Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Q Document

Reminds me of JEDP and the search for the "historical" Jesus.

Hypothetical. No actual proof. IIRC you are incorrect in your synopsis, supposedly Matthew & Luke drew on Mark & "Q," but John isn't in the mix; only the Synoptics. Also I think it is usually thought of as an oral tradition not a document. Luke does seem to say that he drew on numerous sources so there may a germ of truth in it.

But it is one of those theories unbelievers use to attack Divine Inspiration of the Bible and also to late-date the Gospels so they can write off Jesus as being merely a man and a teacher rather than God and Savior.

Less politics than you probably think in the selection of the NT books, Eucebius' list in the 4th century is pretty much the books we use today.

I would say the true scholars of the Gospels would be the Eastern Orthodox bishops and monks, who have a 2000 year living Tradition and apostolic succession. Those that claim to be scholars of the Gospel that lack the 2000 year living Tradition IMHO cannot fully understand the Gospels.

The thought that there was some sort of selection process with the Church fathers having a book club and arbitrarily throwing out versions they didn't fancy is at best absurd. Decisions made by the ecumenical councils were through prayer and fasting, not political bantering.

The western secular mind is so counter to hesychasm that it is mostly completely off base with the Gospels.

The various councils and efforts of the church fathers are often cast in a light of conspiracy by secular TV shows purporting to be Christian in nature. It is often put forth that the councils excluded books that compromised the position of the church. Consider this, maybe the councils were a gathering of men from across Christendom to determine which texts were accepted by Christians as a whole.There were certain minimum requirements for a book to be considered for the canon but beyond that they also considered if the books were accepted by the majority of the churches extant at the time.

curdog, not being a texturalist or a fan of individual interpretation I can't get too wrapped up in the issue. But should be interesting to follow along with those that feel otherwise.

Gus, you're getting into a really tough area. Unless Philosophy and Logic going back to Aristotle are in error there can be just one supreme being. (Maybe Spitzer has something on this. He has made the point from the Aristotelian point of view.) The nature of God, the Trinity, is a difficult subject because we experience nothing like it in our existence. If there's any short answer I haven't found it and I've looked. (St. Patric and his shamrocks not withstanding.)

Keep in mind that the Bible can be divided into the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant." Compatible but superseding.

But did it?

You accept that as a pre-supposition with no evidence to support you assertion.

As for Islam, it also started from God, to an angel who provided dictation to a prophet, sort of like with Moses. Do you also dismiss Moses?

If you think there was no politics involved, you are gravely mistaken.

These councils were all about the politics. Just look at the power accrued to the Church as a result.

Keep in mind this is the same "non-political" church protecting child rapist.

You guys have too much time on your hands. God's word tells me that Jesus had legitimate royal lineage through his earthly family and deity as part of the Holy Trinity. He became sin on the cross so that we sinners could have access to the throne of God if we believe and accept in our heart the sacrifice Jesus paid. Seems pretty simple to me, but I guess that is part of faith. Carry on.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.

Would you leave everything to preach the words of Jesus if you were only promised poverty, imprisonment, torture and death?

You have a point about Moses. If Christ hadn't come along and affirmed The God of Israel, there is a good chance I wouldn't believe it.

That might describe Christianity as well

There’s ample evidence that this “Church” you hold in such high regard is in direct opposition to the Paraclete you also recommend.

Regardless of what a man believes about God, it’s for damn sure that human nature has not changed thru all recorded history. The Jesus who claimed He would never leave nor forsake us surely didn’t entrust our fate to mortals. He had seen firsthand how corrupt a Priesthood would become.

There was some son of a bitch calling himself” Catholic Fundelmentalism” that infected my F B page. Damn if you don’t sound just like him and his followers.

not to intervene w/too much biological humanism, but the Naked Ape (who?) began his/their successful journey upon this earth with nothing but sticks and stones as i recall.

that in fact was probably after the time of the matriarchical controlled universe(Urthen). before the time of the great climate change the wimmen ran the system, more or less.
after the great climate change patriarchy took the forefront, out of necessity for the People. folks had to eat or starve (& many did starve but not all).

warlord implies the rise of the powerful, the biggest human/fighter/warrior/leader in the pack. (the pack does not refer to wolves in this instance, but wolves did travel with us and become changed over time).

Well, He sure didn't entrust it to protestantism. There are what? About 4,000 different sects of them all saying they have the fullness of the truth. Can you see how impossible that is?

Or are you saying that we each are our own churches and have the fullness of truth? Can you see how impossible that is too?

No doubt, there are corrupt priests, just as a disciple hand-picked by Jesus himself was corrupt. But that didn't make Jesus' newly founded church any less valid. To think that corrupt people preclude Jesus' church from containing the fullness of truth is idolatry, plain and simple. It's worshiping men instead of Christ as is making yourself the sole interpreter of the word.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"

Hm. As Gus might ask, what is "Truth?" Note the capitalization.

we're all down here (up here?) together eating, breathing, breeding together.

to become aware that the air (breathing, in & out) is so important, what a concept.

everybody breathes in & out. could it be oh so simple? we live & breathe, and that's enough?

or, is there more? what more? we don't have kids, we do have kids? humans kill each other as needed?

the air is what we all share in common. it's essential. without it, of which we are addicted, means death to everyone.

I played Black Sabbath at 78 speed and saw god......

rupert sheldrake & terrance mckenna both will probably argue with you every step of the way in terms of what you "claim" you saw and didn't. just sayin'

It’s not just priests that are corrupt... it’s your whole church. In fact, Jesus had no intention of founding a church. That was Paul’s idea.

You are that guy from my F B page, aren’t you.

Gene,

As you know, all of the Gospels found in today's Bibles were accumulated and put into one Bible well after Christ died. The sources for both what we know as the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" were a number of documents written a different times, by different people and added to by other people at later dates.

There is certainly evidence to point to a "Q" document, actually more than one, from which we get the acknowledged oldest of the Gospels, Mark.

What we do not have is a single collection of Jesus' activities, teachings, and sayings, written by one author, contemporary to Jesus being alive. We have no documentation that Jesus ever said "write this down!" We have no documentation of Him being accompanied by one or more scribes.

We do have some documents that were controversial when they were being taught as the Word of God at the very beginning, some documents that were disregarded because they did not fit with the opinions/beliefs of the "powers that be" early in the existence of the Christian Church, and some documents which were widely accepted, but not an entire doctrine by themselves.

We have a church "hierarchy" that did not exist until a couple of hundred years after Christ which has used the Bible as a tool for teaching and a tool of power and control over others. All this means is, men have been involved in the creation of what we call the Christian Church since the very beginning, and as men, are fallible.
In that fallibility we can see the evidence of prejudice, racism, and jealousy as well as the quest for power and control, all evidenced by the very books assembled into the Bible..

If we strip away all of the human influenced parts of the Bible, it all boils down to a loving God.

As we can learn from the Bible; there is a lot more to the story that we will get answers to, but not on our schedule.

Ed