Jesus after the Resserection...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 04:29 PM']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.
[right][snapback]658550[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
They weren't discovered in 300 A.D. There were people who knew the writers of these four Gospels and wrote about them doing so. The four canonical Gospels are quoted so much in the writings of the fathers that they can almost be totally reconstructed. It is obvious that they were held to be canonical.
The trivial nature of this question makes me think there is nothing more that I can say. I am done with this thread. God bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 25 2005, 04:06 PM']They weren't discovered in 300 A.D.  There were people who knew the writers of these four Gospels and wrote about them doing so.  The four canonical Gospels are quoted so much in the writings of the fathers that they can almost be totally reconstructed.  It is obvious that they were held to be canonical.
The trivial nature of this question makes me think there is nothing more that I can say.  I am done with this thread.  God bless.
[right][snapback]658600[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

So you are saying that you can't really answer the question as to why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen as the canonical gospels, is that it?

But my claim that they were chosen because they best represented the belief system of the Church at the time they were chosen is not correct. That you can say?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 05:14 PM']RESPONSE:

So you are saying that you can't really answer the question as to why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen as the canonical gospels, is that it?

But my claim that they were chosen because they best represented the belief system of the Church at the time they were chosen is not  correct. That you can say?
[right][snapback]658617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I answered you; the four Gospels were tradition handed on to later generations of the Church. You ignored it, like everything else I say. I'm sorry, but I will not continue to dialogue with you. It's like talking to a wall and it's quite annoying. Sorry, God bless.

Edited July 25, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 25 2005, 05:32 PM']I answered you; the four Gospels were tradition handed on to later generations of the Church.  You ignored it, like everything else I say.  I'm sorry, but I will not continue to dialogue with you.  It's like talking to a wall and it's quite annoying.  Sorry, God bless.
[right][snapback]658721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

When one encounters nonsense, it is always difficult to decide whether to reply or simply ignor it.

The argument from "tradition" is no evidence of fact at all. In essence, the argment is saying that if one believes something long enough, it must be correct.

Until at least 1500, the "traditional" (and scriptural) belief was that the sun revolved around the earth.

And, of course, a traditional argument can be made that St. Peter had a halo. Think of all these generations of artists who have painted him with a halo! That belief must have come from somewhere! So it must be true!

[DeeDee]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 04:59 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes. So one of the two accounts must be in error. Or perhaps both are in error. But both cannot be correct.
[right][snapback]654006[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thank you for your earlier reply. The two ascensions make so much sense if one reads the the scripture you quoted. I'm pleased that someone has finally taken the time to read my post and give a reply. You would be amazed at the contradictions I have received, even when I point out the footnote in the Gospel of John where I first came upon the "double ascension."

Peace.