q source

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
anyone have common objects to this theory

i know of one the church fathers never mentioned any type of source like this and they live less then 100 years after the time of Christ so there can’t possibly be a Q source, epically cause there is no evidence for it.
 
anyone have common objects to this theory

i know of one the church fathers never mentioned any type of source like this and they live less then 100 years after the time of Christ so there can’t possibly be a Q source, epically cause there is no evidence for it.
Wait, did I miss something? Doesn’t the Q source help prove the Gospels? Why do we want it refuted? Sorry if this is ignorant but I always thought the existence of “Q”, if proven, would help us.
 
Wait, did I miss something? Doesn’t the Q source help prove the Gospels? Why do we want it refuted? Sorry if this is ignorant but I always thought the existence of “Q”, if proven, would help us.
i don’t know but i’m almost postive the thing doesn’t exist

but i have someone on a message board using it as an objection to christ saying it would prove he is just some madeup story
 
Wait, did I miss something? Doesn’t the Q source help prove the Gospels? Why do we want it refuted? Sorry if this is ignorant but I always thought the existence of “Q”, if proven, would help us.
You have it backwards. Q means everyone copied off of one person, which means they didn’t know it themselves, which means God wasn’t talking to them.

This topic was done extensively in the last month or two. Try searching for the thread. Search my posts if you want to – it’s in there.
 
You have it backwards. Q means everyone copied off of one person, which means they didn’t know it themselves, which means God wasn’t talking to them.

This topic was done extensively in the last month or two. Try searching for the thread. Search my posts if you want to – it’s in there.
No, Q does not mean everyone copied off one person.

Q is a theory. Hypothetical. That’s all. It may or may not have actually existed. Doesn’t matter. The theory helps some explain the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that are distinct from Mark. This theory depends on the idea (which is contested by some) that Mark’s Gospel was written first, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both knew of Mark’s written Gospel when composing their own Gospel.
 
anyone have common objects to this theory

i know of one the church fathers never mentioned any type of source like this and they live less then 100 years after the time of Christ so there can’t possibly be a Q source, epically cause there is no evidence for it.
There is ZERO evidence of a “Q” source. It is pure plucked out of the air speculation!
 
No, Q does not mean everyone copied off one person.

Q is a theory. Hypothetical. That’s all. It may or may not have actually existed. Doesn’t matter. The theory helps some explain the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that are distinct from Mark. This theory depends on the idea (which is contested by some) that Mark’s Gospel was written first, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both knew of Mark’s written Gospel when composing their own Gospel.
i think the church fathers talk about the order but i don’t remember it
 
i think the church fathers talk about the order but i don’t remember it
Yes, they said Mark was written after Matthew and Luke.
40.png
diggerdomer:
No, Q does not mean everyone copied off one person.

Q is a theory. Hypothetical. That’s all. It may or may not have actually existed. Doesn’t matter. The theory helps some explain the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that are distinct from Mark. This theory depends on the idea (which is contested by some) that Mark’s Gospel was written first, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both knew of Mark’s written Gospel when composing their own Gospel.
Oh, their text is similar and the knew of their respective predecessors, but they didn’t actually copy off the predecessors – the first being Q. But without copying of the predecessors their text is similar, and that’s why we’re using the Q document explain the similarities, because the text is similar and they knew about the preceding documents, but they didn’t copy off them. 🤷

The right answer is that Q is imaginary and every argument in favor of it can be easily turned on its head. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt for doing it. It’s in the previous thread.
 
Most Church Fathers seemed to think Matthew was the first Gospel written. Most scholars today do not agree.
i think ill go with the fathers, they have the upperhand on how long they lived after the things where written, some 0 years aka they lived during it.
 
i think ill go with the fathers, they have the upperhand on how long they lived after the things where written, some 0 years aka they lived during it.
So you’ll agree with St. Jerome that Moses’ face “had horns” in Exodus 34:35?

Or will you go with more current (and accurate scholarship) that Jerome was wrong in his translation and should have written that Moses’ face “shown” or “was radiant” or similar?

Why would you choose to “go with the fathers” rather than going with the Church (which of course includes the teachings of the early Church Fathers)?
 
So you’ll agree with St. Jerome that Moses’ face “had horns” in Exodus 34:35?

Or will you go with more current (and accurate scholarship) that Jerome was wrong in his translation and should have written that Moses’ face “shown” or “was radiant” or similar?

Why would you choose to “go with the fathers” rather than going with the Church (which of course includes the teachings of the early Church Fathers)?
im pretty sure the church teaches matthew’s was first and the church father back that up, thats where my reasoning is.

plus the saints see many of the church fathers as saints so I think we can trust them, yeah they may be off on one or two issues but in general they are right
 
im pretty sure the church teaches matthew’s was first and the church father back that up, thats where my reasoning is.

plus the saints see many of the church fathers as saints so I think we can trust them, yeah they may be off on one or two issues but in general they are right
Nope, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches authoritatively that one Gospel was written first. Sorry to burst any bubble.

Catholics are free to think any Gospel was written first. Most (not all) Catholic scholars suggest Mark’s Gospel was written first. The Church is fine with these theories, again, nowhere does the Catholic Church require or suggest that Catholics need to believe one Gospel was written first versus another.
 
Nope, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches authoritatively that one Gospel was written first. Sorry to burst any bubble.

Catholics are free to think any Gospel was written first.** Most (not all) Catholic scholars suggest Mark’s Gospel was written first.** The Church is fine with these theories, again, nowhere does the Catholic Church require or suggest that Catholics need to believe one Gospel was written first versus another.
I do not believe that statement.
Please give us documentary evidence to support your claim.
 
Nope, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches authoritatively that one Gospel was written first. Sorry to burst any bubble.

Catholics are free to think any Gospel was written first. Most (not all) Catholic scholars suggest Mark’s Gospel was written first. The Church is fine with these theories, again, nowhere does the Catholic Church require or suggest that Catholics need to believe one Gospel was written first versus another.
from new advent.org
the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrine. Its origin is best accounted for by the supposition that whoever formed the Gospel collection wished to arrange the Gospels in accordance with the respective date which tradition assigned to their composition. Thus, the first place was given to St. Matthew’s Gospel, because a very early tradition described the work as originally written in Hebrew, that is, in the Aramaic language of Palestine. This, it was thought, proved that it had been composed for the Jewish believers in the Holy Land, at a date when the Apostles had not yet started to preach the glad tidings of salvation outside of Palestine, so that it must be prior to the other Gospels written in Greek and for converts in Greek-speaking countries. In like manner, it is clear that St. John’s Gospel was assigned the last place, because tradition at a very early date looked upon it as the last in the order of time. As to St. Mark and St. Luke, tradition ever spoke of them as posterior to St. Matthew and anterior to St. John, so that their Gospels were naturally placed between those of St. Matthew and St. John. In this way, as it seems, was obtained the present general order of the Gospels in which we find, at the beginning, an Apostle as author; at the end, the other Apostle; between the two, those who have to derive their authority from Apostles.
newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
 
I do not believe that statement.
Please give us documentary evidence to support your claim.
Which statement, exactly, do you disagree with?

Look at the Catechism. That’s my source. Where does the Catechism (or any other official Church teaching) disagree with what I stated?

Thanks.
 
NewAdvent is not official Catholic Church teaching.

Also, the citation you provide is from about a century ago. Much has happened in the Church’s scholarship since then. If you would care to refer to the CURRENT edition of the Catholic Encylcopedia (2003) you would find a much more relevant teaching.

Even the older version does not contradict my statement. It merely explains how, historically, the arrangement of Gospels in the New Testament came to me. Nowhere is it stated that the Catholic Church teaches one Gospel was necessarily written first.

Hope this helps.
 
Why would you choose to “go with the fathers” rather than going with the Church (which of course includes the teachings of the early Church Fathers)?
Nope, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches authoritatively that one Gospel was written first. Sorry to burst any bubble.

Catholics are free to think any Gospel was written first. Most (not all) Catholic scholars suggest Mark’s Gospel was written first. The Church is fine with these theories, again, nowhere does the Catholic Church require or suggest that Catholics need to believe one Gospel was written first versus another.
These two statements seem to be at odds with each other. Perhaps you could clear it up.
I agree with your statement that the Church does not teach which Gospel came first. I also agree that The Fathers are more correct than “modern” scholars. There has been a trend to go back to the idea that they had it right. The so called nameless scholars presenting a different order of the writing of the Gospels in mho is as suspect as their reasoning of the q source and as reliable.
 
These two statements seem to be at odds with each other. Perhaps you could clear it up.
I agree with your statement that the Church does not teach which Gospel came first. I also agree that The Fathers are more correct than “modern” scholars. There has been a trend to go back to the idea that they had it right. The so called nameless scholars presenting a different order of the writing of the Gospels in mho is as suspect as their reasoning of the q source and as reliable.
I didn’t mean to say the Fathers are more correct than modern scholars. They may or may not be, depends on the individual issue, teachings, etc., under consideration.

My point is not whether “the Fathers” or modern scholars had it right…but that the Church has it right.

The Catholic Church does not teach nor require Catholics to adhere to any one theroy about which Gospel was written first. That’s the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top