and I saw or heard something, there would be no chance that we would be word for word at times...

Jon Miller