Because “Catholic” would have been too limiting in that context. Eastern Orthodox beliefs and practice are almost identical to Catholicism (other than that whole Pope thing), and Protestantism even has many elements that are not in conflict with Catholicism.
When I first used the term “traditionally Christian”, I was specifically referring to the traditional view regarding the concept of divine inspiration, which is common between Catholics, Orthodox, and probably most Protestants as well.
I would he curious about the rigorous criticism you apply to your own beliefs.
Okay, what exactly?
So, your question is: how did early Christians view the New Testament? The easy answer is that they didn’t. The early days were largely a faith based on oral teachings. The thing about Christianity (and it still holds true today) is that when you put two Christians in a room, you end up with three opinions. Obviously, as Christianity grew, that began to lead to serious problems. You can read things by ignatius or Polycarp and you could see that even at that early date, things were going off the rails. There was pretty firm agreement that Jesus came and said some very profound things about the nature if God and there was a very general agreement about what they were, but not necessarily a specific agreement. So people said, let’s figure this out and they began tracking down oral tradition and compiling it or looking for early writings. We know some of these writings had been guidebooks for quite some time. Ignatius quotes Ephesians by 100 AD as an example. They generally agreed that the Apostles and Paul likely knew the most about what Jesus said, so they placed emphasis on their writings. By the time of Constantine, there was a vague list of writings that most of them agreed upon. Not completely, but at Nicea, they hashed it out to a mostly agreed upon list. So, I think how they viewed them was as writings of people that were primary sources to the life and message of Christ.
So much this ^^^
Christianity is a religion centered around a person, Jesus Christ, and the society he established, namely the Church. It is not centered around a book or a compilation of books.
The Bible is a supplement to the faith. It is not, nor was it intended to be, primary.
You said others should be more critical of their beliefs. I just wondered if you held yourself to the same standard. What methods of critical thinking have you applied in your faith, and what conclusions resulted?
Pretty much all of it.
Alrighty then, name a single exorcism by Jesus, or a single miracle that has merit? If these weren’t actual events to you, explain the significance. If you can accept the Resurrection as a real historical event, I doubt this will be too much trouble for you. And how are you going to do this, if you can’t prove it, but yet somehow you said it has been proven to you, at least the Resurrection has? How was this proof conveyed to you, through evidence, through faith, what exactly? Is this where revelation comes in handy, much like how Paul said he got his information about Jesus? How reliable are revelations? Surely, we can rule out dreams as being reliable.
Some literalists will go further, and state the Bible is inerrant. Most on this board don’t go that far, although I think we’ve have had a few here.
So share with the parts that do make sense to you then, what you would consider more or less literal, in particular real historical people and real events that you think took place throughout the Bible. And also ask yourself how did Jesus view these people portrayed, did he give any hint that they weren’t real historical people?
If the way the Bible as a whole was put together and wasn’t trying to convey some historical significance, why so much time with the ancestory and begats?
He just shows a doctor of divinity degree isn’t worth much in an apologist’s hands. Pitre is on par with other apologists such as Josh McDowell and Lee Stobel’s work with the same title as his, “The Case for Christ”. Pitre’s book has been out since 2016, the mainstream scholarship is still intact, and still supports the names were added later, much later, like next century over. There is an overwhelming amount of scholarship on this.
We have to wait until 140-150 CE before anyone starts to remotely quote something that resembles the Gospels that we know of today and mentioning a name attached to it. By this time it was known to Marcion, Papius, and Justin. We know of Papius only through fourth century Eusebius, which is a story by himself of some of the stunts he is said to have pulled, and what he said about Papius wasn’t the most flattering.
We have also have wait until Irenaeus almost the end of the second century, about 180 CE before we finally have him quoting all four Gospels with the names we have on them today, and his explanation of why we just had to have four Gospels, no more, no less, is ludicrous. The real reason had nothing to do with what he asserts.
Paul’s epistles which came before the Gospels, would have been the closest in Jesus’ time period, but it also shows he spent a lot of time writing about other stuff other than Jesus, with the exception of mentioning the Resurrection time and time again. His Jesus is hard to make out, seems human at times, other times it seems some mystical spiritual vision; clarity wasn’t his virtue. He doesn’t ever write one word about the miraculous birth, not a single miracle story is told, or important teachings that the Gospel writers put into their texts, Paul’s Jesus isn’t all of that.
If Jesus was all of that the Gospel writers made him out to be, Paul was pretty much clueless. And it may turn out, the Gnostics were right, he was never a man at all.
Well, I left the Protestant faith that I was brought up in for the Catholic Church.
I analyzed the distinct claims of Protestantism (sola scriptura, justification by faith alone, “invisible church” ecclesiology) and came to the conclusion that they were logically inconsistent and had no basis in Scripture, tradition, or even reason.
I came to the conclusion that if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead (and I believe he did), then the Catholic Church is the institution that he founded.
I never said anything had been proven to me. I have no reason to seriously doubt the reliability of the Gospel accounts or Apostolic tradition.
Parts of the Bible do have historical significance. Christianity is a historical religion based on a historical person (Jesus) who lived in a particular time and place.
I would be very interested to hear specific rebuttals to Pitre’s arguments. Have you read the 2016 book? Your arguments for the theory of the names being added later seem to be purely circumstantial.
Paul’s letters were addressed to specific churches who were dealing with specific issues at specific times. Paul’s silence on certain topics is irrelevant.
Do you believe Jesus bodily ascended to Heaven?
Yes, that is Church dogma.
What logical steps did you take that lead you to agree with this dogma?
Through reading and study, I assented to the authority of the Catholic Church. Because I trust the Church as a reliable source of truth, I trust its dogma on the ascension.
Does this lead you to doubt the veracity of researchers who say things counter to what your sect teaches? If so, I can see why you agree with some of them and dismiss others.
Do you believe Jesus will return?
I wouldn’t say I doubt their veracity, I like to assume good intentions. But I don’t know, can you provide an example?
“He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead” - Nicene Creed
Do you believe Jesus will descend bodily from Heaven?
Where are you going with this? I believe the Nicene Creed.
Jesus is permanently united to his body, so wherever he is, his body is.
That said, the Church is also described as his mystical body; so how that looks at the judgment, I can’t say.