Most Bible Scholars (i.e. not necessarily secular historians) believe that Mark was the first Gospel written. Most date it after 65 CE/AD. 50 v 65. People were still alive by either date that knew Jesus and saw His life. The Q Gospel is considered to gnostic, which means that the reader gains enlightened and a closer relationship to God through reading the Q Gospel word. First, let's find the Q gospel, shall we? Then we can consider it. One of the many disagreements is that Matthew and Luke disagree on the genealogy of Jesus: Matthew 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23). One is through Joseph showing inheritance through Jewish customs to Abraham, the other shows blood relationship to Abraham through Mary. It's important not to take everyone's word for granted, especially mine. Matthew misattributes fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 27:9) to Jeremy instead of Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12). If you researched how Jews referred to Old Testament books, Zechariah was part of the bigger book, Jeremiah. There is almost no agreement in the four Gospels about how the resurrection was discovered. Because details are left out, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. With all the details from the four, a complete scenario can be understood that doesn't have conflicts. Hey, you will believe what you want. These conflicts you present aren't even the hardest to research. At least you have faith in something.
Mark 16:5 -- And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Matthew 28:2 -- And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Mathew 28:5 -- And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. Luke 24:2 -- And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary...." (Matthew 1:16) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23) This still does not explain why Joseph's genealogy is pertinent, since Joseph was a blood relative to Jesus (if the divine conception story is to be believed).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q. The siglum Q derives from the German word "Quelle," which means "Source." Q primarily consists of the "double tradition" material, that which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. However, Q may also contain material that is preserved only by Matthew or only by Luke (called "Sondergut") as well as material that is paralleled in Mark (called Mark/Q overlaps). Although the temptation story and the healing of the centurion's son are usually ascribed to Q, the majority of the material consists of sayings. For this reason, Q is sometimes called the Synoptic Sayings Source or the Sayings Gospel. Some scholars have observed that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q material, as contrasted with the four canonical gospels, are similar in their emphasis on the sayings of Jesus instead of the passion of Jesus. Arguments in favor of the Two Source Hypothesis can be found in the essay on The Existence of Q Your point about finding a copy is well taken. The early Christian Church founders, after establishing which OT and NT books were canonical (or inspired), did us no favors by destroying the heretical books they found. This presents one of the biggest problems in establishing the origins of Christianity (which may be only a secular historian's concern).
You misunderstand...it does not matter because a large number of early Christians did not believe in a literal Jesus yet still followed, promoted, and taught Christianity. That is my point. Maybe I should have said "it *did* not matter." As for the lying...again, you are thinking in a contemporary mindset. It has only been in the last 200 or so years that people have been concerned with literal fact...if such a thing exists.
Were not Jeremy and Zechariah separate OT prophets? Or are you saying that this was a reasonable mistake to make since Zechariah's prophecies were in the book Jeremiah?
Are we really going to have separate debates on each of those issues? As you have found of one side, there are numerous websites that discuss this stuff ad nauseum. These books were written by Jews (except Luke) in the 1st century who understood their Jewish heritage, not some Rockets fan who reads websites. (Although I think Jesus would root for the Rockets) So we need to "interpret" accordingly. I thought my responses were pretty straight forward without a lot of exposition. If you are continuing this thread in the hope of changing someones faith, you're going to have a tough road ahead. (Why? 1) it's hard to do on a BBS, 2) you're not doing a respectable job.) You made your point of view known. Isn't that fulfilling enough?
Where have I have said that anyone needs to change their faith? Please, anybody who is reading this read, do not change your faith on my behave. The only reason that I have gone on a bit with this thread is that I have recently done a lot of reading on the subject (origins of Christianity). The more read that I have read, the more I got facinated with the topic. I had only assumed others would be equally intrigued. My bad.
I just wanted to briefly point out that adoption is a theme that runs through the Old Testament and ancient Israelite history. I don't think it matters much that Joseph wasn't the blood father of Jesus for him to be his father and have all the rights of privileges as the man's son. That would explain the Bible's brazenness in saying he's is the son of God but also in the line of Joseph.
No Worries, I am intrigued by your questions. Like you, I've read a lot about this, too. Obviously I've come out a bit different on this. I appreciate the way you've posed your viewpoints here...the way you've asked your questions. This is beyond mere, "i believe it" stuff for me...and you've been respectful of that. I encourage you to keep reading...but don't just read the criticisms and the skeptics...read C.S. Lewis...read the Bible, itself...read "The Case for Christ", written by a journalist who was trying to show what a sham Christianity was, only to end up with quite a different result than he intended. "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis might interest you, as well. It's a classic, in my view. anyway...we've disagreed a ton before...and sometimes it's been a little hostile, i think...particularly on political issues. but i don't think you've done that here...and I hope you know that if I ever come across like I'm trying to shove my faith down your throat, it's only because it brings me so much peace.
I understand your points here...but does it really cast doubt? consider: the authors are telling the story as they heard it from other persons. they weren't at the event. they were elsewhere...and can you imagine the excitement and hurried voices the women were probably talking in? and the excitement in the hearts of the authors who followed their friend, only to watch him suffer crucifixion? are the stories really so different? particularly given the context of when the gospels were authored to the time of the event? instead of looking at these kinds of differences...i would encourage you to look at the similarities. stories are told...though not exactly the same...in all of the gospels. yet the real spirit of the story and the message is virtually identical. despite the authorship years later...and the distance between the authors.
1. That is not true...sure it is the tagline but it is still not true. 2. There are much better pro-Christian books to read, as I am sure you know...suggesting this one to a skeptic will only strengthen skepticism because it is such a waste of a book.
what isn't true??? that it's a good book?? or that the guy set out to dump on christianity only to reach a different conclusion? i heard an interview with the guy...i haven't read the book, just thought the tag line might be appropriate for someone so interested in this. Mere Christianity, then. a great read.
Now that there's a new forum, I don't feel so bad about "bumming out" the Hangout. You have done a lot of reading. But from the sources you quote, you've only researched one point of view. That's bad research because you automatically assumed everything you read as truth and presented in this thread as such. Now when I refer to "attacking of faith", that is the implication your posted view has. If it's right, my faith in Jesus Christ is unjustified and my life is again worthless. We're not talking about trivial history here, but life giving truth. If you had posted in a spirit of seeking Jesus instead of boldly stating that He never existed, I would be more understanding of your insistence of proving a website wrong. (If that's even possible on a BBS.) I again suggest our time would be better spent if you searched other sources (with opposing points of view) to get instant explanations, instead of awaiting responses here. Here's a little bit of advice when delving into this topic further: With your current point of view, you are never going to get 100% confirmation that the Bible is either true or false. Yet there is a way to confirm that the Bible is 100% true.
MM, To a lot of people politics is just a game, where brutal attacks against their opinion is par for the course and is taken in stride. Religion is different. Many people have developed their religious beliefs over many years with great care and conviction. That is why I chose to be as civil as possible about what I wrote on this topic. BTW, even though this has been a religious thread covering what could be considered a very inflamatory subject, I don't think that it caused that much acrimony (like most of the poitical threads do). I openly wonder why this thread could not exist over in the other kinder, gentler Hangout. NW
I'm late to this thread. Great discussions. A lot of good points have been made. To me, unless you believe all the New Testament books are pseudipigrapha (writings with a borrowed author's name), I can't see how one can deny the origin of Christianity as from a single person named Jesus. Passages such as 1 Cor. 15: 1-19 and 1 John 1:1-2 clearly show that the apostles did not claim to be great theoreticians (a fashionable claim in the Greek culture in those days), but witnesses of a real person.
