Huon

I do not think that the gospels are "more true" because they were written sooner, or that they are "less true" because they were written later. It seems, however, that some Christians think that curious idea. Instead of reading the contents of the gospels as they are, and making the best of it, these persons try to make believe that the four authorized gospels were directly inspired by Jesus to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, slash dot.

Saying that these gospels are mentioned for the first time by Irenaeus or Tertullian, writers of the second half of the second century does not change the contents of these gospels. What would be interesting would be an explanation why other gospels, ascribed to other apostles (Peter, Thomas) are not authorized, by what authority, and since when.

mountainman could give an answer !

Matt 22:39. And the second [commandment] is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

-Jay-

My understanding was that Irenaeus connects Polycarp to a John, but that Eusebius made the step to declaring that John to be the author of GJn. You bring up a good point though, and I'll dig into it further, after Thanksgiving Day obligations are attended to.

regards,

NinJay

mountainman

Eusebius claims to have had the text before him.
Eusebius claims to have had a letter from Jesus.
Eusebius claims Josephus mentioned Jesus.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

Indeed, although I did not say this, and it isn't so.

I quoted these second century authors off the top of my head, as these are evidence. If we are suggesting that their testimony is unreliable -- see how awful it is, when someone doesn't actually make their argument? -- on these grounds, well I don't agree. Whatever we say must be based on the data that there is, surely?

Eusebius is good on this, and of course represents the ante-Nicene mainstream.

The early Christians had to deal with forgeries starting in the mid-second century, and responded by checking whether the text had ever been referenced by the apostles, their circle, or the churches that they founded (easier for them to do than us, of course); whether they taught what those sources show the apostles to teach, or instead some more recent teaching faked up by this person or that (as was usually the case -- this 'fingerprint' is just as visible now). The genuine texts all had some kind of provenance of this kind, or at least could show that they hadn't been knocked up by Dan Brown.

The Muratorian canon (? iirc) refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as orthodox in teaching, but not scripture since it had been written recently.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

We have a parallel in 1 Timothy 2 1-2
Andrew Criddle

Toto

You use what appears to be English in a strange way. By "blissful" are you trying to imply that I am some sort of Eastern mystic?

And my objective data was the Bible itself.

How that that change my point?

What the original writers knew can be inferred from what they wrote. Is there any other way?

And yet you appear to be willing to believe that God sacrificed himself to himself to save you from his own wrath?

As I said, I assume that the writers of the Bible were not stupid. What is your assumption?

aChristian

There were also a few Herodian kings and lots of other kings of different areas of the Roman empire. Spin just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Timetospend

I was thinking of a well-known English adage, not Eastern mystism.

Your interpretation is not objective. It was the interpretation that is being questioned, not the Bible itself.

You infer that the Bible writers knew they were writing contradictory matieral even though this is not stated. This is your subjective view. (I disagree with this view even though I know that you and others fervently believe it and that they are contradictions in the Bible; of courses, others also agree with me).

Unfortunately, you have no means to verify your subjective interpretation. Indeed, there are explicit statements in the Bible where Bible writers state that they are in agreement with other parts of the Bible:
2 Peter 3:15b-16
15b So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures
NRSV

Of course, you (and others) can have whatever opinions that you want, but you should know that they are opinions and have limits. Not quite sure why this points needs to be made, since it seems obvious, although I guess not to you.

Of course, this would mean that you have taken an unprovable position which I guess is why you keep arguing the point.

Thanks,

blastula

These verses don't speak to whether the gospels are in agreement or whether their writers thought they were in agreement.

Huon

The bishop of Lyons, Irenæus (died 202), who had known Polycarp in Asia Minor, not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, but argues that they must be just four, no more and no less. He says: "It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord" (Adversus Hæreses, III, xi, 8).