Why Accept the authority of the Gospels?

[Michael Wilson]

AINg,
Why do you accept the authority of the Gospels?

[Xavier]

Will be interesting to read AINg's response.

Here's an article on the dates of the Gospels, proving their early and traditional authorship, against the modernist lies that they were allegedly written late or anonymous: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/

God Bless.

Edit: Excerpt: "Oxford-educated archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, embarking on a journey to investigate the historicity of the Gospel records and Acts, was skeptical. Taught by liberals and having adopted prevalent errors on the alleged late origin and supposed non-historicity of the Gospels and Acts, Sir William fully expected his own work to corroborate those liberal theories. Instead, to his utter amazement, after lifelong study on the Book of Acts, he wrote later, "Further study ... showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement." Sir William was awarded a gold medal by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII and ended by becoming a Catholic.

Sir William said about Saint Luke in particular, author of Luke and the Acts to Theophilus (who may have been the high priest Theophilus ben Ananas), "You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian and they meet the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." Other scholars commenting on his work have agreed: "Ramsay, after a lifetime of research, ranks Luke as the greatest of all historians, ancient or modern. The Gospel stands the same test that the Acts has undergone. It is not only the most beautiful book in the world, but it is written with the utmost care and skill." The Gospels are early historical records."

[truly-a-philosofan]

Anyone who says that Sacred Scripture has an errant passage is certainly a heretic, owing to the fact that Sacred Scripture is part of the deposit of faith.

[Michael Wilson]

AINg.
the reason why Catholics accept the Canon (collection of books) of Sacred Scripture, and their inspired nature, is because the Catholic Church has so taught it. Also, Catholics do not interpret Sacred Scripture according to their own fancies or opinions, but in accord with Catholic teaching. 

[AlNg]

Anyone who says that Sacred Scripture has an errant passage is certainly a heretic,

Is a contradiction in Sacred Scripture considered to be an example of an errant passage ?
1. Can a man see God?
John 1:18:
No man has ever seen God.
Genesis 32:30: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved.
2. Who will judge on judgement day?
1Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?
Jn 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.

[Michael Wilson]

There are no contradictions in Sacred Scripture; only apparent ones. According to the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost is the author of Sacred Scripture in all of its parts. God is truth and cannot contradict Himself.

1. Can a man see God?
John 1:18:
No man has ever seen God.
Genesis 32:30: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved.
2. Who will judge on judgement day?
1Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?
Jn 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.

Jacob was wrestling with an Angel.
The note in the Duay states the following:

4. He is called God, ver. 28 and 30, because he represented the person of the Son of God.

So Jacob did not see God.
On I Cor. Our Divine Savior will judge the world, but sitting in judgement with Him will be the 12 Apostles; and those of the just whom He will associate with Him. [Matthew 19:28]

And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

[Prayerful]

Each inspired writer in the Bible can have a different purpose or method of teaching. The traditional symbols for the Evangelists is one notable example of this. A man should on reading the text, try find good Catholics interpretation of it like Cornelius a Lapide SJ (16th and 17th century long before SJs went in a very queer direction).

[AlNg]

There are no contradictions in Sacred Scripture;

Another example:
"... with God all things are possible." — Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." — Judges 1:19

[Julio]

^^The story did not end there, right?

[AlNg]

^^The story did not end there, right?

Actually, i don't think this is a contradiction because of the translation. In some translations it says 19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
So it was the men of judah according to this translation who were not able to drive the people from the plains.
However, I don't know how to answer my Muslim friends with the next apparent contradiction.

[AlNg]

Anyone who says that Sacred Scripture has an errant passage is certainly a heretic,

There is one passage which I find difficult to explain to my Muslim friends. Catholics know that there are three Persons in One God and each Person is all knowing. So for example, the Holy Spirit would know the day and the hour and the Son would also know such. However, we read:
Mark 13:32 ?But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Matthew 24:36: ?But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
This passage seems to say that only the Father knows the day or the hour. Would that mean that the Holy Spirit does not know the day or the hour and the same for the Son?

[Goldfinch]

Anyone who says that Sacred Scripture has an errant passage is certainly a heretic,

There is one passage which I find difficult to explain to my Muslim friends. Catholics know that there are three Persons in One God and each Person is all knowing. So for example, the Holy Spirit would know the day and the hour and the Son would also know such. However, we read:
Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Matthew 24:36: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
This passage seems to say that only the Father knows the day or the hour. Would that mean that the Holy Spirit does not know the day or the hour and the same for the Son?

You're resurrecting an old Arian canard. I suppose it's not surprising since you're hanging out with Muslims. Islam rehashes some of the same points of Arianism.

Ver. 36. No man knoweth . . . but the Father alone. The words in S. Mark (xiii. 32.) are still harder: neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. The Arians objected this place, to shew that Christ being ignorant of the day of judgment, could not be truly God. By the same words, no one knoweth, but the Father alone, (as they expound them) the Holy Ghost must be excluded from being the true God.

In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must have one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections.

2. It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colos. ii. 3. And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai.

3. But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man.

4. It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says S. Aug.[5], what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. Wi. — By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things. Some Greek MSS. add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity. V.

My Father only: because from eternity He had determined in His own mind, and appointed this day, which He keeps secret. Now by the word only, the Son is not excluded, neither the Holy Ghost, for They know the day and the hour of the Judgment equally with the Father, since They have all the same essence, majesty, will, mind, power, understanding, and knowledge. For it is a theological principle, that if the word "only" be added to any of the essential attributes of the Godhead, such as wisdom, and be ascribed to one of the Divine Persons, it does not exclude the other two Persons, but only creatures, which are of a different nature and essence. But in Personal Attributes, the expression "only" does exclude two of the Divine Persons, as when it is said, "The Father only begets;" "The Son only is begotten."

You will say, Mark adds (13:32), neither the Son, for so it is in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, Ethiopic. Various answers are given. The best is that which is common among the Fathers It is that the Son, both as God and as man, by infused knowledge, knows the Day of Judgment and of the end of the world, for it pertains for Him to know this, inasmuch as He has been appointed the Judge of the world. But Christ denies that He knoweth this as man, and as He is God's messenger to us, because He did not know it so that He could reveal it to us, or because He had not been commissioned by the Father to reveal it to us. As an ambassador who was questioned concerning the secrets of his prince would reply that he did not know them, although he did know them, because he did not know them as an ambassador. For an ambassador declares only those things which he has a commission to declare.

Christ's meaning then is, "God only knows what year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ, as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who is united to the Word; yet as I am the Father's ambassador to men, He hath not willed Me to make known that day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually to prepare themselves for it." There is a like mode of expression in S. John 15:15.

There are some who explain thus: that Christ, qua man, knoweth not the Day of Judgment; but that He knoweth it as He is the God-man. That is to say, Christ as man knoweth it not by virtue of His humanity, but of His divinity. So S. Athanasius (Sermon 4, contra Arian.), Nazianzen (Orat. 4, de Theolog.), Cyril (lib. 9, Thesaur. c. 4), Ambrose (lib. 5, de Fide, c. 8 ).

Maldonatus gives another explanation. He says that Christ, even as He is God, knoweth not the Day of Judgment in, as it were, an ex officio sense, because it is the office of the Father alone to predestinate, decree, and determine the Day of Judgment; and, by consequence, that He knows it, and reveals it when He wills. For providence, in which predestination is included, is a special attribute of the Father. But this explanation is somewhat too subtle and abstruse.

[Michael Wilson]

AINg,
yes, the passage refers to the the men of Judah, not to God.
The Moslems have no leg to stand on; if they say that our Sacred Scriptures have been altered; then they have no basis for claiming that Mohamed was the "Prophet" predicted by the Old Testament or "The Paraclete" promised by Our Divine Savior to the Apostles. Then they have only Mohamed's word on it. On the other hand, if the writings of the Old Testament and New Testament haven't been altered; and it is clear that they have not been, then they do not have a leg to stand on, because Our Lord is the promised "Prophet" and "Messiah" of the O.T. And the Holy Ghost was the Paraclete, sent to the Apostles on Pentecost. Mohamed is just another false prophet, no different from Joseph Smith of the Mormons; or Charles T. Russel of the J.W.'s

[AlNg]

So by the response it is certain that the Holy Spirit and the Son know the day and the hour?

Anyone who says that Sacred Scripture has an errant passage is certainly a heretic,

Why then would that not be an errant passage in Scripture where it says that only the Father knows the day and the hour?

[Julio]

^^Does that mean that when the Son died, God was also dead?