Gospel sources, "Q"

[bingbang]

As far as this goes I would erase it from memory.

I tend to trust Christian scholars more than people (especially Catholics that just take church teaching as truth) on the internet.

 

[bingbang]

It does not matter. Jesus said it before the destruction of the temple.

If I had to guess it seems like a better assumption to believe that it was later added into the story. If Jesus had said that during his life I feel as though it would have just been left out of the gospels as something he said in passing. It seems more likely that after the destruction of the temple people starting saying “hey, Jesus said this would happen” and it was included in Mark.

 

[thistle]

I tend to trust Christian scholars more than people (especially Catholics that just take church teaching as truth) on the internet.

Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter and gave it Authority. In matters of faith and morals the Church teachings ARE true.
There were no Protestants around then!

 

[StTommyMore]

I tend to trust Christian scholars more than people (especially Catholics that just take church teaching as truth) on the internet.

Just as most Prophecy in the OT were false prophests, most “Bible Scholars” are propagating falsehood

 

[bingbang]

Just as most Prophecy in the OT were false prophests, most “Bible Scholars” are propagating falsehood

Its the same thing as those books that have been attributed to saints (I can’t recall their names but I believe there have been a few) where the book was supposedly written hundreds of years before and it predicts things with great accuracy but is only found after these things happened. Do you know what I mean?

 

[NHInsider]

Your problem, bingbang, is that you have swallowed the koolaid of “Biblical Scholars” who begin with the proposition that God isn’t God and Jesus isn’t God and the Bible is an interesting historical artifact to be dissected outside of its original context.

They may not explicitly reject God but they take as precept that anything that appears to be supernatural must be fabricated, and anything that supports the Church must have been added later, so they try to reduce the written word to something that they can consider “authentic.”

Yes, it is an act of faith to accept the Bible as truly God’s Word. What’s more, it is an act of faith to accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in its composing and compiliation and preservation of the Bible. But if you’re not prepared to make those acts of faith, why would you bother to read the Bible at all, unless you’re a scholar of ancient Semitic literature?

 

[bingbang]

Your problem, bingbang, is that you have swallowed the koolaid of “Biblical Scholars” who begin with the proposition that God isn’t God and Jesus isn’t God and the Bible is an interesting historical artifact to be dissected outside of its original context.

They may not explicitly reject God but they take as precept that anything that appears to be supernatural must be fabricated, and anything that supports the Church must have been added later, so they try to reduce the written word to something that they can consider “authentic.”

Yes, it is an act of faith to accept the Bible as truly God’s Word. What’s more, it is an act of faith to accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in its composing and compiliation and preservation of the Bible. But if you’re not prepared to make those acts of faith, why would you bother to read the Bible at all, unless you’re a scholar of ancient Semitic literature?

Only a minority of Biblical scholars start with the fact that the supernatural in the Bible is nonsense.

As for your “why even bother reading the Bible at all” comment, it probably has something to do with the fact it is the most influential book in human history. It is like asking “if you don’t like art, why would you ever want to see the mona lisa” or even “if you don’t believe in God, why see the Sistine Chapel.”

I personally believe that it is more likely that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple because of the passages where Jesus predicts it. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, if Jesus made this prophecy, why not others? I can’t think of any other prophecies that Jesus made, though I could be mistaken. Also, if Jesus mentioned this I don’t know if it would be seen as important enough to put down in the gospels, unless it already happened. I just think that the prophecy was so close to when the gospels were written that it is more likely that they were written after the temple was destroyed.

 

[TMC]

Resting one’s argument on a unfounded assertion that those that disagree with you are evil, atheistic, anti-Catholic, etc, is both uncharitable and ineffective. For those that keep insisting that Q and/or Markan priority are an anti-Catholic or atheistic construct, do you have any basis or evidence for that? Can you explain why so many prominent Christian and Catholic theologians fell into the trap you so easily eluded, including members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and many other prominent Catholic theologians? Or are also secretly atheists?

 

[buffalo]

I tend to trust Christian scholars more than people (especially Catholics that just take church teaching as truth) on the internet.

Catholic scholars or Protestant scholars?

 

[Erich]

Here is a quote from Dei Verbum:

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing

, vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

I am a firm believer in going straight to the source.

And here is another quote from Dei Verbum (same URL):

18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the  New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they  are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our  savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Verse 19 stresses that the Gospels are an historical record of what Christ did and taught. It is difficult to see how this can be, unless at least some of the authors were eyewitnesses to Christ’s life.

Yet according to the Markan Priority theory, all the authors of the four Gospels had to use second or third-hand sources.

 

[bingbang]

Catholic scholars or Protestant scholars?

Either as long as their arguments seem valid.

 

[buffalo]

Either as long as their arguments seem valid.

I am interested in the Catholic Scholars and your sources for Markan priority.

 

[jmcrae]

If I had to guess it seems like a better assumption to believe that it was later added into the story. If Jesus had said that during his life I feel as though it would have just been left out of the gospels as something he said in passing. It seems more likely that after the destruction of the temple people starting saying “hey, Jesus said this would happen” and it was included in Mark.

I’m pretty sure they would have noticed Jesus saying something like that - if a good friend of yours who was known for authentic prophecy were to say, “Your house is going to burn down with you and your children in it,” you’d remember him saying that, even if it hadn’t happened yet - and when they saw that everything else He had said was really true, they knew to believe Him about the fall of the Temple, as well.

 

[bingbang]

I am interested in the Catholic Scholars and your sources for Markan priority.

Everything I have read on the internet and heard in school states that Markan priority is the majority opinion of Biblical scholars. Do you not believe this?

 

[buffalo]

Everything I have read on the internet and heard in school states that Markan priority is the majority opinion of Biblical scholars. Do you not believe this?

I asked for specific sources.

 

[StTommyMore]

Everything I have read on the internet and heard in school states that Markan priority is the majority opinion of Biblical scholars. Do you not believe this?

The problem with Markan priority is that the evidence can also be interpreted to indicate the Patristic Tradition as being correct. Support of Markan Priority indicates a bias influenced by Darwinism.

 

[bingbang]

The problem with Markan priority is that the evidence can also be interpreted to indicate the Patristic Tradition as being correct. Support of Markan Priority indicates a bias influenced by Darwinism.

Darwinism? Are you serious?

 

[bingbang]

I asked for specific sources.

And I don’t have them.

 

[buffalo]

And I don’t have them.

As I thought. You said you checked it out.

I think it is time to reconsider.

Did you read the Gospels are Historical? It is complete with citations. Another is Jesus of Nazareth by Pope BVI.

Are the Gospels Historical?

In the wake of the movie The Passion of The Christ many have asked if the Gospel accounts are reliable sources of information on the death of Jesus, or on His life and teaching for that matter. Some scholars and clergy, even Catholics, have argued that the Gospels are statements of faith and not history, that they were written well after the fact, even as late as the second century, and that they therefore represent the teachings of the developing Church not the events as they actually occurred. **This view, unfortunately, has also found its way into parish catechetics and homiletics, as evidenced by efforts to explain away the miracles, healings and exorcisms of the Lord. ****These “theories”, however, run counter to the witness of the Gospels themselves, the testimony of the Fathers and the constant and unanimous teaching of the Church. **Consider, for example, what St. Luke reports he was doing in writing his Gospel.

more…

 

[bingbang]

As I thought. You said you checked it out.

I think it is time to reconsider.

Did you read the Gospels are Historical? It is complete with citations. Another is Jesus of Nazareth by Pope BVI.

Are the Gospels Historical?

In the wake of the movie The Passion of The Christ many have asked if the Gospel accounts are reliable sources of information on the death of Jesus, or on His life and teaching for that matter. Some scholars and clergy, even Catholics, have argued that the Gospels are statements of faith and not history, that they were written well after the fact, even as late as the second century, and that they therefore represent the teachings of the developing Church not the events as they actually occurred. **This view, unfortunately, has also found its way into parish catechetics and homiletics, as evidenced by efforts to explain away the miracles, healings and exorcisms of the Lord. ****These “theories”, however, run counter to the witness of the Gospels themselves, the testimony of the Fathers and the constant and unanimous teaching of the Church. **Consider, for example, what St. Luke reports he was doing in writing his Gospel.

more…

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.