Jesus after the Resserection...

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 04:14 PM']RESPONSE:

"Its not the sameday because it doesn't align up wtih the other Gospels. or the book of Acts"         Congratulations on your insight!

"There are no Condrictions in the Bible at all, just condictions. I think you may be reading it wrong, to be honest"     Really?  Read the thread on Storytellers.

"ethier way Jesus did not Ascend on his Resurrection Day". 
From the New American Bible: In the gospel, Luke recounts the ascension of Jesus on Easter Sunday night, thereby closely associating it with the resurrection.

"Besides even Luke said He was here for 40 days, and was seen by many with Christ's infalliable proofs that He has Risen."
No. The writter of Acts said Jesus was here for forty days but curiously doesn't tell us anything Jesus did or said during this period. The writer of Luke says Jesus was here for one day before ascending on Easter, the same day he rose.
[right][snapback]654793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Christ in His Glorified, resurrected state, may have ascended several times before His final ascension into heaven. Christ repeatedly appeared to His apostles after the Resurrection in the gospels.

Whiteknight and others, LittleLes has no interest in the truth, only in trying to bash Church teaching. Best not to keep feeding this troll.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Socrates

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 22 2005, 05:20 PM']Christ in His Glorified, resurrected state, may have ascended several times before His final ascension into heaven.  Christ repeatedly appeared to His apostles after the Resurrection in the gospels.

Whiteknight and others, LittleLes has know interest in the truth, only in trying to bash Church teaching.  Best not to keep feeding this troll.
[right][snapback]654807[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But NAB footnotes are infallible! The Magisterium, however, is not.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 22 2005, 04:20 PM']Christ in His Glorified, resurrected state, may have ascended several times before His final ascension into heaven.  Christ repeatedly appeared to His apostles after the Resurrection in the gospels.

Whiteknight and others, LittleLes has no interest in the truth, only in trying to bash Church teaching.  Best not to keep feeding this troll.
[right][snapback]654807[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

"I just want the facts; just the facts." Sgt Joe Friday, Dragnet.

So you think Jesus went up and down several times, eh.

[White Knight]

I'll say it once again, Jesus only Ascended One time. When you take the last parts of Luke 24 and combind Acts 1 it makes perfect sense. Luke wouldn't have wrote two different things like that, Luke said in the book of acts Christ was with us for 40 days after his Resurrection.


Luke 24 is picked up by Acts 1.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:55 PM']I'll say it once again, Jesus only Ascended One time. When you take the last parts of Luke 24 and combind Acts 1 it makes perfect sense. Luke wouldn't have wrote two different things like that, Luke said in the book of acts Christ was with us for 40 days after his Resurrection.
Luke 24 is picked up by Acts 1.
[right][snapback]656979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I agree that one person probably wouldn't have written such different versions. This strongly suggests that there were different authors.

[Aloysius]

most scriptural scholars will tell you that they were written by the same person based on evidence from the earliest known manuscripts...but you know you can exploit one little thing that YOU THINK contradicts itself and argue it proves two different authors... whatever.

all early manuscripts accross all borders show both books adressed to Theophilus. such a coincidence is impossible unless both authors at the very least knew each other.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:56 PM']most scriptural scholars will tell you that they were written by the same person based on evidence from the earliest known manuscripts...but you know you can exploit one little thing that YOU THINK contradicts itself and argue it proves two different authors... whatever. 

all early manuscripts accross all borders show both books adressed to Theophilus.  such a coincidence is impossible unless both authors at the very least knew each other.
[right][snapback]657100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If I write a Gospel and address it to Theophilus would it then be a "impossible coincidence" proving that Luke wrote it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 03:10 PM']RESPONSE:

Really? I thought Paul was the first to write around 52 - 64 A.D. ,Mark around 70 A.D., Matthew and Luke around 80-85 A.D., and John about 90-95 A.D.

Please list the books that the Christians had "from the onset" ie. 33 A.D.
[right][snapback]654529[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
By onset I meant right after they were written. The four Gospels can be reproduced almost entirely through quotations of them contained in early Christian writings. Why would the earliest Christians, not yet bound by a Canon, bind themselves to contradictory documents?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:29 PM']By onset I meant right after they were written.  The four Gospels can be reproduced almost entirely through quotations of them contained in early Christian writings.  Why would the earliest Christians, not yet bound by a Canon, bind themselves to contradictory documents?
[right][snapback]657508[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

But they did, as has been shown. And the four gospels we now have were only four of many that were not accepted. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have:

Number of the Gospels

The name gospel, as designating a written account of Christ's words and deeds, has been, and is still, applied to a large number of narratives connected with Christ's life, which circulated both before and after the composition of our Third Gospel (cf. Luke, i, 1-4). The titles of some fifty such works have come down to us, a fact which shows the intense interest which centred, at an early date, in the Person and work of Christ. it is only, however, in connexion with twenty of these "gospels" that some information has been preserved. Their names, as given by Harnack (Chronologie, I, 589 sqq.), are as follows: —

1-4. The Canonical Gospels.
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
18.The Gospel of Judas.
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos

The Church selected the four gospels which seemed most in keeping with the Church's teachings at the time they were selected. No one really compared the contents for contradictions.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 08:41 PM']RESPONSE:

But they did, as has been shown. And the four gospels we now have were only four of many that were not accepted.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have:

Number of the Gospels

The name gospel, as designating a written account of Christ's words and deeds, has been, and is still, applied to a large number of narratives connected with Christ's life, which circulated both before and after the composition of our Third Gospel (cf. Luke, i, 1-4). The titles of some fifty such works have come down to us, a fact which shows the intense interest which centred, at an early date, in the Person and work of Christ. it is only, however, in connexion with twenty of these "gospels" that some information has been preserved. Their names, as given by Harnack (Chronologie, I, 589 sqq.), are as follows: —

1-4. The Canonical Gospels.
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
18.The Gospel of Judas.
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos

The Church selected the four gospels which seemed most in keeping with the Church's teachings at the time they were selected. No one really compared the contents for contradictions.
[right][snapback]657524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ridiculous Les. Comon, you can't really be taking this position?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:52 PM']Ridiculous Les.  Comon, you can't really be taking this position?
[right][snapback]657534[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia on this point (see above). There were originally quite a number of gospels. The four, most supportive of the Church's teaching at the time the canon was created, were selected.

And Irenaeus tells us just why only four were selected.

The Four Gospels
by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century

There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the
points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:24 AM']RESPONSE:

I agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia on this point (see above). There were originally quite a number of gospels. The four, most supportive of the Church's teaching at the time the canon was created, were selected.

And Irenaeus tells us just why only four were selected.

The Four Gospels
by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century
             
There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the
points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.
[right][snapback]658048[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I know there are a lot of "Gospels." You aren't taking my for a moron, now are you? The problem is, your theories for why these four were chosen are not based in fact.

[White Knight]

Some of the Gospels that were written and not included in the Scared Scripture, is because they had, very little evidence to propose as Truth, and it did or did not happen.

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John

Are cannon because, of all the known evidence that Jesus did these things.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 25 2005, 12:08 PM']I know there are a lot of "Gospels."  You aren't taking my for a moron, now are you?  The problem is, your theories for why these four were chosen are not based in fact.
[right][snapback]658270[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Then please tell me the reason why the four gospels we now consider to be part of the canon were selected from among the others.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:16 PM']Some of the Gospels that were written and not included in the Scared Scripture, is because they had, very little evidence to propose as Truth, and it did or did not happen.

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John

Are cannon because, of all the known evidence that Jesus did these things.
[right][snapback]658534[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The events described in the four gospels we have, also did or did not happen.

And isn't "all the known evidence" simply what the gospels themselves say? Do you have some other outside sources to confirm them?