Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1430377' date='Dec 5 2007, 11:14 PM'][indent]...and that includes Mary (this is according to ancient tradition of Roman Catholic Church)[/indent]
[indent]Is Mary now can be considered a 'preacher or servant of the word'?[/indent][/quote]
Absolutely.

"Behold the handmaid of the Lord." ~ Luke 1:38

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1430360' date='Dec 5 2007, 10:48 PM']Oh please.
The "Q" hypothesis is NOT "the official teaching of the Catholic Church." The introduction articles in the NAB are NOT considered part of the Magisterium, and are NOT infallible. In fact, I don't think much of the NAB as a translation, nor of its footnotes and introductory articles.
Nowhere does the Church teach that Catholics are bound to accept the intro articles and footnotes of the NAB translation. There are articles in other fully approved Catholic translations of the Bible which do not accept the "Q" hypothesis.
The Bible itself is considered by the Church to be infallible - translations and notes therein are not.
For one making "scholarly" claims, you apparently haven't done your homework on what is and isn't "official Church teaching."
And there are actually quite a few serious orthodox Catholic scripture scholars who do not believe the "Q" hypothesis and the modernistic assumptions surrounding it. So far, I'm aware of no one being condemned by the Church as a heretic for not believing in "Q"![/quote]

I'm not saying one should believe it because it is what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm saying one should take it into consideration since the Catholic Church respects the theory enough to mention it in their "official" bible, not only mention it, but word it as if the everyday "laypeople" who do not "research" every single teaching or doctrine of the Church, should really consider it. If it was really such a "fashionable academic theory" the Catholic Church, especially in their Bible, should either dismiss it or really warn the laypeople against it. But that it's not the case. You are not looking at the big picture and you yourself have not surveyed the majority of scholarly thinking throughout the many theological programs offered everywhere. You will have a few stranglers that still hold on to the old idea, but the many have accepted or at least considered the "Q" theory.

[st-annes]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1429740' date='Dec 4 2007, 11:11 PM']... in the Catholic Bible (that would be the New American Bible-I'm sure you know, but just in case).[/quote]


I didn't know the New American Bible was "the" Catholic Bible.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible[/url]

"Although the New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible are most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic Churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is still often the Bible of choice of traditional Catholics today."

[st-annes]

If one is going to pin the issue on conflating the definitions of the word "[url="http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=witness&branch=&textsearchtype=exact"]witness[/url]," the debate becomes meaningless.

If this is done deliberately (to confuse the audience), it is a [url="http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=witness&branch=&textsearchtype=exact"]fallacy[/url]. If rey just didn't know the difference, that's another thing. However, if he's going to use it as the basis for a serious claim, such as "the Catholic Church cannot claim Luke was a true [i]witness[/i]," then it's research he perhaps should have considered before he made this claim.

If only people who saw Jesus with their own two eyes can say they "were a true witness," then not only is Luke out of the picture, so to speak, so is Paul, and so is everyone who claims to "have a personal revelation of Jesus Christ." With respect, only a certain number-- maybe in the thousands, but a finite number nonetheless-- would have seen Christ during His life on Earth. If we take this tack, we must also say that no historian can ever have written a reliable biography unless they physically met the subject.

Edited December 6, 2007 by st-annes

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='st-annes' post='1430534' date='Dec 6 2007, 10:44 AM']I didn't know the New American Bible was "the" Catholic Bible.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible[/url]

"Although the New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible are most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic Churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is still often the Bible of choice of traditional Catholics today."

[/quote]

That's arguable. All the theological schools I've been to require the NAB as the official Catholic Bible. My copy even says "Official Catholic Bible" on the cover. Now that could just mean in the U.S., but that's beside the point. The point is that the NAB is advertised as either "the" official Bible or "one of the" official Bibles. That still has weight on its own. Whether is just one alone or one of a few official, the fact remains, the theory is not dismissed or thought of as a "fashionable academic theory."

Edited December 7, 2007 by Kirisutodo333

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1430511' date='Dec 6 2007, 08:38 AM']I'm not saying one should believe it because it is what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm saying one should take it into consideration since the Catholic Church respects the theory enough to mention it in their "official" bible, not only mention it, but word it as if the everyday "laypeople" who do not "research" every single teaching or doctrine of the Church, should really consider it. If it was really such a "fashionable academic theory" the Catholic Church, especially in their Bible, should either dismiss it or really warn the laypeople against it. But that it's not the case. You are not looking at the big picture and you yourself have not surveyed the majority of scholarly thinking throughout the many theological programs offered everywhere. You will have a few stranglers that still hold on to the old idea, but the many have accepted or at least considered the "Q" theory.[/quote]
Again, the NAB is not THE "official" Catholic Bible, and nowhere are its articles and footnotes declared to be official Church teaching. Yes, modernist ideas have infiltrated a lot of Church "scholarship" over the past fifty-odd years, yet this does not mean the Church has embraced modernist theories (like the "Q" hypothesis) as "official Church teaching."
I've taken classes in my (quite orthodox) Catholic college, and studied the claims of influential modernist-leaning "Scripture Scholars" such as Raymond Brown, S.J., who end up claiming essentially that most of the Gospels is fabrication, and the "Christ of Faith" is a different entity from the "Jesus of History."
Unfortunately, that tends to be the general "consensus" among such "scripture scholars."
The "Q" hypothesis was first proposed by 19th-Century German "liberal protestant" scholars, who claimed that most of the events in the Gospels (particularly those dealing specifically with the miraculous and divine) were later fabrications, written by the "Christian community" generations after the fact.
The only purpose of the Q hypothesis is as an "explanation" for how the "fantastic" supernatural events of the Gospel supposedly got added to a hypothetical "historical" original.
However, more recent archeological evidence, including a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, and an early second-century fragment of John, pushes the probable dates of the original Gospels much closer to the time Christian tradition has taught that they were first written - by eyewitnesses of Christ Himself.
If Matthew was written in the mid-first-century, as the evidence now suggests, there seems little reason to claim it was based on an earlier "Q." (Similarities in Mark and Luke can be accounted for by using the Gospel of the eyewitness Matthew as a source.)

The "consensus-scholarship" which accepts "Q" as fact, has also led to such things as the infamous "Jesus Seminar" of about a decade ago, in which eminent "Scripture" scholars gathered among themselves and voted, and "decided" that the majority of Jesus' words quoted in the Gospels, Jesus actually didn't say.

I hold alot of "backwards," "unscholarly" ideas rejected by the modernistic "scholars," such as that Jesus was actually conceived by the Holy Spirit, that He really was God, that He really did work Miracles, and that He really was crucified, died, and actually physically rose from the dead.

But maybe I'm just a "straggler" holding onto outdated "old ideas."

You'll have to provide some better evidence to convince me to believe in the existance of "Q," besides just saying that to deny "Q" is "unscholarly."

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1431552' date='Dec 8 2007, 10:23 PM']Again, the NAB is not THE "official" Catholic Bible, and nowhere are its articles and footnotes declared to be official Church teaching. Yes, modernist ideas have infiltrated a lot of Church "scholarship" over the past fifty-odd years, yet this does not mean the Church has embraced modernist theories (like the "Q" hypothesis) as "official Church teaching."
I've taken classes in my (quite orthodox) Catholic college, and studied the claims of influential modernist-leaning "Scripture Scholars" such as Raymond Brown, S.J., who end up claiming essentially that most of the Gospels is fabrication, and the "Christ of Faith" is a different entity from the "Jesus of History."
Unfortunately, that tends to be the general "consensus" among such "scripture scholars."
The "Q" hypothesis was first proposed by 19th-Century German "liberal protestant" scholars, who claimed that most of the events in the Gospels (particularly those dealing specifically with the miraculous and divine) were later fabrications, written by the "Christian community" generations after the fact.
The only purpose of the Q hypothesis is as an "explanation" for how the "fantastic" supernatural events of the Gospel supposedly got added to a hypothetical "historical" original.
However, more recent archeological evidence, including a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, and an early second-century fragment of John, pushes the probable dates of the original Gospels much closer to the time Christian tradition has taught that they were first written - by eyewitnesses of Christ Himself.
If Matthew was written in the mid-first-century, as the evidence now suggests, there seems little reason to claim it was based on an earlier "Q." (Similarities in Mark and Luke can be accounted for by using the Gospel of the eyewitness Matthew as a source.)

The "consensus-scholarship" which accepts "Q" as fact, has also led to such things as the infamous "Jesus Seminar" of about a decade ago, in which eminent "Scripture" scholars gathered among themselves and voted, and "decided" that the majority of Jesus' words quoted in the Gospels, Jesus actually didn't say.

I hold alot of "backwards," "unscholarly" ideas rejected by the modernistic "scholars," such as that Jesus was actually conceived by the Holy Spirit, that He really was God, that He really did work Miracles, and that He really was crucified, died, and actually physically rose from the dead.

But maybe I'm just a "straggler" holding onto outdated "old ideas."

You'll have to provide some better evidence to convince me to believe in the existance of "Q," besides just saying that to deny "Q" is "unscholarly."[/quote]

Okay, so let's analyze your logic here:

If you believe in the "Q" theory then you also might believe that the Gospels were fabricated, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that he wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit, etc., etc.

That is so great! What a superficial, immature and rudementary way of thinking.

Funny, I don't recall my theological professors (most of who are orthodox Jesuits or former Benedictine monks) subscribing to any modernist theories, as a matter of fact, they were very much Christian. But I forgot that your smarter than all of them and that you know the real truth.

But the most wonderous part of all this is why you really care what theory is advocated by theologians today regarding the gospels. It does not in any way chagne the validity of Scripture. Do you subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories? Sounds like you do?

P.S.

If you would like me to take a picture of my Bible and the words "Official Catholic Bible" written on the side, please let me know. Whether it is official only in the US, it doesn't matter, the words are on the dang book cover. Maybe I can contact the publishers or all the Bishops that contributed to the NAB to declare false advertising.

[KnightofChrist]

The New American Bible has many problems...

from a phatmasser who did a copy and paste without sourcing...

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=62627&view=findpost&p=1155386"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1155386[/url]


[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2FGDBR93O2FLN"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2FGDBR93O2FLN[/url]


[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2ZQ75P93V9MX9"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2ZQ75P93V9MX9[/url]

Edited December 9, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1430350' date='Dec 5 2007, 10:36 PM']Yes. They were Christ's original Apostles: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the Less, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias (who replaced the traitor Judas Iscariot), as well as other disciples of Christ.
We have writings of Peter, James, Matthew (who wrote the Gospel of Matthew), and John (who wrote the Gospel of John). Luke was a companion of St. Paul, and he wrote down the Gospel preached by the Apostles. ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Luke here[/url])[/quote]

[indent]John 5:39-40
[color="#FF0000"]You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me , 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[indent]John 15:26
26 [color="#FF0000"]"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me .[/color]NIV[/indent]
[indent]----------------[/indent]
[indent]How about the Holy Prophets (writers of old testaments as you call them), do you consider them ‘witnesses of Jesus Christ’?[/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1431681' date='Dec 9 2007, 12:31 AM']Okay, so let's analyze your logic here:

If you believe in the "Q" theory then you also might believe that the Gospels were fabricated, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that he wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit, etc., etc.

That is so great! What a superficial, immature and rudementary way of thinking.

Funny, I don't recall my theological professors (most of who are orthodox Jesuits or former Benedictine monks) subscribing to any modernist theories, as a matter of fact, they were very much Christian. But I forgot that your smarter than all of them and that you know the real truth.

But the most wonderous part of all this is why you really care what theory is advocated by theologians today regarding the gospels. It does not in any way chagne the validity of Scripture. Do you subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories? Sounds like you do?

P.S.

If you would like me to take a picture of my Bible and the words "Official Catholic Bible" written on the side, please let me know. Whether it is official only in the US, it doesn't matter, the words are on the dang book cover. Maybe I can contact the publishers or all the Bishops that contributed to the NAB to declare false advertising.[/quote]
Thank you for conceding the debate to me by your resort to personal attacks. So my way of thinking is "superficial, immature and rudementary"? Have any more adjectives to add? I think you left out "moronic," "asinine," and "idiotic" - also words favored by those unable to make reasoned arguments.

Oh, and yes, I happen to be an ardent subscriber to all types of conspiracy theories, most of them quite insane. For instance, I believe you to be a malignant computer program controlled by invisible interdimensional lizard-men living on the moon, who also are behind all the world's major banks, Vatican II, and the 9-11 attacks. Obviously, my lunacy invalidates everything I've said concerning the unsubstantiated nature of the "Q" hypothesis. And obviously, anyone else who doubts the existance of Q, including those I linked to earlier, is a conspiracy nutjob also, and their arguments may similarly be dismissed. You win.

I happen to have taken classes in biblical history and theology by some brilliant and educated men with PhD's in Theology, who take a yearly Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, including Dr. Timothy O'Donnell, and Dr. William Marshner. But, clearly, you have proven them to be conspiracy-obsessed lunatics guilty of the damnable heresy of Q-denial.
The history of the origins of the "Q" hypothesis, and the theological beliefs of those who proposed it is not "conspiracy theory," but is well-known, verifiable historical fact.
It was a 19th-century invention of "rationalist" "liberal protestants," whose theories were later adopted by modernists in the Catholic Church.

The whole point of positing the existance of a "Q" source document was based on the assumption that the Evangelist Matthew was not in fact an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel he recorded, but that his Gospel, as well as the others, were much-later fantastical embellishments and legends to the list of "sayings" recorded in "Q."
However, archeaological evidence keeps pushing back the dating of the four Evangelist's Gospels, making the very existance of "Q" increasingly suspect, even by purely secular scientific standards. (Never mind the fact that it contradicts the Church's long-standing tradition regarding the origins of the four Gospels).

My point is that saying that we must accept the reality of "Q" simply because it happens to be the current "orthodoxy" among "scripture scholars" in itself proves nothing. Most of those scholars also deny the actual reality of many events in the gospel, so appealing to their authority will do nothing to convince me.

You have yet to provide one single convincing argument for why we should assume the Gospel according to Matthew was not written by Christ's apostle Matthew. If you come up with one, let me know.
Until then, please continue with the ad-hominems and accusations. They merely make you look foolish.

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1432221' date='Dec 9 2007, 11:12 PM'][indent]John 5:39-40
[color="#FF0000"]You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me , 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[indent]John 15:26
26 [color="#FF0000"]"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me .[/color]NIV[/indent]
[indent]----------------[/indent]
[indent]How about the Holy Prophets (writers of old testaments as you call them), do you consider them ‘witnesses of Jesus Christ’?[/indent][/quote]
Not eyewitnesses (as obviously they lived before Christ), but they are witnesses to the Truth, who truly foretold Christ's coming, as inspired by God.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1432222' date='Dec 9 2007, 11:16 PM']Thank you for conceding the debate to me by your resort to personal attacks. So my way of thinking is "superficial, immature and rudementary"? Have any more adjectives to add? I think you left out "moronic," "asinine," and "idiotic" - also words favored by those unable to make reasoned arguments.

Oh, and yes, I happen to be an ardent subscriber to all types of conspiracy theories, most of them quite insane. For instance, I believe you to be a malignant computer program controlled by invisible interdimensional lizard-men living on the moon, who also are behind all the world's major banks, Vatican II, and the 9-11 attacks. Obviously, my lunacy invalidates everything I've said concerning the unsubstantiated nature of the "Q" hypothesis. And obviously, anyone else who doubts the existance of Q, including those I linked to earlier, is a conspiracy nutjob also, and their arguments may similarly be dismissed. You win.

I happen to have taken classes in biblical history and theology by some brilliant and educated men with PhD's in Theology, who take a yearly Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, including Dr. Timothy O'Donnell, and Dr. William Marshner. But, clearly, you have proven them to be conspiracy-obsessed lunatics guilty of the damnable heresy of Q-denial.
The history of the origins of the "Q" hypothesis, and the theological beliefs of those who proposed it is not "conspiracy theory," but is well-known, verifiable historical fact.
It was a 19th-century invention of "rationalist" "liberal protestants," whose theories were later adopted by modernists in the Catholic Church.

The whole point of positing the existance of a "Q" source document was based on the assumption that the Evangelist Matthew was not in fact an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel he recorded, but that his Gospel, as well as the others, were much-later fantastical embellishments and legends to the list of "sayings" recorded in "Q."
However, archeaological evidence keeps pushing back the dating of the four Evangelist's Gospels, making the very existance of "Q" increasingly suspect, even by purely secular scientific standards. (Never mind the fact that it contradicts the Church's long-standing tradition regarding the origins of the four Gospels).

My point is that saying that we must accept the reality of "Q" simply because it happens to be the current "orthodoxy" among "scripture scholars" in itself proves nothing. Most of those scholars also deny the actual reality of many events in the gospel, so appealing to their authority will do nothing to convince me.

You have yet to provide one single convincing argument for why we should assume the Gospel according to Matthew was not written by Christ's apostle Matthew. If you come up with one, let me know.
Until then, please continue with the ad-hominems and accusations. They merely make you look foolish.[/quote]

Wow...sounds like I hit a nerve. Good. That was my goal. And it seems very easy to push your buttons. BTW, it's not hard to make me look foolish. Everyone's foolish. It's what makes us human.

Let's see. Where do I start...

If you do not rely on authority for guidance, where then do you form your interpretation of how the Gospels were really created? Is it your own?

Some scholars argue against the "Q" theory, and yet some argue for it. Yet, I'm pretty sure that both groups of scholars are just as intellectually capable to search, discover and identify what could be the truth. But why is it that your group is the only one in the know? So taking a cue from your argument, then I'm assuming that ALL the scholars who are proponents of the "Q" theory are just morons and idiots or, GASP, "liberal protestants." Boy, I got a stinky deal when I got a Masters in Theology from my college, who basically taught me the theory that MOST scholars subscribe to, the wonderful "Q" theory. Woe to those Jesuit priests and scholars. Maybe I should demand my money back. Hmm...after all, if it's such a "fashionable academic" theory, why would the Theological department of the third oldest Jesuit school in the U.S. subscribe to teaching it. Oh...'cause they want to look cool and be modern. That's it. Oh and that little argument about "it has been Church tradition for so long..." doesn't really have much weight. What about the Church tradition before Copernicus...and before Vatican II? Theories are meant to be revised and studied, after all they're just theories. Whether it was Matthew or his midget friend that used to clean his sandals that wrote the Gospel, it doesn't really take away from the validity of the Scriptures. It is still the Word of God canonized by Christ's Church.

Your lack of respect for the various seasoned and reputable scholars that believe, teach and are proponents of the "Q" theory is what put a bad taste in my mouth. You're last argument and witty wannabe rhetoric was contradicting to your initial statement. By calling it a "fashionable academic theory", you summed up all the scholars who subscribed to the theory as just looking to be well I guess fashionable.

Can you provide empirical evidence that God exists? Can you provide historical and empirical evidence that the followers of Jesus at the time that he was alive (yes the ones who were mostly illiterate) wrote down accounts of what Jesus did and said? No, you can't.

I don't need evidence to believe. My faith in God and Christ proves that.

Peace out and good luck in your studies

Kiris

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1433482' date='Dec 12 2007, 08:20 PM']Wow...sounds like I hit a nerve. Good. That was my goal. And it seems very easy to push your buttons. BTW, it's not hard to make me look foolish. Everyone's foolish. It's what makes us human.

Let's see. Where do I start...

If you do not rely on authority for guidance, where then do you form your interpretation of how the Gospels were really created? Is it your own?

Some scholars argue against the "Q" theory, and yet some argue for it. Yet, I'm pretty sure that both groups of scholars are just as intellectually capable to search, discover and identify what could be the truth. But why is it that your group is the only one in the know? So taking a cue from your argument, then I'm assuming that ALL the scholars who are proponents of the "Q" theory are just morons and idiots or, GASP, "liberal protestants." Boy, I got a stinky deal when I got a Masters in Theology from my college, who basically taught me the theory that MOST scholars subscribe to, the wonderful "Q" theory. Woe to those Jesuit priests and scholars. Maybe I should demand my money back. Hmm...after all, if it's such a "fashionable academic" theory, why would the Theological department of the third oldest Jesuit school in the U.S. subscribe to teaching it. Oh...'cause they want to look cool and be modern. That's it. Oh and that little argument about "it has been Church tradition for so long..." doesn't really have much weight. What about the Church tradition before Copernicus...and before Vatican II? Theories are meant to be revised and studied, after all they're just theories. Whether it was Matthew or his midget friend that used to clean his sandals that wrote the Gospel, it doesn't really take away from the validity of the Scriptures. It is still the Word of God canonized by Christ's Church.

Your lack of respect for the various seasoned and reputable scholars that believe, teach and are proponents of the "Q" theory is what put a bad taste in my mouth. You're last argument and witty wannabe rhetoric was contradicting to your initial statement. By calling it a "fashionable academic theory", you summed up all the scholars who subscribed to the theory as just looking to be well I guess fashionable.

Can you provide empirical evidence that God exists? Can you provide historical and empirical evidence that the followers of Jesus at the time that he was alive (yes the ones who were mostly illiterate) wrote down accounts of what Jesus did and said? No, you can't.

I don't need evidence to believe. My faith in God and Christ proves that.

Peace out and good luck in your studies

Kiris[/quote]
The idea that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the disciples) repectively is not my own brilliant idea, but the longstanding tradition of the Church regarding the origins of these Gospels. And so far, I have seen nothing concrete to prove this ancient tradition wrong.
"Newer" does not necessarily mean "more correct."

Comparing the existance of God to the existance of "Q" is apples and oranges. The Church teaches that God's existance can be known through human reason alone. If you're interested, look up St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God. Reason dictates that existance have a First Cause which is Pure Act.
Reason does not necessitate the existance of "Q," and even if it did, you have failed to prove it.
You have given me no reason to believe that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was not in fact written by St. Matthew, Christ's Apostle.

If you think you do have evidence that St. Matthew was in fact based instead on "Q," please do provide it.

Otherwise, kindly stop wasting your time and mine with ad hominems, strawmen, and assorted other irrelevent fallacies. Good night.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1433552' date='Dec 12 2007, 10:59 PM']The idea that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the disciples) repectively is not my own brilliant idea, but the longstanding tradition of the Church regarding the origins of these Gospels. And so far, I have seen nothing concrete to prove this ancient tradition wrong.
"Newer" does not necessarily mean "more correct."

Comparing the existance of God to the existance of "Q" is apples and oranges. The Church teaches that God's existance can be known through human reason alone. If you're interested, look up St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God. Reason dictates that existance have a First Cause which is Pure Act.
Reason does not necessitate the existance of "Q," and even if it did, you have failed to prove it.
You have given me no reason to believe that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was not in fact written by St. Matthew, Christ's Apostle.

If you think you do have evidence that St. Matthew was in fact based instead on "Q," please do provide it.

Otherwise, kindly stop wasting your time and mine with ad hominems, strawmen, and assorted other irrelevent fallacies. Good night.[/quote]

"Long standing tradition of the Church" means a lot and nothing at all at the same time.

[quote]The idea that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the disciples)[/quote]

Where did I state the contrary as a solid position of mine? And how does the "Q" theory contradict this?

[b]existance???? irrelevent ???[/b] What language is this? Looks like you need some English lessons to go along with your theological studies.
[quote]If you're interested, look up St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God. Reason dictates that existance have a First Cause which is Pure Act.[/quote]

This is philosophical and hypothetical. I asked for "empirical" evidence, but none was provided.

Paz

Kiris

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1434403' date='Dec 14 2007, 07:21 PM']"Long standing tradition of the Church" means a lot and nothing at all at the same time.[/quote]

"Long standing tradition of the Church" means that such a teaching is infallible, and can not be denied.