|
Post by faune on Sept 24, 2014 22:50:22 GMT -5
Rational ~I believe consistency between gospel accounts does contribute to authenticity. For example, it's a proven fact tha t no two eye witness testimonies appear the same. For instance, some may give more detail or less than the other, depending upon what they witnessed, but each tells the same story. However, one way of knowing if something really happened is the consistently in the same story being told, although different in information given. However, there are a lot of stories found in John's gospel that tend to stand alone without references within the synoptic gospels. That's one reason why John's gospel was questionable for inclusion in the original canon along with a few other books, like Hebrews and Revelation and some letters attributed to Paul. It's because of this fact that you have to used Bible scholar's tools to determine what might be authentic scripture and what might be considered a latter addition to the Bible. Bart Ehrman's books relating to the historical Jesus tend to give some valuable insights in this area, too. The gospels weren't even eye witness accounts. The first one was written at 30 years-40 years after the death of Jesus. Others written still later, making them even less reliable as accurate. Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
from wiki
You state as factual - ie true, genuine, "they used a common source, the Q". Can you send me a copy of the Q document. that is, the parts that are written. I also love how when a hypothesis that is developed fits into someone's belief system it is all of a sudden "factual". I would have thought that someone with your ability would have said that the consistency may be due to their using a common source etc Does this mean that you believe there are originals of the gospels? Do you believe that Matthew and Luke did not copy from Mark? Rational ~ This article below tends to sum up a lot of what is believed today by modern day Bible scholars in relation to the four gospel accounts. It also brings out some of the points that DMG did stress earlier in her posts in relation to the same.
thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 24, 2014 23:10:43 GMT -5
I might also add that DMG's reference to the Wiki article surrounding the history of the Q document seemingly goes along with what I have discovered myself from study in this area. It also seems apparent that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas actually shed some new light on the nature of the Q document and how it was constructed, according to this article below:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#History
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 23:15:07 GMT -5
Mark is generally accepted as not being written from the so called Q material. I think it is more correct to say some Biblical scholars consider.....Where does your reference that "most all biblical scholars do believe that" come from as I don't believe it is factual. I am questioning the reliability of your statement because I think it includes a large assumption which has not been validated. I am quite comfortable with the Q hypothesis - it does not invalidate the inspiration of Scripture or indeed the accuracy of the Gospels. It also reduces the time period between the actual event and when it was recorded.
It is NOT more "correct to say some Biblical scholars consider... because it plainly states that, "Most scholars accept the Two-source Hypothesis. "
Just read the material, I don't feel up to spoon feeding it to you tonight.
And NO, the time of "Q" doesn't reduce the time period that much. "Q" Still didn't come about much earlier that 63 CE. Thirty years after Jesus death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#History
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 24, 2014 23:48:03 GMT -5
' Plenty of people in his generation and plenty of people today. It's good that we have four accounts - there's quite a lot of consistency between them. The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
DMG ~ I believe you made a mistake in the underlined statement above referring to Mark's gospel being written using the Q material? ???Actually, Mark's gospel is the only synoptic gospel that is not accredited to this Q source. Below is an explanation from Wiki along these lines explaining the source for Mark's gospel as compared to Matthew and Luke, which did use the Q source along with Mark's gospel for reference. However, your last sentence was correct about the others being copied from Mark's gospel and the fact that the Q document was a common source of Jesus' sayings for the gospels of Matthew and Luke along with quotes from Mark's earlier gospel. Actually, it was the later discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the 20th century that opened up discussion again about the existence of the presumed Q document, which also contained the sayings of Jesus.
In addition, I also agree with your earlier statement about the gospels not being written by the men whose names are ascribed and that they were not considered real eye witness accounts, but rather passed down oral traditions formulated within the early church.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 0:58:30 GMT -5
The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed down by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
DMG ~ I believe you made a mistake in the underlined statement above referring to Mark's gospel being written using the Q material? ???Actually, Mark's gospel is the only synoptic gospel that is not accredited to this Q source. Below is an explanation from Wiki along these lines explaining the source for Mark's gospel as compared to Matthew and Luke, which did use the Q source along with Mark's gospel for reference. However, your last sentence was correct about the others being copied from Mark's gospel and the fact that the Q document was a common source of Jesus' sayings for the gospels of Matthew and Luke along with quotes from Mark's earlier gospel. Actually, it was the later discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the 20th century that opened up discussion again about the existence of the presumed Q document, which also contained the sayings of Jesus.
In addition, I also agree with your earlier statement about the gospels not being written by the men whose names are ascribed and that they were not considered real eye witness accounts, but rather passed down oral traditions formulated within the early church.
Ok faune, you are correct, Mark is considered to not have used the "Q" material.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 25, 2014 7:32:37 GMT -5
Rational ~I believe consistency between gospel accounts does contribute to authenticity. For example, it's a proven fact tha t no two eye witness testimonies appear the same. For instance, some may give more detail or less than the other, depending upon what they witnessed, but each tells the same story. However, one way of knowing if something really happened is the consistently in the same story being told, although different in information given. However, there are a lot of stories found in John's gospel that tend to stand alone without references within the synoptic gospels. That's one reason why John's gospel was questionable for inclusion in the original canon along with a few other books, like Hebrews and Revelation and some letters attributed to Paul. It's because of this fact that you have to used Bible scholar's tools to determine what might be authentic scripture and what might be considered a latter addition to the Bible. Bart Ehrman's books relating to the historical Jesus tend to give some valuable insights in this area, too. The gospels weren't even eye witness accounts. The first one was written at 30 years-40 years after the death of Jesus. Others written still later, making them even less reliable as accurate. Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
from wiki
DMG ~ You're right in that respect that the gospels are not exactly eye-witness accounts, since they were written 30-40 years after the fact of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and not by the same people ascribed to them either. However, what about Paul's letters which came earlier and no doubt pre-dated the gospel accounts? Also, Acts which was probably written around 55 A.D. and before Paul's death by beheading in A.D. 64-65 A.D. under Nero. In addition, that part about John's gospel being written in stages is one I have heard before, too. It seems that as the church membership was growing and church doctrine was being formalized, the need for a written record became apparent and resulted in the gospels being written along with Paul's epistles. However, all we virtually have today are copies preserved and no originals, unless in a small fragment of such, like with Paul's epistles?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 25, 2014 7:52:16 GMT -5
DMG ~ You're right in that respect that the gospels are not exactly eye-witness accounts, since they were written 30-40 years after the fact of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion. However, what about Paul's letters which came earlier and no doubt pre-dated the gospel accounts? Also, the part about John's gospel being written in stages is one I have heard before, too. It seems that as the church doctrine was being formalized, the need for a written record became apparent and resulted in the gospels being written. However, today all we virtually have are copies preserved and no originals, unless in a small fragment of such, like with Paul's epistles? The comment below comes from Ask Yahoo.com in response to a question regarding original manuscripts relating to the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 25, 2014 7:56:46 GMT -5
DMG ~ I believe you made a mistake in the underlined statement above referring to Mark's gospel being written using the Q material? ???Actually, Mark's gospel is the only synoptic gospel that is not accredited to this Q source. Below is an explanation from Wiki along these lines explaining the source for Mark's gospel as compared to Matthew and Luke, which did use the Q source along with Mark's gospel for reference. However, your last sentence was correct about the others being copied from Mark's gospel and the fact that the Q document was a common source of Jesus' sayings for the gospels of Matthew and Luke along with quotes from Mark's earlier gospel. Actually, it was the later discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the 20th century that opened up discussion again about the existence of the presumed Q document, which also contained the sayings of Jesus.
In addition, I also agree with your earlier statement about the gospels not being written by the men whose names are ascribed and that they were not considered real eye witness accounts, but rather passed down oral traditions formulated within the early church.
Ok faune, you are correct, Mark is considered to not have used the "Q" material.
DMG ~ Thank you for acknowledging that fact. I also check your statement and sources, too. However, in spite of that minor point, you were correct in the other areas, I also want to add.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 11:11:27 GMT -5
the Gospel of Q is a hypothetical document that has never been found nor has ever been referenced in the bible or NT apocrypha I know, wally, what the "Q" is.
Of course it "hasn't been found!" It isn't a part of the bible or any apocrypha. I also know how scholars arrived at that idea.
Do you?
because of the commonality of the text in matthew mark and luke...im suprised that you would have "faith" in something that is conjecture and no material evidence can be found...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 25, 2014 13:12:04 GMT -5
DMG ~ I also wish to add in response to your statement below this article regarding the eye witness accounts left on record within the Bible about who saw what and when, as found within the different gospels and Paul's letters. Although they may have written it down years later, at least the writers remembered who were included as witnesses to this great event of the resurrection of Jesus. Also, Jesus' own brother, James, who was a cynic regarding Jesus while he was alive, became a believer and leader in the church in Jerusalem afterwards and testified himself about the resurrection actually occurring and being the reason for his new faith in Jesus Christ.
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm
12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 14:59:28 GMT -5
I know, wally, what the "Q" is.
Of course it "hasn't been found!" It isn't a part of the bible or any apocrypha. I also know how scholars arrived at that idea.
Do you?
because of the commonality of the text in matthew mark and luke...im suprised that you would have "faith" in something that is conjecture and no material evidence can be found... Wally, it isn't a matter of "faith" to believe that biblical scholars know what they are talking about. They are biblical scholars because of all the work they have done analyzing the bible.
I can understand & follow their rational . What takes "faith" is the irrational Christian concept of a "resurrection" of a dead body.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 15:28:06 GMT -5
The gospels weren't even eye witness accounts. The first one was written at 30 years-40 years after the death of Jesus. Others written still later, making them even less reliable as accurate. Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
from wiki
DMG ~ You're right in that respect that the gospels are not exactly eye-witness accounts, since they were written 30-40 years after the fact of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and not by the same people ascribed to them either. However, what about Paul's letters which came earlier and no doubt pre-dated the gospel accounts? Also, Acts which was probably written around 55 A.D. and before Paul's death by beheading in A.D. 64-65 A.D. under Nero. In addition, that part about John's gospel being written in stages is one I have heard before, too. It seems that as the church membership was growing and church doctrine was being formalized, the need for a written record became apparent and resulted in the gospels being written along with Paul's epistles. However, all we virtually have today are copies preserved and no originals, unless in a small fragment of such, like with Paul's epistles? faune, the gospels were "not exactly eye-witness accounts," They weren't eye-witness accounts!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 15:44:15 GMT -5
DMG ~ I also wish to add in response to your statement below this article regarding the eye witness accounts left on record within the Bible about who saw what and when, as found within the different gospels and Paul's letters. Although they may have written it down years later, at least the writers remembered who were included as witnesses to this great event of the resurrection of Jesus. Also, Jesus' own brother, James, who was a cynic regarding Jesus while he was alive, became a believer and leader in the church in Jerusalem afterwards and testified himself about the resurrection actually occurring and being the reason for his new faith in Jesus Christ.
12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
faune, what difference does it make whether there is one person or one million people?
If it isn't true for one person why should it be MORE true if there are one million people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 16:20:30 GMT -5
because of the commonality of the text in matthew mark and luke...im suprised that you would have "faith" in something that is conjecture and no material evidence can be found... Wally, it isn't a matter of "faith" to believe that biblical scholars know what they are talking about. They are biblical scholars because of all the work they have done analyzing the bible.
I can understand & follow their rational . What takes "faith" is the irrational Christian concept of a "resurrection" of a dead body.
funny how you discount the 40 authors in the bible but give credit to testimonies to those who came later quite a smorgasbord selection
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 21:26:32 GMT -5
Wally, it isn't a matter of "faith" to believe that biblical scholars know what they are talking about. They are biblical scholars because of all the work they have done analyzing the bible.
I can understand & follow their rational . What takes "faith" is the irrational Christian concept of a "resurrection" of a dead body.
funny how you discount the 40 authors in the bible but give credit to testimonies to those who came later quite a smorgasbord selection Not really "funny" (strange) at all.
The writers of the gospels weren't even trying to write a biographical factual form of literature.
Scholars work isn't their personal "testimonies!"
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 25, 2014 21:39:15 GMT -5
DMG ~ You're right in that respect that the gospels are not exactly eye-witness accounts, since they were written 30-40 years after the fact of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and not by the same people ascribed to them either. However, what about Paul's letters which came earlier and no doubt pre-dated the gospel accounts? Also, Acts which was probably written around 55 A.D. and before Paul's death by beheading in A.D. 64-65 A.D. under Nero. In addition, that part about John's gospel being written in stages is one I have heard before, too. It seems that as the church membership was growing and church doctrine was being formalized, the need for a written record became apparent and resulted in the gospels being written along with Paul's epistles. However, all we virtually have today are copies preserved and no originals, unless in a small fragment of such, like with Paul's epistles? faune, the gospels were "not exactly eye-witness accounts," They weren't eye-witness accounts!
DMG ~ Did you notice the article I posted on Page 17 and repeated below? Although the gospel accounts may have been written 30-40 years later in some circumstances, the different accounts share the names of these people who claimed to be eye witnesses to the resurrection, including Peter, John and James, Jesus' brother, to name just a few.
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm 12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 25, 2014 21:58:15 GMT -5
faune, the gospels were "not exactly eye-witness accounts," They weren't eye-witness accounts!
DMG ~ Did you notice the article I posted on Page 17 and repeated below? Although the gospel accounts may have been written 30-40 years later in some circumstances, the different accounts share the names of these people who claimed to be eye witnesses to the resurrection, including Peter, John and James, Jesus' brother, to name just a few.
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm 12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
I know faune.
But why should it matter how many people or how many groups were supposed to have given "eye witness" accounts of something if it had never happened to begin with?
I thought you have read the "Zealot" as well as other sources that tell how the gospels were not even meant to be written as absolute biographical facts!
Your link: Troy Brooks is just another Christian apologist site.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 26, 2014 0:36:29 GMT -5
DMG ~ Did you notice the article I posted on Page 17 and repeated below? Although the gospel accounts may have been written 30-40 years later in some circumstances, the different accounts share the names of these people who claimed to be eye witnesses to the resurrection, including Peter, John and James, Jesus' brother, to name just a few.
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm 12 Groups Saw Jesus Resurrected
I know faune.
But why should it matter how many people or how many groups were supposed to have given "eye witness" accounts of something if it had never happened to begin with?
I thought you have read the "Zealot" as well as other sources that tell how the gospels were not even meant to be written as absolute biographical facts!
Your link: Troy Brooks is just another Christian apologist site.
DMG ~ I believe I have read a few books along these lines and the "Zealot" was just one of them. However, this apologist by the name of Troy Brooks does a fine job of presenting what the Bible says about this topic of the resurrection, which is why I shared his article. Actually, my main purpose in reading these books was to learn what has been discovered about the historical Jesus and my research has convinced me that Jesus did live, had a following, and died by crucifixion and was believed to be resurrected by numerous accounts found within the Bible itself. However, I guess you would have to believe some of these things shared relating to Jesus' life to have faith in the gospel message and the hope of resurrection shared by those who embrace Christianity ~ myself included?
Also, even if the Bible has its share of discrepancies and contradictions, I still feel it can be trusted over-all for guidance in our spiritual life, even if some stories were embellished down through the centuries? Some of the things that Jesus taught are timeless and worthy of consideration in this life for the benefits that can be derived. I'm sorry you don't see things the same way as I do in this area, but perhaps it does take faith to believe in the supernatural after all?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 26, 2014 1:11:30 GMT -5
I know faune.
But why should it matter how many people or how many groups were supposed to have given "eye witness" accounts of something if it had never happened to begin with?
I thought you have read the "Zealot" as well as other sources that tell how the gospels were not even meant to be written as absolute biographical facts!
Your link: Troy Brooks is just another Christian apologist site.
DMG ~ I believe I have read a few books along these lines and the "Zealot" was just one of them.
However, this apologist by the name of Troy Brooks does a fine job of presenting what the Bible says about this topic of the resurrection, which is why I shared his article.
Actually, my main purpose in reading these books was to learn what has been discovered about the historical Jesus and my research has convinced me that Jesus did live, had a following, and died by crucifixion and was believed to be resurrected by numerous accounts found within the Bible itself.
However, I guess you would have to believe some of these things shared relating to Jesus' life to have faith in the gospel message and the hope of resurrection shared by those who embrace Christianity ~ myself included?
Also, even if the Bible has its share of discrepancies and contradictions, I still feel it can be trusted over-all for guidance in our spiritual life, even if some stories were embellished down through the centuries? Some of the things that Jesus taught are timeless and worthy of consideration in this life for the benefits that can be derived. I'm sorry you don't see things the same way as I do in this area, but perhaps it does take faith to believe in the supernatural after all?
Faune, I can believe "Jesus did live, had a following, and died by crucifixion,"... and there you lose me completely!
Yes, it was believed at that time in the history that Jesus "was believed to be resurrected ..."
People believed in that day & age in a lot of paranormal & supernatural happenings!
But today? Has anyone seen such things happening TODAY?
YES! it does take "faith" to believe in the supernatural !
That is why I wonder why some people who say that they have "faith" in such things as Jesus resurrection, still keep trying to prove the same things through logical critical thinking.
PS: As for the bible, how can it be trusted for guidance in any kind of morality with all the cruelty that is displayed in it as the right way to act?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 26, 2014 8:51:14 GMT -5
PS: As for the bible, how can it be trusted for guidance in any kind of morality with all the cruelty that is displayed in it as the right way to act? Perhaps you are looking at the bible in the wrong way. Consider it a written history with explanations based on the knowledge of the day and not so much a moral lesson but "Hey - this is what happened. Learn from out experiences." Unexplained things were attributed to the supernatural. And when the power of their supernatural being didn't work out that was sometimes recorded as well: Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.Someone wrote that David's son died because David sinned. That might have been the thought of the day but the child, like so many others, probably died from some common childhood disease. Even today there are people like Pat Robertson claiming that the Haiti earthquake of 2010 resulted because the Haitians made a deal with the Devil in 1791. Looking at the supernatural happenings in the bible simply as explanations of the events that people didn't understand, or the events some people wanted to use to control others, I think puts the bible into a different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 26, 2014 14:24:46 GMT -5
PS: As for the bible, how can it be trusted for guidance in any kind of morality with all the cruelty that is displayed in it as the right way to act? Perhaps you are looking at the bible in the wrong way. Consider it a written history with explanations based on the knowledge of the day and not so much a moral lesson but "Hey - this is what happened. Learn from out experiences." Unexplained things were attributed to the supernatural. And when the power of their supernatural being didn't work out that was sometimes recorded as well: Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.Someone wrote that David's son died because David sinned. That might have been the thought of the day but the child, like so many others, probably died from some common childhood disease. Even today there are people like Pat Robertson claiming that the Haiti earthquake of 2010 resulted because the Haitians made a deal with the Devil in 1791. Looking at the supernatural happenings in the bible simply as explanations of the events that people didn't understand, or the events some people wanted to use to control others, I think puts the bible into a different perspective. Yes. It certainly does put the bible into a different perspective.
That is why I don't understand how anyone can still feel it can be trusted for guidance.
|
|