Gospel sources, "Q"

[NotWorthy]

I don’t see how Stephen could not have known Jesus, since he was martyred within the first year of the Church. I have always thought that he was one of the 72, although I could certainly be wrong about that. But I don’t think he was a new convert, at the time of his martyrdom.

Stephen was one of the Hellenistic Jews, which means he wasn’t a native Judean. I would place him as a Pentecost converter at the earliest.

And it seems that Stephen was martyred around 33 or 34 AD. If Jesus died in 30, that would place him 4 years after his death. If Jesus died in 33, then yes, it would be a year after the death of our Lord.

 

[jmcrae]

Stephen was one of the Hellenistic Jews, which means he wasn’t a native Judean. I would place him as a Pentecost converter at the earliest.

And it seems that Stephen was martyred around 33 or 34 AD. If Jesus died in 30, that would place him 4 years after his death. If Jesus died in 33, then yes, it would be a year after the death of our Lord.

That makes sense - thanks!

 

[Sheeniac]

I don’t really put a lot of stock into Christian beliefs. I don’t really trust the gospels or the church. I don’t believe in hell and don’t really believe in heaven either. I do think there is some after life, but maybe not. I think there is some sort of personal Deity that is helping to guide my life but I don’t really think that this deity has the qualities of the Christian God. I actually prefer Eastern religions as they seem to be more open and less judgmental.

I don’t know if Jesus was God. I guess it is possible, but if it is true, I don’t think he is unique in that respect. Oh well.

It’s a shame that you hadn’t started your own thread. I asked this question to understand what my fellow DEVOUT Catholics know and have been taught (and believe).

 

[StTommyMore]

It’s a shame that you hadn’t started your own thread. I asked this question to understand what my fellow DEVOUT Catholics know and have been taught (and believe).

The interesting things is that 2 of the 3 profs that taught me about the 2 source theory do not necessariy buy it.

 

[thistle]

You know what, after reading what is in this thread and thinking about it, it seems likely that Jesus did rise from the dead.

As is evidenced by Paul’s letters, the resurrection was well known before many of the apostles were martyred. This was being spread to various Christian communities and they undoubtedly would have been corrected if the apostles didn’t actually rise from the dead. If the apostles made up this fact, they wouldn’t willingly die for the cause. It would just be stupid to die for something you KNOW is a lie.

So really there are three options: Either Jesus rose from the dead (and is God), Someone somehow tricked the apostles into thinking that Jesus rose from the dead (unlikely), or the whole story of the apostles being martyred was fabricated (even more unlikely).

I can’t really think of a legitimate argument against this. I still don’t really think that this proves that what is in the Gospels is complete truth, but in my eyes it does seem to prove that Jesus is God (or something of the sort).

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

 

[patrick457]

You know what, after reading what is in this thread and thinking about it, it seems likely that Jesus did rise from the dead.

As is evidenced by Paul’s letters, the resurrection was well known before many of the apostles were martyred. This was being spread to various Christian communities and they undoubtedly would have been corrected if the apostles didn’t actually rise from the dead. If the apostles made up this fact, they wouldn’t willingly die for the cause. It would just be stupid to die for something you KNOW is a lie.

So really there are three options: Either Jesus rose from the dead (and is God), Someone somehow tricked the apostles into thinking that Jesus rose from the dead (unlikely), or the whole story of the apostles being martyred was fabricated (even more unlikely).

I can’t really think of a legitimate argument against this. I still don’t really think that this proves that what is in the Gospels is complete truth, but in my eyes it does seem to prove that Jesus is God (or something of the sort).

The Japanese Catholic novelist Shusaku Endo (in his A Life of Jesus) once devoted the final chapter to exactly this question: how did a cowardly bunch of men suddenly transform into bold preachers? What caused them to believe, as if all of a sudden, that the Man who disappointed them and betrayed their expectations is actually the Son of God - even to the point that they were ready to die for this Man? Of course, this is somewhat difficult to answer, unless something did happen.

 

[milkbar]

I see what you are saying, but I don’t know if it really works like that.

Re: God protecting His Church from error and whether it works like that. I’m a convert, I understand. The mere humans running the Church might have done some stupid things throughout the ages, but the Truth is here still and it has not changed.

Look at Protestantism. Look at how divided it is. Every single sect has its own quirks and intricacies and differences. There cannot be more than one true version of the Truth. And only one sect of Christianity has not changed its mind on the truth of any point of doctrine for ~2000 years: this one, the Church.

The history of this institution is incredible. Just read about what has happened to Popes who became Pope intent on declaring something different. They either changed their mind or met their end prior to any declaration of a reversal of doctrine. It’s uncanny. Read The Catholic Church : The First 2000 Years by Martha Rasmussen. Humans couldn’t possibly have done this much all for themselves for 2000 years. We’re too good at making mistakes.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Japanese Catholic novelist Shusaku Endo (in his A Life of Jesus) once devoted the final chapter to exactly this question: how did a cowardly bunch of men suddenly transform into bold preachers? What caused them to believe, as if all of a sudden, that the Man who disappointed them and betrayed their expectations is actually the Son of God - even to the point that they were ready to die for this Man? Of course, this is somewhat difficult to answer, unless something did happen.

We were talking about the incredible transformation of the Apostles after the Pentecost during our adult class last week at Church.

We were wondering, while looking at some of their antics in the Gospels, if Peter, James, and John are actually Greek transliterations of Larry, Moe, and Curly!

 

[NotWorthy]

The history of this institution is incredible. Just read about what has happened to Popes who became Pope intent on declaring something different. They either changed their mind or met their end prior to any declaration of a reversal of doctrine. It’s uncanny. Read The Catholic Church : The First 2000 Years by Martha Rasmussen. Humans couldn’t possibly have done this much all for themselves for 2000 years. We’re too good at making mistakes.

I wish I could remember who said this, but there was a reported incident where a communist leader told a bishop of the Church, “I’m going to destroy the Catholic Church”. The bishops response was, “If we can’t destroy the Catholic Church from within in 2000 years, you certainly can’t destroy it from without!”. That statement is both sad (that at times it seems like the Church was being torn apart from within) and comforting (that these attempts have failed) at the same time.

 

[jmcrae]

I wish I could remember who said this, but there was a reported incident where a communist leader told a bishop of the Church, “I’m going to destroy the Catholic Church”. The bishops response was, “If we can’t destroy the Catholic Church from within in 2000 years, you certainly can’t destroy it from without!”. That statement is both sad (that at times it seems like the Church was being torn apart from within) and comforting (that these attempts have failed) at the same time.

From “The Monument to Pope Pius VII” -

Though Napoleon had crowned himself Emperor in Notre Dame in Paris, and though he had imprisoned and exiled this Pope for his resistance to the regime, when Napoleon’s fortunes fell Pius VII readily forgave him. After the Pope’s return from his own exile, he helped the exiled Emperor and offered to take custody of his mother.

When the Pope refused to yield, Napoleon declared, “I will destroy the Church.” The Pope’s Secretary of State coolly replied, “No you will not. We have been trying for 1700 years and haven’t been able to do it.”

 

[NotWorthy]

From “The Monument to Pope Pius VII” -

Though Napoleon had crowned himself Emperor in Notre Dame in Paris, and though he had imprisoned and exiled this Pope for his resistance to the regime, when Napoleon’s fortunes fell Pius VII readily forgave him. After the Pope’s return from his own exile, he helped the exiled Emperor and offered to take custody of his mother.

When the Pope refused to yield, Napoleon declared, “I will destroy the Church.” The Pope’s Secretary of State coolly replied, “No you will not. We have been trying for 1700 years and haven’t been able to do it.”

Thank you! That’s one of those lines that is so classic, one must wonder if it actually was said.

 

[pnewton]

It’s a shame that you hadn’t started your own thread. I asked this question to understand what my fellow DEVOUT Catholics know and have been taught (and believe).

There is a lot of good here, if you can ignore the atheist POV that is given and the back and forth with that.

 

[Sheeniac]

There is a lot of good here, if you can ignore the atheist POV that is given and the back and forth with that.

True - but it’s tough to have to sift through it all. This has wandered so far off-topic that I’ve stopped reading.

I don’t need the atheist POV - I was one from 15 to 40.

I hate to be a thread-killer/Debbie Downer, but …

 

[TMC]

Give me a date.

No later than 1801, in Herbert Marsh’s A Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Our First Three Canonical Gospels. Of course, some would argue that he simply put together and wrote up a currently existing theory (not one of his making), and others would argue that he ‘rediscovered’ a theory also held by many other, earlier scholars. But certainly the Q source theory was discussed by a prominent theologian in a published work no later than 1801. Darwin was born in 1809 and published Origin of the Species in 1859. Whatever the Q theory is, it is not a reflection of Darwinism and was not invented to support Darwinism.

 

[StTommyMore]

No later than 1801, in Herbert Marsh’s A Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Our First Three Canonical Gospels. Of course, some would argue that he simply put together and wrote up a currently existing theory (not one of his making), and others would argue that he ‘rediscovered’ a theory also held by many other, earlier scholars. But certainly the Q source theory was discussed by a prominent theologian in a published work no later than 1801. Darwin was born in 1809 and published Origin of the Species in 1859. Whatever the Q theory is, it is not a reflection of Darwinism and was not invented to support Darwinism.

Its acceptance IS influenced by Darwinism. I find it interesting that this hypothesis had no significant acceptance until the 1870’s