Ask A Catholic II

[NBAfan]

That the author of the Gospel of Matthew, like all the other gospels, was a non-eyewitness to the events he describes. We have no way of knowing that anyone ever said or did anything the gospels say. Hell, that's true for huge parts of the Bible; much of it was written tens, if not hundreds of years after the events supposedly occurred. Arguing about "he said, she said, which all means x" is useful only from a scholarly point of view concerning the book itself, it's completely useless for determining what God supposedly wants, intends, or means. Or, indeed, if there even is a God and what his nature might be.

The Bible is best used as a rough moral outline, as a great tome of proverbs and sayings. It's pretty useless from the metaphysical standpoint.

No, the gospels have been dated to as early as 60 AD for Matthew. You having been keeping up with the latest Biblical scholarship have you? What proof do you have of your statement?

 

[Arakhor]

Considering then that Jesus had already been gone for 30 years even in AD 60, Matthew would not have been a eyewitness, no.

 

[NBAfan]

Considering then that Jesus had already been gone for 30 years even in AD 60, Matthew would not have been a eyewitness, no.

How is that? Jesus died young. Many of the apostles lived to 65AD and even later.

 

[Ajidica]

The average lifespan back then wasn't especialy long. 60 would have been pushing it if Matthew had been born the same time as Jesus. Since you said as early as 60 CE, it indicates that either Matthew was either young when he began traveling with Jesus (anyone have any idea on his age?) or he was basing his account off of other testimony which would explain some of the inconsistancy in the four accounts.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I suppose it might be possible if you're assuming that Matthew was a very elderly man in AD 60, but I doubt that's very likely.

 

[PeteAtoms]

The glaring similarities that exist between Matthew and Luke makes most theologians believe in an older text, the Book of Q from which they basically plagiarized a lot of stuff. It would be like if two students wrote essays on the same topic with only one citation source. It is that kind of similarity that leads to this conclusion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, it's quite sure that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew cribbed the story of meeting Matthew from Mark (If we allow that Matthew = Levi, which is the most parsimonious explanation). They're nearly word-for-word, which strikes me as odd if Matthew was written by Matthew

This is best shown with this root word. You can see that the three versions are identical (to see more similarities, you need to go to the actual chapters. It's the same story
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5058&t=KJV

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, the gospels have been dated to as early as 60 AD for Matthew. You having been keeping up with the latest Biblical scholarship have you? What proof do you have of your statement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_gospels#Canonical_gospels_2

"Have been dated as early as" just means that some guy somewhere said once that he thought it might have happened. Anyway, as I said, we know that none of the canonical gospels were written by the apostles themselves. They borrowed, in varying degrees, from different sources, which included the writings of various people involved in the whole Christ thing, but none of them wrote their eponymous Books.

How is that? Jesus died young. Many of the apostles lived to 65AD and even later.

No one has any idea when any of the apostles died, save for Peter, because he appears in non-Biblical records.

 

[Dachs]

The average lifespan back then wasn't especialy long. 60 would have been pushing it if Matthew had been born the same time as Jesus. Since you said as early as 60 CE, it indicates that either Matthew was either young when he began traveling with Jesus (anyone have any idea on his age?) or he was basing his account off of other testimony which would explain some of the inconsistancy in the four accounts.

Average lifespan estimates take high infant mortality into account. 60 was quite a reasonable age for a man who had lived to the age of 30 already.

That said, the Gospel of Matthew was almost certainly not written by the apostle of that name.

 

[Holycannoli]

What do you think "anti-protestant" means?

An active teaching against protestantism, whether in church itself, parent to child, etc. Catholics don't do that. There is anti-Jehovah's Witness sentiment in catholic homes but that's because they actively and aggressively seek to take people away from the church, knocking on doors distributing their false pamphlets.

Protestants on the other hand seem to harbor this anger toward catholicism.

As for Fr. Corapi, I've seen him on ETWN and never knew his background. Very interesting. I don't think he's guilty, as right now it's his word against hers and apparently her background calls her character into question. It's quite common for people to falsely accuse others (or does noone remember Tawana Brawley).

 

[timtofly]

Take into account that expectancy and what happened are two different things. People did live to 70-80, they just were not expected to. Contemporaries of Jesus potentially could have lived past the destruction of 70 AD. I expect this is not the last post on the subject.

 

[ParkCungHee]

An active teaching against protestantism, whether in church itself, parent to child, etc. Catholics don't do that. There is anti-Jehovah's Witness sentiment in catholic homes but that's because they actively and aggressively seek to take people away from the church, knocking on doors distributing their false pamphlets.

I never really experience that.
Any anti-witness feeling in my houshold was the result of the fact that they knocked on doors, early in the morning, on a saturday.

 

[Ajidica]

Average lifespan estimates take high infant mortality into account. 60 was quite a reasonable age for a man who had lived to the age of 30 already.

Huh. Learn something new every day.

 

[Takhisis]

Yep, average lifespans come from adding up the age at which everyone dies and then dividing it by the number of people who've died. So by having high infant mortality rates and/or an invsion you can make it look like no one lives past their thirties (For example, Afghanistan a few years ago, where the result was ridiculous).

 

[Holycannoli]

I never really experience that.
Any anti-witness feeling in my houshold was the result of the fact that they knocked on doors, early in the morning, on a saturday.

It's not too bad, certainly not of the same intensity of some of the anti-catholic households I've heard about, but a lot of catholics are on their guard.

 

[El_Machinae]

(Serious question) Do you guys think Jesus was a Creationist (believed in a Global Flood, etc.?) What're the theological implications of that? To my reading, it seems that either he was, or his biographers altered his words to make him appear to be. The only evidence for the idea that his biographers altered his words (to make him Creationist) are the books confirmed to have been written by Peter (which, I think, is 1 Peter). Peter is the only author in the Bible (I think) who knew the living Jesus personally. Maybe James, too, if James was the brother of Jesus.

The author of 1 Peter (and James) don't seem to make the historical errors seen elsewhere (by Paul, or the authors of Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, etc.), which is consistent with the idea that they were told that those stories weren't true. (and it's not so much that biographers of Jesus were lying to us, merely they didn't believe the rumors that Jesus denied certain parts of the Scripture (outside of the ones that he refuted, obviously))

Now, of all the Catholics that I've talked to, most of them were under the impression that it didn't matter if Jesus was a creationist, because he was a human at the time, and only knew what humans knew. Theologically, I have problems with this idea (because he makes a lot of authoritative statements about things that people cannot know).

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What are works, why are they necessary, and does it mention them in the Bible?

 

[NBAfan]

(Serious question) Do you guys think Jesus was a Creationist (believed in a Global Flood, etc.?) What're the theological implications of that? To my reading, it seems that either he was, or his biographers altered his words to make him appear to be. The only evidence for the idea that his biographers altered his words (to make him Creationist) are the books confirmed to have been written by Peter (which, I think, is 1 Peter). Peter is the only author in the Bible (I think) who knew the living Jesus personally. Maybe James, too, if James was the brother of Jesus.

The author of 1 Peter (and James) don't seem to make the historical errors seen elsewhere (by Paul, or the authors of Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, etc.), which is consistent with the idea that they were told that those stories weren't true. (and it's not so much that biographers of Jesus were lying to us, merely they didn't believe the rumors that Jesus denied certain parts of the Scripture (outside of the ones that he refuted, obviously))

Now, of all the Catholics that I've talked to, most of them were under the impression that it didn't matter if Jesus was a creationist, because he was a human at the time, and only knew what humans knew. Theologically, I have problems with this idea (because he makes a lot of authoritative statements about things that people cannot know).

It depends on what you mean by Creationist. Evolution doesn't mean God didn't have anything to do with it.
I don't think the flood was global, most of the ancient civs in that region have a flood tradition.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It depends on what you mean by Creationist. Evolution doesn't mean God didn't have anything to do with it.

How true. When I say "If you don't believe in Creation you can't be a Christian," everyone misinterprets it to say I mean you have to be a YEC, when I really just mean you have to believe God started the process.

 

[civ_king]

Average lifespan estimates take high infant mortality into account. 60 was quite a reasonable age for a man who had lived to the age of 30 already.

That said, the Gospel of Matthew was almost certainly not written by the apostle of that name.

Yeah, I've seen life expectancies as low as 10 in some cases

Yep, average lifespans come from adding up the age at which everyone dies and then dividing it by the number of people who've died. So by having high infant mortality rates and/or an invsion you can make it look like no one lives past their thirties (For example, Afghanistan a few years ago, where the result was ridiculous).

Things like the Black Death also messed up life expectancies

(Serious question) Do you guys think Jesus was a Creationist (believed in a Global Flood, etc.?) What're the theological implications of that? To my reading, it seems that either he was, or his biographers altered his words to make him appear to be. The only evidence for the idea that his biographers altered his words (to make him Creationist) are the books confirmed to have been written by Peter (which, I think, is 1 Peter). Peter is the only author in the Bible (I think) who knew the living Jesus personally. Maybe James, too, if James was the brother of Jesus.

The author of 1 Peter (and James) don't seem to make the historical errors seen elsewhere (by Paul, or the authors of Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, etc.), which is consistent with the idea that they were told that those stories weren't true. (and it's not so much that biographers of Jesus were lying to us, merely they didn't believe the rumors that Jesus denied certain parts of the Scripture (outside of the ones that he refuted, obviously))

Now, of all the Catholics that I've talked to, most of them were under the impression that it didn't matter if Jesus was a creationist, because he was a human at the time, and only knew what humans knew. Theologically, I have problems with this idea (because he makes a lot of authoritative statements about things that people cannot know).

Jesus wasn't a YEC, before the world began, the Word was.

What are works, why are they necessary, and does it mention them in the Bible?

Helping others, to show love of neighbour and God, you can't just say you love God, you must reflect it in your actions too. This isn't to say you earn your salvation, God must give it to you, and what God gives he can take too...

How true. When I say "If you don't believe in Creation you can't be a Christian," everyone misinterprets it to say I mean you have to be a YEC, when I really just mean you have to believe God started the process.

I'm thinking God intervened at three key points
Big Bang>Beginning of life on Earth>Giving humans souls