Gospel sources, "Q"

[TMC]

I have read “the Case for Christ” before but I don’t really buy into the arguments. We don’t know who wrote the gospels or when they were written. The earliest full manuscripts we have of the gospels are from hundreds of years after they were written. There is a lot of reasons for people to exaggerate claims or for stories to kind of get misquoted. There are also some verses in the different gospels that make me think that Jesus might have been misquoted. For instance, the beatitudes.

Matthew:

*5.3."Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

5.6 " Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.*

Luke:
*
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 6.21 " Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. *

Matthew uses the same wording as luke (“poor” and “hunger”) but Luke uses these words literally and Matthew uses them figuratively. In my eyes, these quotes likely stem from the same event and oral tradition but end up meaning completely different things. It just makes me question everything in the gospels to be honest.

EDIT: why don’t you accept the Koran as truth?

I find it interesting that the differences in approach by Matthew and Luke lead you to question the honesty of the Gospels. Remember that the Gospels were written as theological works, not history books. Could it not be that Matthew and Luke interpret the oral tradition differently and put somewhat different spin on what Jesus said? But how is that dishonest, if both are trying their best to relay what Christ means (rather than exactly copying every word he said)? After all, the words were said in a different language many decades before they were written down. I don’t find the differences to reflect dishonesty, although they may reflect a slightly different theological take on the Beatitudes.

 

[bingbang]

I find it interesting that the differences in approach by Matthew and Luke lead you to question the honesty of the Gospels. Remember that the Gospels were written as theological works, not history books. Could it not be that Matthew and Luke interpret the oral tradition differently and put somewhat different spin on what Jesus said? But how is that dishonest, if both are trying their best to relay what Christ means (rather than exactly copying every word he said)? After all, the words were said in a different language many decades before they were written down. I don’t find the differences to reflect dishonesty, although they may reflect a slightly different theological take on the Beatitudes.

I didn’t say they were being dishonest, just that these quotations are likely from the same event and they are saying different things.

 

[TMC]

I didn’t say they were being dishonest, just that these quotations are likely from the same event and they are saying different things.

That I can agree with. There have been a lot of good books written analyzing the differences in the Gospels, and comparing the Gospel accounts to other ancient writings, both non-Christian and non-canonical ancient Christian writings. Its fascinating stuff (to me at least).

 

[NotWorthy]

lol, you choose not to believe the Koran and Bhagavad Gita. I guess you “just don’t want to believe it.”

And to be honest the reasons I have for not believing the gospels are pretty valid. I could turn it around on you and say that your reasoning is:

“I just want to believe it.”

BB, just curious. Have you studied the origin of the Koran? If you did, you might understand why it’s hard to believe.

 

[bingbang]

BB, just curious. Have you studied the origin of the Koran? If you did, you might understand why it’s hard to believe.

lol, I was thinking about how the Koran isn’t a great example. The Gospels would be more like the Hadith.

 

[NotWorthy]

lol, I was thinking about how the Koran isn’t a great example. The Gospels would be more like the Hadith.

When you consider that a camel was the first editor of the Koran… (or was it a goat?), the Hadith might HAVE been a better example.

 

[buffalo]

lol, you choose not to believe the Koran and Bhagavad Gita. I guess you “just don’t want to believe it.”

And to be honest the reasons I have for not believing the gospels are pretty valid. I could turn it around on you and say that your reasoning is:

“I just want to believe it.”

Not at all. Catholicism possesses the fullness of truth. However, the two you mentioned do have some truths? Do you know what they are?

 

[buffalo]

No you don’t. You can say you know who the gospels were written by but it is FAR from unanimous. The question will likely never be answered.

The question has been answered.

It is supported by Scripture itself, oral tradition and the Magisterium. Actually it is a pretty neat system. Like a three legged stool, take one away and the stool topples. But all three legs working together the stool stands solidly. In addition the protection of the Holy Spirit hovers over the whole thing.

 

[buffalo]

I think that Jesus did exist and that he was an extremely profound and great teacher. I don’t really know about the resurrection and miracles and things but I do a lot of his moral teachings probably went back to him.

Your implicit claim is that He was a liar. Therefore His teachings cannot be great and profound.

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t say they were being dishonest, just that these quotations are likely from the same event and they are saying different things.

A car approaches an intersection. Another enters and they collide. On each corner stands a witness.

Each witness reports what he has seen. Which one is wrong?

 

[bingbang]

Your implicit claim is that He was a liar. Therefore His teachings cannot be great and profound.

Or his divinity was attributed to him after the fact.

 

[bingbang]

A car approaches an intersection. Another enters and they collide. On each corner stands a witness.

Each witness reports what he has seen. Which one is wrong?

Jesus said one thing. The person that either added or subtracted to what Jesus said was wrong.

 

[NotWorthy]

Or his divinity was attributed to him after the fact.

How many people do you know are willingly die for a story that they fabricated? Especially when you consider that they usually died on their own, without someone with an iron thumb manipulating their actions (like the homocide bombers often are).

 

[buffalo]

Or his divinity was attributed to him after the fact.

So then even the eyewitness is lying?

But certainly, yes His divinity was doubted as we can see from John’s discourse, many would no longer follow. His Divinity is re-affirmed by His Resurrection, Ascension, miracles, appearances to thousands, etc… Then His followers would die rather than deny Him.

The Apostle Thomas had to put his fingers in Jesus’ wombs.

 

[buffalo]

Jesus said one thing. The person that either added or subtracted to what Jesus said was wrong.

Do you know which one?

 

[bingbang]

How many people do you know are willingly die for a story that they fabricated? Especially when you consider that they usually died on their own, without someone with an iron thumb manipulating their actions (like the homocide bombers often are).

How many people does it take to fabricate a story? Technically they didn’t have to fabricate anything though, as they could have just come to the conclusion that he was divine and kind of filled in the blanks of the story to support it.

 

[NHInsider]

No you didn’t. All you said was that it could have been from two events, which I believe to be unlikely. Why would Jesus use the same exact wording and mean two totally different things? It just doesn’t seem to make sense. Why would he use words literally in one speech and use the same exact words figuratively in another.

First of all, Jesus probably didn’t give this speech twice, he probably gave it close to 100 times. Think about it. For most of three years, He preached in one village for a week or two, then moved on to another place. He didn’t say something different in each place, he taught the same basic material, over and over and over. Like a politician giving a stump speech, or any speaker on the lecture circuit. He may have varied his presentation a bit depending on the location, the audience, current events, etc - but His core message remained the same. Obviously all the evangelists wrote based on recollection (probably their own and others’) and also crafted their gospels to include the core message. None of them was trying to produce a transcript of Jesus’ ministry. They were trying to capture the kerygma, the gospel message, to preserve it in an authentic record as the eyewitnesses were dying out.

Secondly, what makes you think that His teaching couldn’t have both a figurative and a literal meaning? Far from it not making sense, it makes sense even in purely human terms. Most great writers and speakers use language in a way that works on multiple levels. You don’t need to be divine to do that.

 

[buffalo]

First of all, Jesus probably didn’t give this speech twice, he probably gave it close to 100 times. Think about it. For most of three years, He preached in one village for a week or two, then moved on to another place. He didn’t say something different in each place, he taught the same basic material, over and over and over. Like a politician giving a stump speech, or any speaker on the lecture circuit. He may have varied his presentation a bit depending on the location, the audience, current events, etc - but His core message remained the same. Obviously all the evangelists wrote based on recollection (probably their own and others’) and also crafted their gospels to include the core message. None of them was trying to produce a transcript of Jesus’ ministry. They were trying to capture the kerygma, the gospel message, to preserve it in an authentic record as the eyewitnesses were dying out.

Secondly, what makes you think that His teaching couldn’t have both a figurative and a literal meaning? Far from it not making sense, it makes sense even in purely human terms. Most great writers and speakers use language in a way that works on multiple levels. You don’t need to be divine to do that.

Yes, John writes: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

And John records: “And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.”

 

[StTommyMore]

It may have “really taken off” in the 1870s, but it was put forth by theologians much earlier than that, well before Origin of Species. How could the Q theory have resulted from Darwinism when it predates Darwinism?

Give me a date.

 

[NotWorthy]

How many people does it take to fabricate a story? Technically they didn’t have to fabricate anything though, as they could have just come to the conclusion that he was divine and kind of filled in the blanks of the story to support it.

And then die attesting to the fact that what they “filled in the blanks” was true. That takes a LOT of mass delusion.