Little Flower Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309555350' post='2261743'] I'll look into those, can you point out a serious preferably agnostic scholar who says that the writers of the Gospels were not anonymous? [/quote] Hey, I've been looking around on the internet for a scholarly work to refer you to, and I haven't yet found an agnostic author for you yet. However, I ran across this article today. Its a very long work and I'm just posting part one of it. The links to parts two, three, four, and five are: Part 2: [url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-2.htm"]http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-2.htm[/url] Part 3: [url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-3.htm"]http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-3.htm[/url] Part 4: [url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-4.htm"]http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-4.htm[/url] Part 5: [url="ttp://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-5.htm"]http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-5.htm[/url] [b][color="black"]The Church in History Information Centre[/color][/b] www.churchinhistory.org [b][color="red"]THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS[/color][/b] [b][color="red"][According to the Clementine Tradition][/color][/b] [b][color="black"]By[/color][/b] [b][color="black"]Dennis Barton[/color][/b] [b][color="black"] The Gospels are Historical[/color][/b] [b] [size="6"][color="fuchsia"]Part 1[/color][/size][/b] [b][size="4"]This publication brings together the Synoptic researches of many, especially the following pioneers:[/size][/b] [b][size="4"]Dr. Henry Owen [/size][/b][size="4"](1716-1795). Anglican priest, Scripture scholar and Boyle Lecturer. First pioneer in modern times to propose the Matthew-Luke-Mark order of the Gospels. [/size][b][size="4"]Johann Griesbach[/size][/b][size="4"] (1745-1812). Lutheran University professor who spread knowledge of the Matthew-Luke-Mark order in Germany and beyond. [/size][b][size="4"]Pontifical Biblical Commission[/size][/b][size="4"] (1902 -1971). Firmly opposed the Markan Priority theory. [/size][b][size="4"]John Chapman [/size][/b][size="4"]OSB. (1865-1933). Considered the greatest Patristic scholar of his time, pointed out weakness of the Markan priority theory. Upheld the priority of Matthew's gospel. [/size][b][size="4"]Abbot Christopher Butler [/size][/b][size="4"]OSB (1902-86). Leading English-speaking contributor at Vatican II. Influential in forming the open attitude to research, to be found in Dei Verbum. Lifelong active defender of the priority of Matthew's Gospel. Auxiliary bishop of Westminster, London. [/size][b][size="4"]William R. Farmer[/size][/b][size="4"] (died in 2000). Methodist professor. He showed how Markan Priority was established in Germany, by Government imposed, 'political correctness.' Promoted the Matthew-Luke-Mark order throughout America. [/size][i][size="4"]Editor of the International Bible Commentary [/size][/i][size="4"](1998). [/size][b][size="4"]Harold Riley[/size][/b][size="4"]. Anglican priest and Scripture scholar. Close co-operator with Bernard Orchard. [/size][b][size="4"]Dom Bernard Orchard[/size][/b][size="4"] OSB (1910-2006). Editor of:[/size] [indent] [i][size="4"]The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1953). The New Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1969). Catholic Edition of The Revised Standard Version of the Bible. (1966).[/size][/i] [/indent] [size="4"] Bernard Orchard was also author of: [/size][b][u][size="4"]The Origin and Evolution of the Gospels (1993).[/size][/u][/b][size="4"] This short pamphlet showed how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians, modern methods of literary analysis and Dei Verbum. This pamphlet inspired the booklet you are are now reading.[/size] [size="4"]It is available, with other articles by him, a celebration of his final years and moves to make known and build on his work, as part of a list of articles on item[G225]. Click [/size][url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/orchard/dbocelibration.htm"][b][size="4"]HERE[/size][/b][/url][url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/"] [/url] [b][size="4"]FOREWORD[/size][/b] [size="4"]The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built. 'The Authors of the Gospels' sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis, the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome. This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.[/size] [size="4"] K.J.Gajewski [/size][b][size="4"]NOTE 1. [/size][/b][size="4"] a. Scriptural quotations are from the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition). b. An editorial comment, within a quotation, is indicated within [ ] brackets. c. The author has adopted the reference system used in other `ChurchinHistory` publications. References are provided in double brackets such as: ((AF 753)). The AF refers to a publications listed in the bibliography at the end, with the number denoting the page. d. There is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory. But in academic discourse, as well as in popular literature, they are both often referred to as: `a theory`. In this booklet the two words are treated as interchangeable. [/size][b][size="4"]NOTE 2.[/size][/b][size="4"] Associated leaflets also available on this web site: a. An introduction to this booklet: b. A short overview: Why, How and When the Gospels? c. The importance of correct translations: Dei Verbum, Chapter II, Section 7 - Translation [/size] [b][size="4"]CONTENTS[/size][/b] [size="4"]Page[/size] [size="4"]Chapter[/size] [size="4"] 5[/size] [size="4"]I[/size] [size="4"]INTRODUCTION[/size] [size="4"]8[/size] [size="4"]II[/size] [size="4"]THE EARLY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE[/size] [size="4"]17[/size] [size="4"]III[/size] [size="4"]LITERARY ANALYSIS[/size] [size="4"]18[/size] [size="4"]IV[/size] [size="4"]THE JEROME TRADITION[/size] [size="4"]19[/size] [size="4"]V[/size] [size="4"]MARKAN PRIORITY[/size] [size="4"]21[/size] [size="4"]VI[/size] [size="4"]THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION (GRIESBACH AND 2GH)[/size] [size="4"]27[/size] [size="4"]VII[/size] [size="4"]THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION (PETER`S TALKS)[/size] [size="4"]32[/size] [size="4"]VIII[/size] [size="4"]DATING MATTHEW[/size] [size="4"]35[/size] [size="4"]IX[/size] [size="4"]A HEBREW MATTHEW[/size] [size="4"]39[/size] [size="4"]X[/size] [size="4"]ANTI-JUDAISM IN MATTHEW AND JOHN[/size] [size="4"]42[/size] [size="4"]XI[/size] [size="4"]LUKE, ACTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MATTHEW[/size] [size="4"]51[/size] [size="4"]XII[/size] [size="4"]THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN[/size] [size="4"]61[/size] [size="4"]XIII[/size] [size="4"]THE EPISTLES AND PSEUDONYMITY / FORGERY[/size] [size="4"]66[/size] [size="4"]XIV[/size] [size="4"]THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS[/size] [size="4"]73[/size] [size="4"]XV[/size] [size="4"]PAPIAS; THE `Q` SOURCE; TONING DOWN MARK? THE JERUSALEM PROPHESIES; ACCORDING TO …[/size] [size="4"]80[/size] [size="4"]XVI[/size] [size="4"]THE ROMAN WORLD; ARCHAEOLOGY; A NOVEL[/size] [size="4"]83[/size] [size="4"]XVII[/size] [size="4"]FUNDAMENTALISM; ECUMENISM; TWO AUDENCES; THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION[/size] [size="4"]87[/size] [size="4"]XVIII[/size] [size="4"]THE EVENTS FALL INTO PLACE[/size] [size="4"]92[/size] [size="4"]XIX[/size] [size="4"]THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH[/size] [size="4"]107[/size] [size="4"]XX[/size] [size="4"]A ROOF WITHOUT WALLS[/size] [size="4"]115[/size] [size="4"]XXI[/size] [size="4"]THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS[/size] [size="4"]117[/size] [size="4"]REFERENCES/ BIBLIOGRAPHY/ WEB SITES[/size] [b][size="4"]CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION[/size][/b] [size="4"]For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community. When at parish level speakers are asked to provide solid reasons for this change, the usual replies are: `The experts say so`, or `everyone agrees`. I therefore felt the need to make a personal investigation. This involved collecting the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts). This booklet shows the result of this research. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship. There are three main schools of thought:[/size] [indent] [indent] [size="4"]~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~ ~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~ ~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~[/size] [/indent] [/indent] [size="4"] THE JEROME TRADITION asserts that: + The order of Gospel composition was in the sequence they appear in our Bibles today. + St. Jerome and some other early Christians made use of this order. + If internal evidence contradicts these historians, the literary analysis must be in error. THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY asserts that: + Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek. + Mark`s Gospel is in `poor Greek` when compared to that of Matthew and Luke. + So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark. + This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e. Markan priority). + Matthew the Apostle (an eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account. + This indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark`s Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources (these are referred to as `Q`). + As Luke also improved on Greek of Mark, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul. + These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.. + As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings can not be seen as accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did. +The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]As the Markan priority theory is based upon modern scientific research, and the Jerome Tradition is based on historical records, `Science` should be trusted in preference to `old traditions`.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]`The Jesus of History` is not the same as `The Christ of Faith` Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis.[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION[/size][/b][size="4"] + Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit. + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first. + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order. + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today. + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third. + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles. + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue. + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel. + This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel. + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement. [/size][b][size="4"]THE CHURCH[/size][/b][size="4"] + Dei Verbum, a [/size][u][size="4"]Doctrinal[/size][/u][size="4"] Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels. + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum. + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum. + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.[/size] [size="4"]================[/size] [size="4"]THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION is in full accord with: The earliest Christian historians Modern literary analysis The doctrine of the church Recent Church statements[/size] [size="4"] The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.[/size] [b][size="4"]CHAPTER II THE EARLY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE[/size][/b] [size="4"]It would be surprising if scrolls produced by the earliest Christian writers had survived intact for 2000 years. However, we do have important extracts and also possess quotations from their works as reproduced by Eusebius in his `Ecclesiastical History`. [/size][b][size="4"]a). PAPIAS[/size][/b][size="4"] (c. 60-139) was the bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius said Papias wrote five books and mentions his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John. Ancient Armenian literature records Papias writing commentaries on Luke and John ((RO 171)). Papias had carefully studied at least three of the Gospels. Hieropolis was close to the Christian centres at Colossae and Laodicea, and about one hundred and fifty kilometres from Ephesus along a good surfaced road. So contact with John the Apostle would have been easy. No doubt John took a great interest in Papias as he trained to be a bishop, and afterwards gave him good advice. His life span overlapped that of John by 30-40 years and Papias speaks of `The Presbyter`, who traditionally has been identified as John the Apostle. An extract from the fourth book by Papias and preserved by Eusebius reads:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`And this the Presbyter used to say: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the [/size][b][size="4"]cheias[/size][/b][size="4"], [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the [/size][b][size="4"]logia[/size][/b][size="4"] [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"`. ((EH 3: 39, 8 and RO 166r)). Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostle`s words in defence of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So the `poor Greek` of Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract, `... the Presbyter used to say`, being in the plural, shows that aspects of Mark`s gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against criticism.[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]b). JUSTIN THE MARTYR[/size][/b][size="4"] (c. 100-165) was born in Palestine and following his study of philosophic systems, became a Christian about 130 AD. About 138 AD Justin moved to Rome and set up as a teacher of Christian philosophy. He became a public leader in the defence of Christian beliefs against Paganism, the Jews and the heretical teachings of Marcion. So he had to be careful to use soundly based arguments. Amongst his writings we possess twelve direct quotations from the Gospels. Justin then moved to Ephesus where he died. The elderly members of the Ephesus community would remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town. In his `Dialogue with Trypho` published between 161-165, Justin quotes from Matthew and Luke referring to them as, "the teachers who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ". He writes of `the memoirs composed by the apostles which are called Gospels`. He specifically attributes the Apocalypse to John the Apostle. He knew the Septuagint well, and used the same version that had been used by Matthew. Justin in his `Dialogue with Trypho`, frequently uses the phrase `the memoirs of his apostles [note: plural] and others who followed him`, as the source of his quotations ((JMD ch. 98-107 and RO 122)). So Justin accepted that apostles had written at least two of the Gospels. Also, in his `Dialogue with Trypho`, he refers to Mark 3:16-17:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`And when it is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and when it is written in his [Peter`s] memoirs that this happened, as well as that he surnamed two other brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, with the name of Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder, this was a signification of the fact that it was He [JHWH] by whom Jacob was called Israel…` ((JMD 106. 9-10 and RO 125)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]c). IRENAEUS[/size][/b][size="4"] was born about 120 AD near Smyrna. After travelling throughout the Roman world gaining a wide knowledge of Christian life and history, he was made bishop of Lyons and martyred about 180 AD. As a young man he frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna. In a letter to Florinus, he wrote regarding his childhood:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`… I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people, also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever thing he had learned from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and his teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures ... ((See newadvent.org web site: Fathers: Irenaeus: Fragments from lost writings of Irenaeus, item II and IJK 540)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] In the first chapter of his third book in the series known as `Adversus Haereses`, Irenaeus records that the apostles of Christ preached the Gospel verbally. He then continues:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia`. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] This quotation above comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate. The Latin version may imply that Irenaeus was thinking that Mark and Luke wrote after the death of Peter. However, the perfect tense used in the Greek version makes it clear that this is not so. Irenaeus was merely saying that the gospels of Mark and Luke have handed on the traditions taught by Peter and Paul when they were still alive ((RO 163)). 'Tongue` may also be rendered as 'language` or 'dialect`. 'Demise` was also used by the Greeks to denote 'departure`. 'Matthew also` may also be rendered as: 'So Matthew'. Irenaeus is saying that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by one of Christ`s apostles who had already proclaimed the Gospel verbally. As Peter fled to Rome about 41 AD and Paul was martyred in 67 AD, Matthew must have written between these dates. When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he uses quotations from the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. In 3:9,1-3 he quotes mainly from Matthew, in 3:10,1-4 from Luke, in 3:10, 5 from Mark and in 3:11,1-6 from John. In the second controversy he says the Ebionites only use Matthew; Marcion mutilates Luke; the Docetists adapt Mark and Valentinus misuses John (3:11,7). In the third instance he quotes Scripture to show God was the father of Jesus, then writes: `…Matthew hath set down, and Luke also, and Mark....' (4: 6, 1). ((IJK 220, 234, 320)). So the order most familiar to Irenaeus was that of Luke being prior to Mark. Hans von Campenhausen first pointed this out in his 1972 book, `The Formation of the Christian Gospel`, page 195, note 243. In our Chapter IV we have an item showing that this use by Irenaeus is consistent with the Sunday readings of the Gospels in the early churches. [/size][b][size="4"]d). THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT[/size][/b][size="4"], or Canon, was discovered in 1740. Its authorship is unknown but it is thought to have been written by Hippolytus ((MFGR)). It is in barbarous Latin and not always correct. It mentions Pope Pius I who reigned from 141-158, and three heretics as contemporaries, so is normally dated as about 150 ((RO 138)). The surviving extract of the opening indicates that Mark was present at a specific event.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"… at which nevertheless he was present and thus related. In third place [we have] the book of the Gospels according to Luke. This Luke, a physician, after the Ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him, as one studious of Right, [to be his follower] at his own request [in his own name], wrote from report, since he himself notwithstanding had not seen the Lord in the flesh. Yet as far as he could ascertain so indeed he began to relate, beginning at the birth of John The fourth of the Gospels is John`s, one of the Disciples. At the insistence of his fellow-disciples and bishops he said: Today and for three days fast with me and what shall be revealed to each of us relate to one another.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that whatever should come to the minds of them all, John in his own name should write it all down … …What therefore [is there] to wonder at if John so constantly utters statements indeed in his Epistles saying from his own experience: What I have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have touched, these thing we have written to you? For thus he declares that he is not only an eyewitness and a hearer but also the writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order. However the Acts of the Apostles were written in one book. To the excellent Theophilus, Luke dedicates [the Acts], some of the events of which happened in his presence, just as he clearly declares, though with omission of Peter`s Passion and Paul`s journey from Rome setting out for Spain" ((MFGR and RO 139-140)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]e). THEOPHILUS[/size][/b][size="4"], the sixth bishop of Antioch writing about 179, named John as the divinely inspired author of a Gospel ((CCHS 776b)). [/size][b][size="4"]f). POLYCRATES[/size][/b][size="4"], bishop of Ephesus, in 189 defended the authenticity of the four Gospels by appealing to the authority of the Apostles Philip and John. He also called on the witness of seven kinsmen, who had been bishops in Asia before himself, that: `He who was reclining on the breast of our Lord wrote John`s Gospel`. ((CCHS 776b)). [/size][b][size="4"]g). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA[/size][/b][size="4"] (c 150-215) was a pupil of Pantoris, the first great Christian teacher at Alexandria in Egypt. Clement records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to `truly notable men` from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). While Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual centre was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous Pagan university. The earlier presence of Philo had also made it the centre of Jewish studies, and it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made. In his `Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas`, Clement commented on 1 Peter 5, 13. As Eusebius did not copy the full quotation, we are using here the Latin translation by Cassiodorus:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar`s knights and uttering many testimonies of Christ, [Mark] being begged by them that they should be able to record what was said, wrote the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Mark, from the things said by Peter; just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews`. ((RDCA and RO 131)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"]The words `Caesar`s knights` brings to mind the letter of Paul to the Philippians: `…so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorium and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ`. And, `All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar`s household ` (Phil.1: 13 and 4:22). The next quotations are of particular importance with regard to the subject of this booklet. They are quoted by Eusebius from Clement`s books.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches. Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: `The Outlines` [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: `The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark` ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]`And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the [/size][b][u][size="4"]very earliest presbyters[/size][/u][/b][size="4"] about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. [/size][b][u][size="4"]He used to say that the first written[/size][/u][/b][size="4"] of the gospels [/size][b][u][size="4"]were those having the genealogies[/size][/u][/b][size="4"]. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. [/size][b][u][size="4"]While Peter was publicly preaching[/size][/u][/b][size="4"] the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, [/size][b][u][size="4"]the audience[/size][/u][/b][size="4"], which was numerous, [/size][b][u][size="4"]begged Mark[/size][/u][/b][size="4"], as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, [/size][b][u][size="4"]to write down the things he had said[/size][/u][/b][size="4"].[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel`. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"]In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence. [/size][b][size="4"]h). TERTULLIAN [/size][/b][size="4"](c. 155-220) lived mainly in Africa and was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria. For a time he practiced as an Advocate at Rome, so as a lawyer he would have been very experienced when sifting evidence. Between 207 and 212, he wrote `Adversus Marcionem` [Treatise against Marcion]. Being one of disputation, it would have been compiled with great care to ensure it was not open to challenge.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"… I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospels have the Apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. If they have also for their authors apostolic men, yet these stand not alone but as companions of the apostles, because the preaching of disciples might be made suspect of the desire of vainglory, unless there stood by it the authority of their teachers, or rather the authority of Christ, which made the Apostles teachers. In short, from among the Apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the Faith, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it, …". ((TE Book 4: 2, 1-2 and RO 133-4)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] Here Tertullian has placed the name of Luke before that of Mark and later writes:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as a witness also for other gospels, which no less [than Luke`s] we possess by their agency and according to their text -I mean John`s and Matthew`s, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter`s, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke`s narrative also they usually attribute to Paul". ((TE Book 4: 5, 3 and RO 135)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]i). ORIGEN[/size][/b][size="4"] (c. 185-253) was the successor of Clement of Alexandria as the principal teacher in Alexandria. Eusebius quotes Origen as asserting that by tradition:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"The first [/size][b][size="4"]written[/size][/b][size="4"] was that according to the one time tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who [/size][b][size="4"]published[/size][/b][size="4"] it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew characters. And second, that according to Mark, composed as Peter guided, …And third, that according to Luke, the gospel praised by Paul, composed for those from the Gentiles. Finally, that according to John". ((EH 6: 25, and RO 169)). [Emphasis not in the original][/size] [/indent] [size="4"]It is very unlikely Origen intended to dispute the clear statement regarding the order of writing provided by his teacher, Clement of Alexandria. Origen is explaining how and why the gospels were composed, not the order of their writing. He could have been thinking in the order of their publication. If this is correct, his listing in the order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, is not a problem for those holding the Clementine tradition. [See part 1. of Chapter XVIII ]. [/size][b][size="4"]j). ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES[/size][/b][size="4"] These second, third and fourth century Gospel introductions come down to us in both Latin and Greek. Concerning Mark we read:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`…Mark who was also called Stubfinger, because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of his body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy; when Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority`. ((AMM and RO 148)).[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] Concerning John we read:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"John the Apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved exceedingly, last of all wrote this Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially the teachings of the Ebionites then arising, …"[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]"But they also say that there was another reason for this Gospel being written, because after reading the volumes of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the gospel, he of course approved the text of their accounts and confirmed the truth of what they had said, but [perceived] that they had provided the account of one year only in which he suffered after the imprisonment of John. Omitting therefore the year whose happenings were recorded by the three, he related the events that had occurred at an earlier period before John was shut up in prison, as will be able to be clear to those who have carefully read the books of the four Gospels. The Gospel therefore written after the Apocalypse, was also given to the churches in Asia by John while still living in the flesh, as the bishop of Hieropolis, Papias by name, a dear disciple of John, has related in his `exoteric`, that is, in [his] last, five books, who wrote out this Gospel, John dictating it to him". ((AMJ and RO 151)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]k). EUSEBIUS OF PAMPHILIUS[/size][/b][size="4"] (260-340) emerged as a great scholar of the Church as She was emerging into cultural and political freedom. As bishop of Caesaria he had a library with 30 000 scrolls and codices ((CTJ 74)). This library included the most complete collection of Christian documents ever assembled. He was the literary heir of Pamphilius, who had inherited the library of Origen, as well as the correspondence of Dionysius of Alexandria who had died in 264. As a theologian and biblical critic he played a part in the 325 Council of Nicea. Between 303 and 325 he wrote his ten-volume history of the church, which summed up the accumulated historical knowledge of the early Christian world. Eusebius had a great advantage over the researchers of today in that he had a great number of books in front of him which have since been lost. Fortunately he normally quoted what earlier historians, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others had written, rather than provide paraphrases. Some modern authors assert that Eusebius copied from Clement and Clement obtained all his information from Papias. They say that if Papias was in error, Clement and Eusebius would be also. But this is not correct. As mentioned previously, Eusebius knew Clement had `travelled widely and listened to truly notable men [note plural] from all over the Roman Empire`. Eusebius saw Clement as a very reliable witness to the consensus view of the most educated Christian authorities. He treats the witness of Papias as being a separate confirmatory source. For example if we reread the words of Clement in g) above, we see that Eusebius, when quoting information from Clement of Alexandria, regarded him as an independent source. Regarding Peter and Mark, Eusebius says Papias: "[/size][b][size="4"]also[/size][/b][size="4"] bears witness to it". ((EH 2: 15, 2 and RO 166)). Eusebius explained that at first the apostles and disciples did not write of their experiences, but relied on the proofs of the Spirit. But Matthew and John eventually wrote `perforce`. Matthew wrote because he was on the point of leaving Palestine, so left something to partially make up for his absence. John wrote because the existing gospels limited themselves to one year of Christ`s preaching. He was asked to add the events of the other years ((EH 3: 24, 1-15)). l[/size][b][size="4"]). ST. JEROME[/size][/b][size="4"] (331 - 420) Many people presume the gospels are printed in the order in which they were composed and that this order is based on the earliest Christian traditions. But this is not correct. At the end of the 4th century, Pope Damasus became concerned at the faulty translations and copying errors creeping into the Latin texts in use in Western Europe. So he commissioned Jerome to prepare a new Latin translation from the Greek. When completed it was known as `The Vulgate` and issued for standard use in the West. In his letter, `Epistula ad Damasum`, addressed to the Pope and enclosed with his final text, Jerome had to explain why he had adopted the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order. This indicates it was not normally used in the West ((WRFN 27)). [See this chapter, section p]. During the same years, Jerome compiled `De Viris Illustribus` [On Illustrious Men]. When describing these men, he does so in the order of Matthew (chapter 3), Luke (7), Mark (8) and John (9) ((WRFN 26 and DVI)). This was the Clementine order. When Jerome wrote his Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum [Prologue to the Four Gospels], he did not specify whether they had been written or published in the order he had adopted. In his letter to Hebidiam, Jerome wrote: "…Peter also had Mark, whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing." [/size][b][size="4"]m). AMBROSIASTER[/size][/b][size="4"] is the name given to an anonymous author of the late fourth century. He appears to have been writing just after the Vulgate had been published. A passage in his writings implies that the gospels in his copy of the New Testament were arranged in the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`The gospel is arranged according to the order [of their contents] rather than in chronological order. Therefore, Matthew is put in the first place because he begins from the promise, that is, from Abraham to whom was made the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Next comes Luke, because he relates how this incarnation took place. Third comes Mark, who witnesses that the gospel preached by Christ has been promised in the Law. Fourthly John …`. ((AS and RO 201-2)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]n). ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO[/size][/b][size="4"] (354 - 430). During Jerome's lifetime, Augustine wrote his: `De Consensu Evangelistarum` in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke ((AH 1 Book 1: 1-3)). Because he mentioned Matthew-Mark-Luke in his first volume, this order has often been referred to as: `The Augustinian Tradition`. But this is a misnomer because in his fourth volume he explains that Mark's Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke. ((AH 4 Book 4:10, 11 and RO 211-214)). David Peabody has examined Augustine's thinking regarding this in some detail. ((WRFN 37-64)). He shows how Augustine eventually adopted the Clementine tradition. In this booklet, to avoid confusion, we refer to the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence as: `The Jerome Tradition`. [/size][b][size="4"]o). THE MONARCHIAN PROLOGUE TO MARK`S GOSPEL[/size][/b][size="4"] This was probably written by Priscillian, a heretic who died in 386.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]"For setting out on the perfect work of the Gospel, and starting to preach God from the Lord's baptism, he did not bother with the nativity story which he had seen related in the former [Gospels].[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] A similar prologue, probably by the same author, refers to Luke`s Gospel as being after Mark's. ((RO 208-9 and WRFN 22 and 23)). [/size][b][size="4"]p). THE OLD LATIN VERSIONS[/size][/b][size="4"] These early Latin translations from the Greek continued to circulate for centuries after Jerome`s Vulgate was published and many copies or part copies have survived. Most have the Gospels in the order of Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. ((BMM and RO 126)). It is likely that this order was adopted so as to honour the Apostles by placing them first. However, it is interesting that if John is moved to the end, we are left with the Clementine tradition. [/size][b][size="4"]q). THE EASTERN TRADITION[/size][/b][size="4"] The Greek and Russian Orthodox liturgies have not changed as much as those in the Latin West. Apart for a few feast days, Matthew is read on Sundays from Pentecost. Luke follows later in the year and Mark begins during Lent. John is read in the Easter period. The Melkite Church, which traces herself back to Antioch, has a similar order, as do the Byzantine Churches. This points to the early Christians being familiar with Luke being used prior to Mark. [For details see Documentation Section on this website]. See also Chapter IV. [/size][b][size="4"]r). THE TWO ENDINGS OF MARK. [/size][/b][size="4"]Most of the early copies of Mark are as we have them today. But some have been found where the last twelve verses are replaced by:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]`But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation` ((RSV)).[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]COMMENT:[/size][/b][size="4"] The early historians are completely united in stating that Matthew the Apostle wrote the first Gospel, and John the Apostle wrote another. They also agreed that Luke and Mark wrote the other two. While there are two traditions as to which of these was written / published first, the oldest tradition places Luke as written prior to Mark. [/size][b][size="4"]NOTE:[/size][/b][size="4"] Remarks such as, `the evidence shows that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek`, or `Papias is unreliable`, are sometimes made today. But these remarks are not based on historical research. They are made on the presumption that the Markan priority theory has been proved. It is this 'evidence' (i.e. a theory) that they claim shows the historical evidence to be in error.[/size] [b][size="4"]CHAPTER III LITERARY ANALYSIS[/size][/b] [size="4"]When the Gospel of Mark is compared with those of Matthew and Luke, a pattern is noticeable. According to literary analysis, the grammar, vocabulary, style, idiom and sentence construction, Mark is said to be in poorer Greek than that found in the parallel verses of the other two. Some examples will illustrate this: In Mark 1:12 we read `drove`, while Matthew has `led up` and Luke `led`. Both of these are more refined styles.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]In Mark 2:4 the paralytic is described as lying on a `pallet`. This was a slang word for `bed`. So the other two are using better Greek. In Mark 4:41 Mark uses the singular of the verb `to obey` when he is speaking of `wind and sea`. The other two use the correct plural form. In Mark 5:9-10, after stating `for we are many`, Mark writes `he begged`. Luke correctly has `they begged`.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]In Mark 10:20 the aorist middle of the Greek verb `ephylaza` is used instead of the aorist active The aorist active is correctly used by the other two writers. In Mark 16:6 the singular of the Greek verb for `to see` is used, although `women` is plural. Matthew has the correct word. Also Mark uses the term `the place` in the nominative instead of the accusative, while Matthew is correct.[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] Literary analysis highlights other differences between the Gospels.[/size] [indent] [size="4"]1. There are clear Aramaic expressions to be found in Mark, which are missing in five parallel accounts in Luke. They are also missing in five of the seven parallel accounts in Matthew. These are: Boanerges (3:14-17), Talitha cumi (5:40-41), Corban (7:9-13), Ephphatha (7:32-35), Abba (14:13-36), Golgotha (15:22-23) Eloi Eloi (15:34).[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]2. Mark`s gospel has a primitive freshness and a vivid style compared to those of Matthew and Luke. His unsophisticated style can be seen in the frequent use of `And` or `Immediately` when commencing a paragraph. 3. In many instances Mark uses redundant words. For example we read: `that evening` in Matthew 8: 16-17, and `the sun was setting` in Luke 4: 40-41. Mark has: `That evening as the sun was setting` (Mark 1: 32). So Mark is saying the same thing twice. This is also known as a `duality`.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]4. Mark`s Gospel has apparently unimportant pieces of information, such as the reference to a cushion (Mark 4: 38). Scholars broadly agree on these distinctive characteristics but dispute how and why they arose. The alternative explanations will be set out in our next chapters.[/size] [/indent] [b][size="4"]CHAPTER IV THE JEROME TRADITION[/size][/b] [size="4"] For centuries it was universally presumed that the sequence of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, enshrined in the New Testament as translated by St. Jerome, was the sequence in which they had been written. Henry Owen's suggestion, in 1764, that Luke wrote prior to Mark, was seen by academics as revolutionary. But, as his idea did not threaten the historical reliability of the Gospels, Christians were not perturbed. It was when the Markan priority theory asserted that Mark had written before Matthew, and that Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses of the life of Christ, that Christians became concerned. The supporters of the Jerome sequence appealed to the authority of Augustine of Hippo, who had said 'the received tradition' was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John. They often refer to this order as: 'The Augustinian Tradition'. But, as pointed out in chapter II, Augustine in his fourth book followed Clement of Alexandria's order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John In the early church the Gospels were read in church in continuous order. The Epistle and Gospel read on a Sunday would continue from where it had been left the previous week. Signs of this pattern, with interruptions for feasts, may be found in many of the Eastern Churches today. The Byzantine Church in her Sunday gospel readings begin immediately after Pentecost with Matthew. Luke follows from September, Mark begins in or before Lent and John is read following Easter. The Syrian church has the same arrangement (evidently originating in Antioch). ((CC06659a)). [Also see the Documentation section of this website]. This pattern, together with the use of this sequence by Irenaeus, points to at least some of the early church using the gospels in the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order. Over the past 200 years the supporters of Jerome's Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence, have achieved much in upholding the priority of Matthew and in exposing the inconsistencies to be found in the Markan priority theory. Many have done so out of loyalty to what they understood to be the oldest and only Christian tradition and usage. But, by presuming that Mark wrote before Luke, they have been less effective than they could have been. They have exposed themselves to the criticisms, based on literary analysis, made by the Markan Priorists. They correctly held that Luke had borrowed from Matthew but, in order to conform to Jerome's tradition, they had to presume that he had also borrowed from Mark. This meant that Mark must have been written prior to Luke and therefore prior to Peter's death. But Ireaneus said it had been written after Peter's demise. R.Ginns, in an authoritative article in support of the Jerome tradition, was forced to presume Ireaneus had made an error ((CCH 744g)).[/size] [b][size="4"]CHAPTER V MARKAN PRIORITY[/size][/b] [size="4"]The arguments put forward in support of Mark having written prior to Matthew and Luke are as follows:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]1. It is easy to understand Matthew and Luke improving on 'the poor Greek' of Mark. But difficult to see why Mark would have deliberately spoiled the good grammar and sentence formation of the other two. 2. Matthew and Luke omit the seven clear Semitic expressions found in Mark. This points to them addressing audiences at a later time than the original mainly Jewish congregations.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]3. As if the save space, Mark omit important items such as the infancy of Christ, the early preaching of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and much of the resurrection narrative to be found in the other two. But he then adds redundant clauses and unimportant details. Why should he act in such a manner? It is easier to imagine Matthew and Luke wishing to expand Mark's Gospel by adding extra important information, and making room by cutting out redundant clauses and unimportant details. 4. Mark portrays Christ and the Apostles more favourably than the other two. It is more likely that reports of alleged deficiencies of Christ and the apostles would have been toned down with time. Mark portrays Christ, and the apostles, more favourably than the other two gospels.[/size] [/indent] [size="4"] Markans also claim what they consider to be supporting arguments for their position:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]5. Parables in the gospels of Matthew and Luke indicate that they were aware of the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. 6. The anti-Jewish spirit of Matthew reflects the decision taken about 85 AD at Jaminia, to expel the Christians from the Synagogues. 7. The theology to be found in Matthew and Luke is more developed than that in Mark.[/size] [/indent] [size="4"]Having established to their satisfaction Mark's priority, the following arguments are put forward:[/size] [indent] [size="4"]a. It is agreed that Mark was not an eyewitness Apostle, and he wrote between 65-75 AD. b. An eyewitness Apostle would not have based his Gospel on Mark's non-eyewitness account. Therefore, the author of the gospel referred to as: 'According to Matthew', was not the eyewitness Apostle of that name[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]c. As all the ancient historians report that Matthew wrote first, and this is contrary to the Markan theory, all those historians must have been in error. We are therefore unable to trust the historians. So we do not have reliable historical evidence that John the Apostle wrote a gospel.[/size] [/indent] [indent] [size="4"]d. This points to the gospels known as by Matthew, Luke and John, having been written by unknown authors in various Christian communities, many years after the events. The words placed on the lips of Christ would therefore have been based on verbal traditions more than fifty years old, or on the creativity of the authors. e. This means that, as we do not have reliable firsthand eyewitness accounts of the words and acts of Christ, there is no basis for knowing with certainty what Christ said or did.[/size] [/indent] [size="4"]When this booklet uses the terms `Markan priorist` or `Markan` it is referring to those who accept this progression of thought. This line of thought is consistent and persuasive if we accept its first premise that Mark wrote prior to Matthew. The acceptance of this premise leads to the contradiction of all the ancient historians, the 2000 year old tradition of the Catholic Church, including a dogmatic decree of the Second Vatican Council, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant bodies and a growing number of modern exegetes. Sometimes, during a talk on Scripture, a member of the audience may challenge the presumption of Markan priority implied by the speaker. The audience can become restive because to them it does not seem important who wrote first. They have come together to be inspired by the Word of God and do not want to waste time on what appears to be an unimportant academic argument. Their point of view is understandable. But two points need to be noted. It is quite likely the speaker will explain a piece of Scripture from Matthew`s gospel with reference to how Matthew `revised` the meaning expounded by Mark. If Mark wrote second this line of meditation, however uplifting, cannot be said to come from the biblical Word of God. The second point is to recognise that the speaker is preparing the mind of his audience to accept the Markan priority theory as correct and endorsed b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Flower Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) [used wrong user to post!] Edited July 5, 2011 by Little Flower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dells_of_bittersweet Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309555350' post='2261743'] I'll look into those, can you point out a serious preferably agnostic scholar who says that the writers of the Gospels were not anonymous? [/quote] Sorry, the long post by Terese of the Little Flower is really by me...I'm on a multi-user computer and Therese of the Little Flower forgot to sign out and I forgot to log in as my self...sorry again. Also, the article displays much better at its original source, [url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm"]http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm[/url] Edited July 5, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309797168' post='2263021'] I think looking at such an elaborately ordered, fine-tuned, and functioning universe and saying it just randomly popped into being, or created itself, requires an even bigger leap of faith - or should I make that "leap of atheism"? [/quote] I think that you're (as a result of a universe) are projecting design onto ordered things. If there are other possibilities that could also result in observers, they would say the same thing. Instead of dwelling on what [i]looks[/i] intelligent, it's better to focus on how it can really be known to be intelligent, and without other examples it's difficult. I think the weak anthropic principle is a good alternate explanation even without proof of other possibilities because I see things differently. [quote]It's like if a complex and advanced spaceship landed, it would be rational to assume that somebody intelligent designed and built it, even if I did not know who it was - humans, aliens, whatever. Saying the spaceship was it's own cause or the result of random processes would not be a satisfying or intelligent explanation.[/quote] This is analogous the The Watchmaker argument which says that anything sufficiently complex is designed. it was used to defend creationism over evolution and was refuted by Darwin's observance of natural selection. I'm inclined to think that arguments for the design of the universe are more or less the same. [quote]Most of such objections to the existence of God seem to come from an insistence on conceiving of God as some kind of material, physical thing, when that is not at all what God is.[/quote] Right. I see god as an idea. [quote]And any God a limited, finite creature such as ourselves could wrap our heads around wouldn't be much of a God. And if there is a God (First Cause), there is no infinite regress. I find the whole idea of infinite regress or a self-created universe philosophically absurd.[/quote] On an interesting sidenote, and yet you don't know if there really is just one god (or creator, if you wouldn't call that conception of one a god) that created this universe. I also don't like infinite regress, but there's no reason to assume that we're just one step away from whatever it is that always was. [quote]There are a number of well-documented miracles which defy any easy natural explanation. I am well aware of atheist objections to them, though I find them unconvincing. I don't really have time to go into the whole debate right now. There are also a slew of bogus and dubious "miracles" out there. The Church is reluctant to declare any miracle to be worthy of belief, and doesn't require belief in any of them besides those essential to the Faith. God generally performs miracles very rarely, and prefers not to force Faith on people. Of course, by definition, a miracle is an exceptional event, and cannot be duplicated in the lab, and thus defies the scientific method.[/quote] Yes but what I meant was not that a supernatural event could be replicated in the lab, but if it could really be shown to go against nature; that is, has no possible natural explanation. For instance, if a Jesus cracker could be shown to really turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus, whereas crackers of similar or equal chemical compositions would not, then that would be a miracle IMO. Of course if such a thing were to occur than I'd much rather see unbiased scientists examine it than Church clergymen, even if scientists. [quote]Say what you want, but I don't think the early Christians were stupid enough to risk everything and give up their very lives for either deceptive magic tricks or unfounded rumors. It seems at least someone would have given up the whole hoax rather than face persecution and death. But then, I know that's where you and I disagree.[/quote] Well, psychological fallibility really doesn't have to do with intelligence. In fact, sometimes more highly intelligent people are better at rationalising things that are absurd and believe their rationalisations. It has nothing to do with stupidity, but the way people are wired. Of course, if we were always aware of our brain failures, then we wouldn't make them as often would we? If you want a good example of a brain "failure" (or brains doing what they evolved to do) look at optical illusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 [quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309827643' post='2263150'] Sorry, the long post by Terese of the Little Flower is really by me...I'm on a multi-user computer and Therese of the Little Flower forgot to sign out and I forgot to log in as my self...sorry again. Also, the article displays much better at its original source, [url="http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm"]http://www.churchinh...s-gospels-1.htm[/url] [/quote] Whoa, that's quite a bit to look at. Thanks for adding them, though it's going to take some time before I can say anything more on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 [quote name='Little Flower' timestamp='1309826846' post='2263142'] [/size][b][size="4"]William R. Farmer[/size][/b][size="4"] (died in 2000). Methodist professor. He showed how Markan Priority was established in Germany, by Government imposed, 'political correctness.' Promoted the Matthew-Luke-Mark order throughout America. [/size][i][size="4"]Editor of the International Bible Commentary [/size][/i][size="4"](1998). [/quote] William Farmer died in 2000!? :-( I could almost swear that I saw him in 2001 but it must have been 2000. He was cool. [i]Requiescat in pace[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dells_of_bittersweet Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 [color="#000000"][size="2"][font="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"] [/font][/size][/color][quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309828828' post='2263154'] For instance, if a ***** cracker could be shown to really turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus, whereas crackers of similar or equal chemical compositions would not, then that would be a miracle IMO. Of course if such a thing were to occur than I'd much rather see unbiased scientists examine it than Church clergymen, even if scientists. [/quote] You've stumbled into a particularly fruitful topic for Catholic apologetics. There have been many documented, and scientifically investigated Eucharistic miracles throughout our 2,000 year history. I'll quote just one, the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano: [quote name='wikipedia'] In the city of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanciano"]Lanciano[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy"]Italy[/url], around 700, a Basilian monk and priest were assigned to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the small Church of St. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legontian&action=edit&redlink=1"]Legontian[/url]. Celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread, that monk had doubts about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence"]real presence[/url] of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ"]Jesus Christ[/url] in the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Eucharist"]Holy Eucharist[/url][sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup]. During the Divine Liturgy, when he said the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Consecration"]Words of Consecration[/url] [i](This is my body. This is my blood)[/i], with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt"]doubt[/url] in his soul, the priest saw the bread change into living flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size (this number supposedly corresponds to the number of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Wounds"]wounds[/url] Christ suffered on the cross: one in each hand and foot from the nails, and the wound from the centurion's spear). Since 1574, various ecclesiastical investigations of varying degrees of detail have been conducted upon the miracle. The first appears to consist of a weighing, in which each different globule though varying in size, all each weigh the same and always produced the same weight no matter what the amount of these globules was.[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup] Thus all of them put together was the equivalent to any one of them or any three or any four all equaled the same weight no matter what combination.[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup] Also an examination in 1971 conducted by Professor Doctor [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odoardo_Linoli&action=edit&redlink=1"]Odoardo Linoli[/url] which were confirmed by Dr. Bertelli.[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup] The flesh was found to be human striated muscular tissue of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardium"]myocardium[/url] (the heart wall), type AB, and to be absolutely free of any agents used for preserving flesh.[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup] The blood at Lanciano has divided into five irregularly shaped pellets. At scientific examinations conducted in 1971 these pellets were found to be human blood, type AB ("the universal receiver"), with proteins normally fractionated and present in the same percentage ratio as those in normal fresh blood.[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup] [list][*]February 17, 1574 by Bishop Rodriguez[*]1636 by Father Serafino from Scanno[*]October 23, 1777 by Bishop Gervasone[*]October 26, 1886 by Bishop Petrarca[*]1971, by Professor Odoardo Linoli[/list] This most recent examination[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-fullreport-0"][1][/url][/sup] was performed by Professor Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup], and Professor [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Bertelli&action=edit&redlink=1"]Ruggero Bertelli[/url] of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Siena"]University of Siena[/url]. The report was published in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quaderni_Sclavo_di_Diagnostica_Clinica_e_di_Laboratori&action=edit&redlink=1"]Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori[/url] in 1973[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-zenit-1"][2][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-2"][3][/url][/sup]. The following conclusions were drawn by Odoardo Linoli: [list][*]The flesh is real flesh and the blood is real blood[*]The flesh and the blood belong to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human"]human[/url] species[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-3"][4][/url][/sup][*]The flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart[*]In the flesh we see present in section: the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardium"]myocardium[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocardium"]endocardium[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve"]vagus nerve[/url] and also the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_ventricle"]left ventricle[/url] of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart"]heart[/url] for the large thickness of the myocardium. The flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-4"][5][/url][/sup][*]The flesh and the blood have the same [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type"]blood type[/url], AB[*]In the blood there were found [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins"]proteins[/url] in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_serum"]sero[/url]-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano#cite_note-5"][6][/url][/sup][*]In the blood there were also found these minerals: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloride"]chlorides[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus"]phosphorus[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium"]magnesium[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium"]potassium[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium"]sodium[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium"]calcium[/url][/list] The flesh and blood of the miracle can still be seen today. The flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in color, and becomes rose-colored when lighted from the back. The blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly color resembling the yellow of ochre. [/quote] Quoting from http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf: In 1970, the Archbishop of Lanciano and the Provincial Superior of the Conventual Franciscans at Abruzzo, with Rome’s approval, requested Dr. Edward Linoli, director of the hospital in Arezzo and professor of anatomy, histology, chemistry, and clinical microscopy, to perform a thorough scientific examination on the relics of the miracle which had occurred twelve centuries earlier. On March 4, 1971, the professor presented a detailed report of the various studies carried out. Here are the basic results: 1. The “miraculous Flesh" is authentic flesh consisting of muscular striated tissue of the myocardium. 2. The “miraculous Blood" is truly blood. The chromatographic analysis indicated this with absolute and indisputable certainty. 3. The immunological study shows with certitude that the flesh and the blood are human, and the immuno – hematological test allows us to affirm with complete objectivity and certitude that both belong to the same blood type AB – the same blood type as that of the man of the Shroud and the type most characteristic of Middle Eastern populations. 4. The proteins contained in the blood have the normal distribution, in the identical percentage as that of the serous-proteic chart for normal fresh blood. 5. No histological dissection has revealed any trace of salt infiltrations or preservative substances used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming. Professor Linoli also discarded the hypothesis of a hoax carried out in past centuries. This report was published in The Sclavo Notebooks in Diagnostics (Collection #3, 1971) and aroused great interest in the scientific world. Also, in 1973, the chief Advisory Board of the World Health Organization appointed a scientific commission to corroborate Linoli’s findings. Their work lasted 15 months and included 500 tests. It was verified that the fragments taken from Lanciano could in no way be likened to embalmed tissue. As to the nature of the fragment of flesh, the commission declared it to be living tissue because it responded rapidly to all the clinical reactions distinctive of living beings. Their reply fully corroborated Professor Linoli’s conclusions. In the extract summarizing the scientific work of the Medical Commission of the WHO and the UN, published in Dec. 1976 in New York and Geneva, declared that science, aware of its limits, has come to a halt, face to face with the impossibility of giving an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310088466' post='2264226'] You've stumbled into a particularly fruitful topic for Catholic apologetics. There have been many documented, and scientifically investigated Eucharistic miracles throughout our 2,000 year history. I'll quote just one, the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano: [/quote] Excluding Lanciano, what are the top five miracles that you might put forth as compelling evidence for the supernatural and the validity of the Catholic faith? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310088466' post='2264226'] [color="#000000"][size="2"][font="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"] [/font][/size][/color] You've stumbled into a particularly fruitful topic for Catholic apologetics. There have been many documented, and scientifically investigated Eucharistic miracles throughout our 2,000 year history. I'll quote just one, the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano: Quoting from [url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf:"]http://www.therealpr.../Lanciano1.pdf: [/url] In 1970, the Archbishop of Lanciano and the Provincial Superior of the Conventual Franciscans at Abruzzo, with Rome's approval, requested Dr. Edward Linoli, director of the hospital in Arezzo and professor of anatomy, histology, chemistry, and clinical microscopy, to perform a thorough scientific examination on the relics of the miracle which had occurred twelve centuries earlier. On March 4, 1971, the professor presented a detailed report of the various studies carried out. Here are the basic results: 1. The "miraculous Flesh" is authentic flesh consisting of muscular striated tissue of the myocardium. 2. The "miraculous Blood" is truly blood. The chromatographic analysis indicated this with absolute and indisputable certainty. 3. The immunological study shows with certitude that the flesh and the blood are human, and the immuno – hematological test allows us to affirm with complete objectivity and certitude that both belong to the same blood type AB – the same blood type as that of the man of the Shroud and the type most characteristic of Middle Eastern populations. 4. The proteins contained in the blood have the normal distribution, in the identical percentage as that of the serous-proteic chart for normal fresh blood. 5. No histological dissection has revealed any trace of salt infiltrations or preservative substances used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming. Professor Linoli also discarded the hypothesis of a hoax carried out in past centuries. This report was published in The Sclavo Notebooks in Diagnostics (Collection #3, 1971) and aroused great interest in the scientific world. Also, in 1973, the chief Advisory Board of the World Health Organization appointed a scientific commission to corroborate Linoli's findings. Their work lasted 15 months and included 500 tests. It was verified that the fragments taken from Lanciano could in no way be likened to embalmed tissue. As to the nature of the fragment of flesh, the commission declared it to be living tissue because it responded rapidly to all the clinical reactions distinctive of living beings. Their reply fully corroborated Professor Linoli's conclusions. In the extract summarizing the scientific work of the Medical Commission of the WHO and the UN, published in Dec. 1976 in New York and Geneva, declared that science, aware of its limits, has come to a halt, face to face with the impossibility of giving an explanation. [/quote] That's interesting, though it would be nice if they could take a DNA sample (if it were possible) or at least see if they could detect other blood proteins which vary among people (AB is rare, but there are lesser used other types such as MM, MN and NN) now and then again in a few years to see if the same is the one and only and was preserved without the addition of any products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dells_of_bittersweet Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310136841' post='2264439'] Excluding Lanciano, what are the top five miracles that you might put forth as compelling evidence for the supernatural and the validity of the Catholic faith? Just curious. [/quote] I'm absolutely not an expert on this. However, I'll list a few miracles and some other events that give the appearance of supernatural activity: 1. Miracle of the Sun, Lourdes. Outside the resurrection, this is possibly the best documented miracle of all time. The children predicted it before hand, and a great many people were there, including many skeptics. My favorite part: a large number of skeptical members of the media were there, witnessed it, and reported it in the popular press. One of my ancestors converted to the Catholic faith after reading in the New York Times several days before hand that it was predicted, and then again reading the New York Times and finding out that it actually happened. [quote name='Dr. Jose Maria de Almeidia'] [size="6"][color="#ff0000"][i][b]The Miracle of the Sun[/b][/i][/color][/size] [size="+2"][color="#0000a0"]An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal[/color][/size] "It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/spacer.gif[/img]"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely. [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/miracle2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/spacer.gif[/img]"Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet...turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl. [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/spacer.gif[/img]"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color. [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/spacer.gif[/img]"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible. [img]http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/images/spacer.gif[/img]"All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena." [indent][b]Professor Almeida Garrett's full account may be found in [i]Novos Documentos de Fatima[/i] (Loyala editions, San Paulo, 1984)[/b][/indent] [/quote] 2. Remarkable historical circumstances involving God protecting the Pope. Pope Vigilius promised Empress Theodora, prior to his election, that he would support the Monophyiste Heresy of elected Pope. In return, the empress agreed to force the Church to make him Pope. Vigilius and the empress were personally involved in the murder to two Popes, and then Theodora used armed forces to compel the college of cardinals to elect Vigilius. However, after his election, Vigilius refused to support the Monophysite heresy, even under torture. Some major change clearly came over Vigilius immediately following his election to the Papacy, and this appears to have a remarkable correlation to Christ's claim to not let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church, and also to the claim of Papal infallibility. 3. Incoruptables and stigmatists. Incoruptables are saints whose bodies have not decayed after death: [quote name='wikipedia'] [list][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Agatha"]Saint Agatha[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Montepulciano"]Saint Agnes of Montepulciano[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_the_Great"]Saint Albert the Great[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphege"]Saint Alphege of Canterbury[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bobola"]Saint Andrew Bobola[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Angela_Merici"]Saint Angela Merici[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Maria_Zaccaria"]Saint Anthony Maria Zaccaria[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Antoninus"]Saint Antoninus[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Benedict_the_Moor"]Saint Benedict the Moor[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Benezet"]Saint Benezet[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous"]Saint Bernadette Soubirous[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Bernardine_of_Siena"]Saint Bernardine of Siena[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Camillus_of_Lellis"]Saint Camillus de Lellis[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine_Laboure"]Saint Catherine Labouré[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine_of_Bologna"]Saint Catherine of Bologna[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine_of_Genoa"]Saint Catherine of Genoa[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Ricci"]Saint Catherine dei Ricci[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine_of_Siena"]Saint Catherine of Siena[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Borromeo"]Saint Charles Borromeo[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cecilia"]Saint Cecilia[/url][*] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_of_Montefalco"]Saint Clare of Montefalco[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloman_of_Stockerau"]Saint Coloman[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cuthbert"]Saint Cuthbert[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacus"]Saint Didacus of Alcala[/url] (San Diego de Alcala)[*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Savio"]Saint Dominic Savio[/url] ( 1842 - 1857 )[*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Rich"]Saint Edmund Rich of Canterbury[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Confessor"]Saint Edward the Confessor[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etheldreda"]Saint Etheldreda[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Eustochia_Calafato"]Saint Eustochia Calafato[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Frances_of_Rome"]Saint Frances of Rome[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Francis_de_Sales"]Saint Francis de Sales[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Francis_Xavier"]Saint Francis Xavier[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Cabrini"]Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preca"]Saint George Preca[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Germaine_Cousin"]Saint Germaine Cousin[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Guthlac"]Saint Guthlac[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_Maria_di_Francia"]Annibale Maria di Francia[/url] (Founder of the Rogationist and Daughters of Divine Zeal)[*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Herculanus_of_Piegaro"]Saint Herculanus of Piegaro[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Hugh_of_Lincoln"]Saint Hugh of Lincoln[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Idesbald"]Saint Idesbald[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Isidore_the_Farmer"]Saint Isidore the Farmer[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Jane_Frances_de_Chantal"]Saint Jane Frances de Chantal[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Vianney"]Saint Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney[/url] (The Curé of Ars)[*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Jeanne_de_Lestonnac"]Saint Jeanne de Lestonnac[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosco"]Saint John Bosco[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_God"]Saint John of God[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross"]Saint John of the Cross[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Southworth_%28martyr%29"]Saint John Southworth[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Josaphat"]Saint Josaphat[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Julie_Billiart"]Saint Julie Billiart[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bertrand_%28saint%29"]Saint Louis Bertrand[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_de_Marillac"]Saint Louise de Marillac[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luigi_Orione"]Saint Luigi Orione[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucy_Filippini"]Saint Lucy Filippini[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Barat"]Saint Madeleine Sophie Barat[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafalda_of_Portugal"]Blessed Mafalda of Portugal[/url] [sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility#cite_note-3"][4][/url][/sup][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Margaret_of_Cortona"]Saint Margaret of Cortona[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maria_Goretti"]Saint Maria Goretti[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Martin_de_Porres"]Saint Martin de Porres[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mary_Magdalen_de%27_Pazzi"]Saint Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_the_Divine_Heart"]Blessed Mary of the Divine Heart[/url] [sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility#cite_note-4"][5][/url][/sup][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Tolentino"]Saint Nicholas of Tolentino[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pacifico_of_San_Severino"]Saint Pacifico of San Severino[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pascal_Baylon"]Saint Pascal Baylon[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peregrine_Laziosi"]Saint Peregrine Laziosi[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Neri"]Saint Philip Neri[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_Julien_Eymard"]Saint Pierre Julien Eymard[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina"]Saint Pio of Pietrelcina[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Rita_of_Cascia"]Saint Rita of Cascia[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Romuald"]Saint Romuald[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_of_Lima"]Saint Rose of Lima[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Rose_of_Viterbo"]Saint Rose of Viterbo[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Rose_Philippine_Duchesne"]Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Silvan"]Saint Silvan[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sperandia"]Saint Sperandia[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_Kostka"]Saint Stanislaus Kostka[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila"]Saint Teresa of Avila[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Teresa_Margaret_of_the_Sacred_Heart"]Saint Teresa Margaret of the Sacred Heart[/url] (Anna Maria Redi)[*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubald"]Saint Ubald of Gubbio[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Veronica_Giuliani"]Saint Veronica Giuliani[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Vincent_de_Paul"]Saint Vincent de Paul[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Vincent_Pallotti"]Saint Vincent Pallotti[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Waltheof"]Saint Waltheof[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Werburgh"]Saint Werburgh[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Withburga"]Saint Withburga[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Wunibald"]Saint Wunibald[/url][*][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Zita"]Saint Zita[/url][/list] [/quote] Stigmatists are saints who miraculously bear the wounds of Christ. That's all I have time to compile right now but those are my favorites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Miracle of the Sun was Fatima.... just for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 btw silverphin, i know that you probably didn't mean to say something offensive (at least that doesn't seem like you) but calling the host a "Jesus cracker" is a little offensive. Just an FYI Keep up the good work, its nice having people around to debate that are so knowledgeable and willing to listen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 DNA comparisons of various eucharistic miracles, preferably. that's what i've always said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkaands Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 [quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310427383' post='2266000'] I'm absolutely not an expert on this. However, I'll list a few miracles and some other events that give the appearance of supernatural activity: 1. Miracle of the Sun, Lourdes. Outside the resurrection, this is possibly the best documented miracle of all time. The children predicted it before hand, and a great many people were there, including many skeptics. My favorite part: a large number of skeptical members of the media were there, witnessed it, and reported it in the popular press. One of my ancestors converted to the Catholic faith after reading in the New York Times several days before hand that it was predicted, and then again reading the New York Times and finding out that it actually happened. 2. Remarkable historical circumstances involving God protecting the Pope. Pope Vigilius promised Empress Theodora, prior to his election, that he would support the Monophyiste Heresy of elected Pope. In return, the empress agreed to force the Church to make him Pope. Vigilius and the empress were personally involved in the murder to two Popes, and then Theodora used armed forces to compel the college of cardinals to elect Vigilius. However, after his election, Vigilius refused to support the Monophysite heresy, even under torture. Some major change clearly came over Vigilius immediately following his election to the Papacy, and this appears to have a remarkable correlation to Christ's claim to not let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church, and also to the claim of Papal infallibility. 3. Incoruptables and stigmatists. Incoruptables are saints whose bodies have not decayed after death: Stigmatists are saints who miraculously bear the wounds of Christ. That's all I have time to compile right now but those are my favorites! [/quote] A lot has been written on this forum and on Catholic Answers Forum (CAF) about incorruptibles and I don't want to repeat it all here. If you search using 'incorruptible' as your search term, it should come up. Many of the saints on the 'incorruptible' list are mummified. There are pictures of them available on the web to show this. Most recently I saw a picture of the [i]head [/i]of St. Catherine of Siena which showed this. If you consider the way they died, emaciated and suffering from chronic and acute disease and many privations, you can see how, after extreme dehydration and loss of fat and muscle, they would mummify and not rot. Many others, including Bernadette, Catherine Laboure, John Bosco and the Cure of Ars, St John Vianney, have faces and hands replaced by rubber/silicone and/or wax masks--this includes the face and the hands of Catherine Laboure. The hands are in a reliquary near her casket. Another group of these saints were described as incorrupt on their first exhumation, only to find the remains reduced to bones on subsequent exhumations. Regarding St. Bernadette specifically, there is a long account online, with links listed in previous postings, in which doctors attending the exhumations describe very specifically her discoloration and loss of flesh they observed on the body. They suggested a wax mask so as not to 'distress' the faithful with her appearance. The current wax image does not at all resemble the saint in her casket, which shows extreme emaciation, which would account for her mummified appearance on her exhumation. She died at the age of only 34 after a long battle with tuberculosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polsky215 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Here is my take on the first cause argument. Please take the time to read through it thoroughly. Ive put many hours into clearing up problems: [1] The First Cause Argument: All things in motion must be put in motion by something else. All matter is in motion (atoms constantly vibrating). Thus, something must have put the material world in motion, i.e. there must be a metaphysical mover. This metaphysical mover of the universe is called "God." All matter can exist and not exist (proved by Einstein). In other words, all mater is contingent upon something else. But if everything is contingent on something else, then there would be nothing, i.e. there cannot be secondary steps in the chain of contingency, without a first step. Thus, there must be a first step that is not contingent, a necessary (infinite) entity. Once again, this cannot be a material entity because mater is contingent. Thus, it must be above matter, metaphysical. This necessary metaphysical entity can be referred to as "God." Objection: Why must that entity be infinite? Can it not exist only for the moment in which it creates all matter? Reply: No, there are two options for the material world. The material world is either infinite (repeating Big Bangs or universe collisions) or it is finite (one Big Bang). If the universe is infinite then as is shown it cannot exist because it is made up of that which is contingent, thus a non-contingent, i.e. necessary being must exist to create it. Otherwise, the creator being is just another link in the chain of contingency that also must be caused, resulting in the same problem. The logical conclusion of this analysis of a theoretically infinite universe is that, at some point, no matter how many collisions took place in between universes or however many Big Bangs, one or a thousand, there must be a beginning to the contingent universe. There must be an uncaused cause of the chain of causes — a first link that we can refer to as "God." The First Cause Argument does not prove all of God, but it does require something that transcends the physical laws, i.e. something metaphysical. Nothing physical can meet the requirements for causing all that we see today in the motion and existence of the universe. God happens to be the only candidate for the position of necessary uncaused cause. The fact that such a being was conceived by the ancient Jews, long before the scientific understanding of the universe that now required such an entity to exist, is strong evidence for the validity of the God of Abraham and Isaac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now