There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.
These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.
These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel. In the prophet's words: `The first had the like ness of a lion,' symbolizing the masterly and kingly role of Christ in priesthood; `the second had the appearance of an ox,' the beast of sacrifice, recalling the perfect sacrifice of Christ; `the third had the face of a man,' undoubtedly referring to the coming of the Lord in human nature; `and the fourth had the aspect of a flying eagle,' with a clear allusion to the grace of the Spirit hovering over the Church. [cf. Ezek. 1:10; Rev. 4:7]
The four Gospels correspond to these symbols. Christ is at the center of them.
John actually speaks of his kingly and glorious Sonship to the Father in his opening words: `In the beginning was the Word.' [John 1:1] Luke begins with Zaccharias offering sacrifice. Matthew chooses first of all the Lord's human genealogy. And Mark leads off by calling on the prophetic Spirit which invests humanity from on high.
The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according to the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.
Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.
All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.
By keeping the commandment of the Lord to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.
In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning.
Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century. Not only does the Holy Scriptures states this isn’t so, (I would hope the Roman Catholics would admitted the Book of 1 Peter isn't wrong) but as I stated earlier the early church fathers also believed. Granted they believe the interpretation should be held by the councils but that a different matter. They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.
It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men.
Say what? When did I say that the letters of Paul weren't around for 300 years?
I believe your position on 1 Peter is that it is inspired by God
You mean 2 Peter. And it was not clear from the Church's teachers that IT was considered Scripture. It was one of those books that was called the NT Deuterocannonicals, along with 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There was not universal agreement on 2 Peter being written by Peter HIMSELF. Most scholars would agree that Peter didn't write that letter. It is not important to me whether he wrote it or not, as it is NOW part of the Canon. However, IF so many people didn't accept 2 Peter as Scripture for some time, then 2 Peter 3:16 falls on deaf ears on determining the canon....
The letter Timothy was reading is not the same one from his youth. That is what Paul is refering to in 2 Timothy, not a current writing in his hand!
Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired. I would submit those who are saying the gospels weren't around until the 3-4 century better look at Irenaeus. He knew where they were and he knew them to be inspired before any creeds of the Church.
I never argued that no one was aware of the Four Gospels! Nor did I ever say anything about the men of the Church having to wait without inspired writings for 300 years! The Councils of the late 300's definitively set the Canon of Scriptures. There would be no more disagreements - 2 Peter WAS Scripture! 1st Clement of Rome to the Corinthians was NOT Scripture! I ask you - what do you think guided these men to know what Scripture was? The teaching of the Apostolic Church, that's what. St. Ireneaus is clear that Apostolic Succession guarantees the contents of Scriptures. Know the chronology and theology of Christianity. What came first? Do you think for a second that the second generation of Christians, having unearthed a writing from "Paul", would have accepted it if it said something about the fourth person of the Trinity (as St. Ireneaus argues against in his writings)? It is the teachings received, protected by the Spirit, that verifies WHAT IS Scriptures.
Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century
Who made that statement? It is quite obvious that the Church gradually accepted particular books as representing the teachings they had been given. The later councils merely defined the entire Canon, verifying that there were NONE left out, and ALL were from God. Only an authoritative heirarchy could make that determination. Only THEY could tell what was the totality of Scriptures. However, it is obvious that the Church Fathers, based on what they were TAUGHT, identified some of Scriptures before it was officially sanctioned by the Church.
They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.
Of course they highly regarded Scriptures. They taught what they had received ALREADY. The Scriptures verified their faith, what was passed down. I would suggest to you that very few of the first Church Fathers even READ the 27 books that we now call Scriptures! I would posit that they only read a few here and there. When they refer to Scriptures, most of them refer to the Old Testament, although as time moves on, they identify this word with the Gospels and some other Epistles. What is important to remember is what came first and what determined the lenses that the Fathers read a particular book - and accepted it or discarded it. The reason why the Gospel of Thomas was discarded was its contents. The Fathers KNEW what the proper contents of faith were. This writing didn't match what was given. Thus, it was out. Thus, Apostolic Tradition was so important to them.
It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men
It's a sad commentary on yourself to not understand what Cahtholics are writing. We are saying you cannot discard Apostolic Traditions because IT was what determined what WAS Scripture in the first place. By discarding something on your own authority, what would St. Ireneaus say about you? Would you be considered orthodox or a heretic like Marcion, picking and choosing your own version of Scriptures, your own version of beliefs, and your own way of coming to God?
Is Christianity a revealed religion or one made up by men? That's the question you should ask yourself. If you pick and choose, it is no longer revealed, it is from you - it is no longer faith.
Regards
Jo kus is not saying that.
Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired.
No one argues otherwise.
it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century
Which "things"? Some were, some were not. Once a book is written it is handed down by script, not by voice. The Epistles and the Gospels were all written in the 1 century; I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.