0a5f2f No.5047
A document written by one sneaky jew managed to subvert all of Christianity.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
436101 No.5051
The Q source theory is a contrived answer to a contrived non-issue with the obvious intent of discrediting the scriptures.
Q doesn't exist. Luke wrote Luke. Matthew wrote Matthew.
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5052
Yes, Luke wrote Luke and Acts. He wasn't an apostle, so he had to have gotten the information from sources. Q is a conjecture about sources for Luke and Matthew.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
620b9a No.5054
>>5051
Well I don't know if that's completely true
It is true that Q is a conjecture, but its not one used to discredit the gospels
It just notes that the gospel of mark is the oldest and seems to have parts that overlap with Matthew and luke, but Matthew and Luke also have parts that overlap with each other than are not found in Luke, which scholars think is from a Q document
Most scholars today think that Mark was written first -
They also note that the gospels of Matthew and Luke have
1) parts in common with Mark,
2)parts in common with each other but not in common with mark
3)their unique bits
Since Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, scholars think they used Mark as a source
some scholars think that the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common, but are not found in Mark were copied from a third document called the Q doc.
have unique bits
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5055
>>5054
And all the cucked crap like love your enemies and turn the other cheek comes from Q. There’s no cuckoldry in Mark and John.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
436101 No.5056
>>5055
Why trust any of the Bible if its corrupted this way in your view? Are you Christian?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
620b9a No.5057
>>5055
Mark may not explicitly say love your enemies, the beatitudes or judge not, but it certainly strongly implies it and I don't see anything inconsistent with the other gospels
I'm pretty sure some variation of the golden rule is in Mark - it does say to love your neighbor
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5058
>>5056
Yes, I’m a Christian and I can trust the non-evil books of the Bible because they’re written by different authors.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5060
>>5057
Since when does love your neighbor imply cuck yourself?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
436101 No.5061
>>5058
What's the gospel according to you, and what's the Canon?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
620b9a No.5062
>>5058
You treading into heresy here anon - the books of the bible were chosen by church counsels with the aid of the holy spirit, for you to redo and rethink that on your own is asking for trouble
read revelations 22:19
>And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
this means that god will punish those who add to the bible and take away books from the bible
and without exception every single group that has tried to add to or take away from scripture has ended up heretical
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5066
>>5062
>this scroll
It’s specifically talking about Revelation. Protestants removed books from the Bible. Translators add and remove words every day. Are all Protestants and translators damned?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5067
>>5061
Whichever ones bear good fruit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5068
>>5062
Prooftexting a bit from Revelations to refer to the choices of the councils is ultimately the reason everyone now is asking whether this or that book truly belongs. Instead of "does it tell ys what the Apostles were thinking about", we now demand "how easily can this be prooftexted to say something heretical"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
620b9a No.5069
>>5068
the reason we prooftext is because we test our beliefs and assumptions against what the scripture says
the reason we do this is because we believe that the scripture is the word of God
if you believe you know better than the church counsels and the over a mellenia of Christians that have used the four gospels - fine - you're unlikely to make it into heaven until you change that stubborn and prideful attitude but fine
if however, you want to convince the rest of us that the church counsels and the over a millenia of christians were wrong, you better come up with better reasons that "dem joos" "cuck"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a5f2f No.5071
>>5069
The church counsels decided Tobit, Maccabees, etc should be in the Bible yet Protestants removed them. If you’re Protestant you’re in no position to speak the way you do.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a3f26c No.5072
>>5067
That doesn't answer the question
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5073
>>5069
Scripture says lots of things, it was never meant to be prooftexted from. Will all who call on the Lord be saved or will many who say Lord, Lord be ignored? A decade ago everyone passed around these lists of contradictions, well, where did Luther and Calvin get their bizarre interpretations of the New Testament?
The Bible is there to tell you about Jesus and what Apostles were thinking about. Pentecost is the reason Matthew and Deuteronomy are in the Bible and everything written after the age of the Apostles isn't.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a3f26c No.5074
>>5071
False. The inclusion of those debated books in the Roman Canon occurred post Reformation
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5075
Related to prooftexting, the open your Bible to a random verse to know what God wants you to think about thing is magic
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0bd25 No.5076
>>5051
So according to your logic: If you don't like something, it must mean it was contrived in order to discredit Christianity, but if you do like it then it's of course the truth. You know atheists do literally the same thing in reverse? All scholars agree Jesus existed as a historical person, his baptism and crucifixion are considered to be undeniable historical facts. Militant atheists get mad at this and try to claim these scholars are just trying to promote Christianity. You know, maybe you should actually investigate these things before making presumptions. Q is a hypothesis, a hypothesis widely accepted in New Testament studies because the case for it is well established. But there are a minority of scholars who accept other hypotheses. If you perhaps hold one of these minority positions then share your reasoning instead of simply dismissing other hypotheses you don't like and then go on to discredit all of New Testament scholarship because something like the Q source hypothesis is promoted by the majority. Use valid sources too when you give your reasoning. CARM isn't one of them as it has been found on numerous occasions to have faulty information/and or faulty reasoning including on this subject.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a3f26c No.5077
>>5076
No, it's my contention that the q theory is not consistent. Do not apply your strawman to me.
CARM is a stellar resource for succinctly explaining the conservative evangelical position on a number of topics. It's not an original source for novel ideas, but this isn't a master's thesis it's an imageboard thread. The onus is on you to find why carm is deficient in this instance.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a0bd25 No.5078
>>5077
>The Q source theory is a contrived answer to a contrived non-issue with the obvious intent of discrediting the scriptures.
And the onus is on you to show how the obvious intent of the Q hypothesis is to discredit the scriptures.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5079
carm's claim is the gospels were written before 0070. The theory is Q would have been written during or shortly after the early '30s, and then informed the evangelists, but never actually have been copied. Why wouldn't Q have been preserved?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a3f26c No.5080
>>5078
Oh that's because the theory makes the scriptures out to be unreliable, inconsistent with the unavoidable doctrines of inerrancy and plenary inspiration. If Q existed, the authors who copied from him are made liars.
I ascribe intent because the discrediting of the authority of scripture is an open objective of higher criticism and theological liberalism more broadly. I'm sure there are earnest thinkers who find the q theory compelling without that goal.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5ee064 No.5081
>>5074
Those books are included within the Septuagint, and from an Orthodox perspective, they have always been part of the canon. So, the idea for them did not suddenly appear with the Roman Catholics as you are implying.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5082
>>5080
Why? Do you think Luke was watching Jesus, or do you think he was a liar? You're the one imposing modern ideas about scholarship onto the evangelists.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a3f26c No.5083
>>5081
That's a fair debate but the other guy was using Roman councils as a proof against the Protestant Canon, which just doesn't make sense.
When you say orthodox what standard are you appealing to?
>>5082
What? I think we're talking past each other.
Luke consolidated the information as a third party source as he says in the introduction to Theophilus, and he was also under the inspiration of the Spirit.
Matthew was writing his firsthand account, except for those occasions where he wasn't present but he includes, and he was also under the inspiration of the spirit.
Where is my imposition?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8a717c No.5086
So why is it okay to say Luke compiled various sources, but not that he could have used the same list of Jesus quotes that Matthew used?
For the OT, some books are in because the apostles or evangelists or the Lord Himself referred to them, some because the Holy Spirit spoke through them, some of them to give background on the life and times of Our Lord and His apostles. "Just use the Septuagint lol" is how you get into bibolatry and prooftexting. The Bible has value inasmuch as it directs us towards Jesus and the faith given to the Apostles.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
620b9a No.5087
>>5082
Well luke was clearly not watching Jesus and was not claiming to be watching Jesus
Church tradition holds that it was written by the evangelist Luke who was a companion of Paul
>>5086
bibolatry and prooftexting.
what are these buzzwords anyways
you're just using bibolatry to mean taking the bible seriously and beliving it and you're taking proof texting to mean using the bible to guide us as to what is good and bad and true and false
Both of those are good things that Christians do
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f488e9 No.5088
is this Q character the name origin for the glowbug (((Q))) larp and all the pseudo scripture "trust the plan" hokum it puts out?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f488e9 No.5089
>>5087
Doesn't any association with the liar Paul inherently put its legitimacy under extreme doubt?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
436101 No.5090
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3152fa No.5092
>>5087
taking the Bible seriously means understanding who wrote what when, why it's in there and how it came to us. The point of this exercise is to be pointed towards Jesus, the Word made flesh, not to cite random verses to justify whatever we want to say.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f488e9 No.5093
>>5066
they didn't remove them they moved them to the apocrypha
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f488e9 No.5094
>>5093
Unless I'm misunderstanding you words
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
879ea5 No.5095
>>5066
>Protestants removed books from the Bible
You can't remove what was never there
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a5c068 No.5098
>>5095
This. St. Jerome originally didn't want to bother translating the apocrypha into Latin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5ee064 No.5102
>>5083
>When you say orthodox what standard are you appealing to?
The Pedalion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
