The "Q" Gospel | Clearly Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- Was there really an ancient collection of sayings from Jesus Christ circulating before the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Did Matthew and Luke really use Mark to help them write their gospels? Is there any evidence that they used a sayings source called "Q" to add additional information in their gospels? This video takes a brief look at Q as a hypothetical source for the special Matthean and Lukan material. Bible scholars and New Testament enthusiasts alike should find this video enlightening!
#newtestament #christianity #bible
- Religiosity Plus
As a Christian I greatly appreciated this video. Balanced and very educational.
I'm glad that you got to the "Sayings of Jesus" by Thomas. It's a great example for at least one "Q" source. I liked this video and the one on the Didache! Thanks for sharing. My only advice is to drop the "C.E." & "B.C.E." and use A.D. and B.C.
Yaaaaayy!! You're back! I'm so happy, I was just thinking about this channel earlier today. Loved the video! Thanks for making it 🙏
Hey PixelArt01! Good to hear from you again!
Ok…who knew that explaining The Didache would actually be easier than explaining Q. Thanks for the information. You did a great job explaining VERY complicated concepts relating to the Bible. Thank you for the video.
Thank you very much Richardglady! Your kind words are much appreciated!
Great video as usual. I've seen several videos on Q and I think you structure your presentation very well. Personally, I think Q probably did exist, in some way, shape or form. I think it's possible that Q was actually several shorter ancient sayings sources. In other words, Q wasn't just one document, but many. I have recently begun studying Mark Goodacre and think he brings up many good arguments against Q. Either way, its fun to think about!
Thank you Spirit Guru! I appreciate your kind words and find your thoughts on Q very interesting. I also think Dr. Mark Goodacre makes some really great points against Q. Indeed, it is fun to think about!
Q - means SOURCE.
Excellent explanation of Q. I find New Testament study incredibly fascinating. I am a big fan of MythVision, Gnostic Informant, History Valley, Atheologica and Esoterica so I have listened to hours and hours of theories of various religious scholars. Only one thing is for certain, there is always more to learn
Thank you Gerald! I am also a big fan of those RUclips channels you have listed! I totally agree, there is always more to learn!
Can't wait for more videos!!
This is all so fascinating! I find it sad though that so many ancient texts were lost, destroyed, 'misplaced' & whatever else. It's also astonishing how much information appears to be missing from orthodox teachings. It's important to be thirsty for knowledge, however the majority of people seem to accept whatever knowledge/texts currently exist. My mind has always been curious!
Oh but they are all coming out now just as God said it would in revelation
Another great video!! Can't wait for the next one :)
Thank you very much Scott! I appreciate your kind words! :)
What a great video l. Well done and thank you sir.
Good your back. Great video and keep them coming.
Thanks Jason! I have more in the works!
Highly appreciated video mainly because it is concise. While also being logical.
Many videos are tediously long and hard to go back and forth.
I am and exChristian of 30+ years, now an atheist for the last year and a half, and I think you explained "Q" very well. I've been studying critical Biblical scholarship for the last two years now and I have been skeptical of "Q" until I started to unpack it recently. Scholars usually specialize in one area and it's a lot to study and compare all of them and be a _jack of all trades (master of none)._ I have taken tons of notes because I can't possible remember all the different scholarship on any given subject at one time.
Not sure if this is a faith based or non-faith based channel but I just SUBSCRIBED.
Thank you icypirate! Your words are much appreciated! This is not a faith based channel. I focus specifically on the history of religion and religious texts. Thank you for your subscription!
Fascinating! I love this stuff!
Thank you Pat! I think it's pretty neat to learn about! :)
great video mate, very dense on information and we'll structured
It's a great explanation of this staff. Thanks
The term "synoptic" comes from Johann Jakob Griesbach's work "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae", written in 1776. In the book, he placed the parallel accounts in the three gospels side by side so that they could be read together (synopsis = to view together).
What's interesting about the Gospel of Thomas is how many of it's sayings also correspond to the Epistles. The theory that Thomas is actually Q is the one I'm most inclined towards.
Excellent video 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
There is so much to ponder here. I will have to watch it a couple of times. I'm still on the fence regarding the existence of Q; as a historian my bias is toward written sources. But one could spend a lifetime seeking to solve The Synoptic Problem, it goes so deep.
I'd like to see an analysis of how many parallels exist between Luke and Mathew if we assume that Thomas was Q. I know it doesn't remove all the redundancy but it must weaken the overall argument.
Enjoyed this video
Thank you very much Bubble Bunch!
This is intriguing. I understand the argument in favor of Q, but I feel like certain facts were looked over.
For instance, it makes sense that Matthew and Luke would turn to Mark as a reference; but the differences between the three can also be contributed to the authors' contemporaniousness. Matthew was a Disciple and so we can assume much if not most of his writings were from memory. Mark was most likely a teenager during Jesus' ministry, and studied under the Apostles. Luke was a convert to Christianity and traveled with Paul the Apostle, and his Gospel begins with saying that he has recorded the first hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries, which again makes sense that he would rely on multiple written sources as well as word of mouth. I think these reasons alone are a better explanation of the contradictions in timelines and contexts.
You need to read the book "Cold-Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace. He was forensic investigator and atheist who wanted to disprove the Gospels to support his beliefs. But instead, he became a Christian because of the Gospels. If the Gospels were written one exactly like the other, then he would know from his police work if that they collaborated on their separate stories because of being exactly the same. But he realized that the differences stood out like multiple witnesses seeing the same "crime" from different perspectives. Their stories were more reliable because they were each somewhat different.
That may work for a homicide case in a courtroom, but it doesn't work so great when Mathew and Luke can't agree on the actual infancy narrative, or the actual genealogy of Jesus, or why you even need a genealogy if he doesn't have a human father descending from David. When did the crucifixion take place? The synoptic version, or John's? All the details of post- resurrection are clearly different depending on the gospel you read. You call that Holy Scripture?
If that's average amount Q is used, I bet you upped that average with this video! 😂
Interesting video! I had never heard of the hypothical Q, very interesting way to account for different questions between Matthew and Luke. So, would it be to the assumption that if Q existed that it was also divinely inspired, like the Bible?
Also, another fun fact, in German we learned about quelle, but it was often in the context of a water source, like where rivers began. Interesting!
Thank you Whitley! Also, good question. I think Q was just a list of sayings of Jesus, some of which (perhaps even all?) Jesus probably really did say. So I think many Christians would say that Q, or at least the parts of Q that made it into the gospels are inspired scripture!
@@ReligiosityPlus good points! Anything Jesus actually said obviously has to be divinely inspired! He is the divine!
Q sounds like a Cliff notes version used to assist earlier believers.
As a former Muslim I wanted to convert to Christianity but I didn't anything can make me more spiritual.
I follow Daoisim now.
Ebrahimic religions are no more than allegations!!!
Hey I have a question, did ever the early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon (especially this guy), Papias of Hierapolis and others talking abt such Q sources? Like if I remember this right Irenaeus of Lyon stated that the mark and Luke got there gospel accounts directly from the apostles such as Peter and Paul could it be the the Q source could be the Founding Fathers? Well it do questions the sequencing, and what abt the Gospel of John which Irenaeus of Lyon says that it was written by John himself.
Matthew and John had direct memories of what Jesus said and did. Mark had the direct memory of Peter, his mentor. Luke had Paul and the other apostles to learn from.
The Church father Papias said Matthew was written first, in Hebrew. Matthew was later translated to Greek. Then Mark was written in Greek. Luke was written before Acts.
Important teaching like the Lord's prayer and the Sermon on the Mount I would expect to be taught by Jesus more than once over three and a half years of His ministry. This would allow different apostles to put the same teachings in different contexts.
I expect some of the apostles took written notes of Jesus's teachings and repeated them as they preached in the decades afterward. This is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John referred to as they wrote the four gospels.
Nice shirt!
You’re back!! Finally - I was just wondering what your channel was up to lol
Well thank you so much Olivia! Great to hear from you! :)
The german word „Quelle“ is more connected to the english word „well“ (you can clearly see the word root here) as in „poisoning the well“.
Still waiting for the new videos, its been almost 5 months ☹️
Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a “Q” source? And I could swear that I heard Michael Heiser say The Gospel of Thomas was 2nd century, long after the 4 Gospels were written. Am I mistaken on that?
👍
I thought the gospels of Thomas was suggested much later than the other gospels at 140 AD?
Sorry to be so late in commenting. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who claimed that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed (13:18)? I have seen advocates of the Q hypothesis claiming there were such scholars and that their claim was disproved by the discovery of the Gosepl of Thomas, but I've never seen anyone cite and quote any scholar who made such a claim.
Sure, the main guy that denies Q would be Mark Goodacre of Duke university. There are others such as David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier as well.
@@ReligiosityPlus Thanks for the reply, but that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I know there are scholars who doubt Q existed. I'm one myself. I was asking about the claim at 13:18 that, prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas (in 1945), there were scholars who argued against Q on the basis that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who made that argument and where they made it? I tend to suspect there were none and that the claim is a straw man circulated by proponents of Q. (It certainly wasn't Goodacre, Fitzgerald, or Carrier who were all born twenty-some years after the discovery of Thomas).
I reposted this because I couldn't find my first reply. Apologies if you get duplicate posts.
Awesome video!!! As the other person said, I've seen a good amount of videos about Q, but this one is really easy to follow. Also I find the last argument you brought up for markan priority really interesting as I've never heard it before, I thought you were going for editorial fatigue for a little haha. On the gospel of Thomas part though, does this mean somebof they gospels sayings may go back to the historical Jesus? Also, has anyone posited the gospel of Thomas as being Q?
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it. I think some scholars would say that a couple of sayings from the Gospel of Thomas (might) go back to the historical Jesus. Then again, other scholars would strongly disagree. I'm not sure if anyone would posit that the Gospel of Thomas is Q. The Gospel of Thomas has so many sayings that are wildly different from what we find in the gospels that it is almost certainly not Q. Thanks for the questions!
Or the more reasonable explanation on why Mathew and Luke’s texts were longer was because they made some stuff up 😂
08:44 "Did Jesus give the Lord's Prayer twice?"
Why not?
As a math teacher in a school I often repeat what I previously though my students but they, for some reason, forget. I imagine Jesus - The Son of God - to walk around and for three years to repeat the same things again and again until finally the stupid disciples start to grasp the divine ideas. :)
So, maybe, He gave The Lord's Prayer not only twice but TWO HUNDRED TIMES in different situations with different variations. It appears that The Holly Spirit considered these two versions enough to preserve them. They are enough similar to figure out what are the main points, and different enough so we can now how to use them in a practical sense without the need to be verbatim.
Yes to some extent we can say it existed but I think brother as they wrote the Gospels after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven.
So, like they wrote it the way they remembered and also they were together so obviously they would've talked or shared saying and teachings of Jesus.
It can be possible, right?
Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a Q source?
There're plains on mountain ranges, not a good choice for an example.
Never take biblical teachings from a man wearing
an AC/DC tshirt.
The wonderful scholar the late Fr John Meier accepted the Q hypothesis as most likey, but did not rule out that it was oral tradition.
Here is my point of view. What happens when you compare q with the Jesus parts of the Koran? Can we find original Jesus “gospel” here?
In Sunday school we are taught God held their hands and wrote it! 😂😂😂😂They LIED TO US!
If its hypothetical its hypothetical, not the proof
I understand the "Q" references but need some additional background on "L" and "M".
Very interesting. I am of the opinion that Mark's Gospel was written by Peter, then Matthew with Luke next. Luke is supposed to be a second gegeneration Christian and one of Paul's followers
Actually, the book was dictated to Mark from Paul. Luke was writing his Gospel at the behest of his patron, a wealthy Gentile Christian, Theophilus, and it included interviews of many witnesses. By trade, Luke was a doctor(and possibly an educated slave who had earned his master's trust). The first part of "The Acts of the Apostles", he makes direct comments to Theophilus before he records what was happening after Pentecost, and later, he traveled with Paul who was spreading the Gospel, first with Barnabas, and later with different others.
I would say Luke wouldn't have really followed Jesus around as he didn't come into the fray until Paul. And Paul never learned directly from Jesus. And Luke was a follower of Paul. And if Luke and Paul had a higher christology that maybe because he had a different agenda/belief about worshipping Jesus as God and not thanking God for sending Yeshua
I would abstain from mixing religious belief from source criticism. God sending Yeshua is religious belief and can't be addressed, and has no place, in the historical treatment of literature, be that of a religious nature or not.
Although there's little doubt Luke was pro-Pauline, as I recall he has his own authorial agenda which doesn't quite line up with Paul, as seen by his ironing out the conflict between the Jerusalem "church" and Paul, and, from memory, seeing as though Paul's conversion in Acts varies from Paul's own telling.
There's likely something else going on besides being pro Pauline, or not.
@boxerfencer well most of the 12 disciples have been displaced in our nee testament replaced with Paul and his letters judging other churches. Seems like they didn't like what Jesus taught his own apostles
@@kydenj28 I'm not sure I know what you mean. who's they? If you mean the early church, what makes you think the new testament reflects that church? Or that the new testament in a product of that organization?
The Gospels are rather late to give a good indication of what the first church really thought, and Paul's work, the earliest documents we have, doesn't clearly stipulate much of the conflict but rather like listening to half a conversation and being forced to infer what's not heard.
@boxerfencer by they I Mean the Roman's who persecuted the manipulated the Christians into accepting pagan doctrine as Christian fact. Like changing the sabbath to Sunday and all the holidays that came along woth their culture. Why do we get to read the letters by Paul but never even get to hear of the gospel of Thomas. Yet thomas would have walked with Jesus and Paul would never even have learned one thing from Jesus. So did Jesus make a mistake choosing the 12 original disciples plus the extra that replaced judas. Just to say nope those guys were wrong and it's Paul that's the guy I really meant to choose?
@@kydenj28 i don't know of any proof that the Romans forced paganism into or onto Christians. Youve got to realize that by the point you're referring to, Christians weren't Jews anymore, and therefore pagan worldview and practices come along for the ride.
Why we get to read the letters of Paul? I assume that's because they were conserved by the church because this church we have today, in most of its iterations, is Pauline.
What makes you think the author of Thomas worked with Jesus?
Did Jesus make a mistake in choosing his disciples? Good question. Depends on what you think was Jesus's objective. My personal take is that Jesus had no intentions to reach gentiles, so no it wasn't a mistake. The mistake came later and was made by Paul, who embarked on a mission never envisioned by the early church, or Jesus.
The gospel of "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become
a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven." Thomas
Q is probably coming out of Hellenistic wisdom traditions.
❤yyes
🤔Q... 🤨👉Question?🤔🤨👉Quote?🤔🤨👉Quick!🤗right to the Core!🤔Choir?
🤗Choir!😊👉a Choir!🤔acquire?👈😉👉ac...Quire!👈😇👍acquired!!!😆🤣🙃😉
Q are the comments made which are all sourced from either the written or oral Torah. Being of Jewish faith, Q aka what Jesus said and debated was based on the Torah. That is Q
1:24 "quelle" is pronounced with a k and v (like "kvelle")
Wouldn't it have been written in aramaic?
Oh yeah there was a famous book called Josephus take that book and put it next to your old testament and it basically
You are a bible scholar
So they didn’t write their own gospels ??😳😳😳
Couldn’t the Q source have been a person?
If there is no such thing as Q then what is the point
Just because “Q” has never been found, doesn’t mean Q isn’t real. I believe it is real but because it has never been found, it remains hypothetical. It helps explain much of what is found in Matthew and Luke.
How do we know Thomas is Q?
We do not know that Thomas is Q. It's entirely possible that the gospel of Thomas used Q (or something like Q) but Thomas isn't Q.
@Religiosity Plus sorry. I meant how do we know it's not Q.
No need for a physical manuscript of Q. All evidence is on internal grounds not external.
Q is the teaching of saint Thomas
Did ‘Q’ even exist then?
I was awakened between 2:30 and 3:00 on the Sabbath... December 16, 2023...and prompted to write the following...
"I'm at the beginning of every end and the end of every beginning,
Im the HI between the O's,
Im the ONE at the beginning of every 3 and the end of every 8,
Im at the beginning of every life and the end of every death,
Im the source of all that is, was, and ever will be,
Im Q- the link between life and death- the ETERNAL one...
The Incarnation is complete!!!"
Take it for what you will, but thats whats been revealed to me personally. 🙏💗💗🙏
Jesus preached for over 3 years and yet we only have a hand full of words he said. YES he most likely repeated a lot of what he said
Uh, bro. get a copy of the Five Gospel produced by the Jesus Seminar where participating biblical scholars agreed on what Jesus actually said to be printed in red, in pink what he may have said
as found in the biblical, in gray passages attributed him and black words he never spoke.
@@conradbulos6164 Just because scholars said it, that means NOTHING! That isn't even the point. I'm talking repeating himself over and over.
First things first.
The Gospels are no historical records but a catechesis for proselytes.
From that perspective the question is whether Q is just a summary of Jesus saying or his catechesis is very important distinction. When it is the later, then Q is more realistic.
How is that? When we read the real quotes and letter s of Paul we have the oldest witnesses about Jesus. And that is not much. Everything else is speculation. The Gnostic tradition has corrupted the N.T. So the real Paul is not high Christology because that is the Gnostic rubbish and lies, that we also see in the apocryphal gospels.
When we have separated the real Paul from the alleged, constructed gnostic Paul, we get a clearer view about Jesus-movement. When we then turn back to Q we see suddenly one document rise on the horizon that everyone has blocked out: The Didache. The Didache is a teaching that forms the basis of the structure in Matthew, and is very clear a teaching used in Judaism in Jesus and Paul. Q is not a saying source but a catechesis in Greek for the proselytes because they only understood Greek. The Gospel of Thomas is not a saying source but also a catechesis, a guide for spiritual life. The argument that the Didache is situated in the late 1th to the first half of the 2th century is not valid argument, because also the gospels are dating back to the same period. Secondly there is proof that the Didache is already from the time of Paul but for the year 70, because the words of the Last supper are not mentioned.
The Last supper has in the Didache still the original blessing on bread and wine as used in Judaism. And that is a very strong indication that the Didache is from an very early date.
My understanding is Paul only wrote about 3 things (i.e. virtually nothing) he claimed were direct quotes of Jesus:
1. The eucharist
2. An instruction to pay your preacher (very convenient given Paul was a preacher)
3. An instruction to not get divorced
Paul seemed to know essentially nothing about the gospel claims of Jesus' teachings, actions, miracles, etc. Instead he wrote about his own distinct theology.
Seeing the gospels and Paul's writings as catechisms makes a lot of sense.
@@canwelook I see y get what I mean. But Paul did not write anything abut the Eucharist, divorce, just maybe prayer practise. These texts that are "quoting' Paul, are texts that are later and not Pauline. In the Didache, the words of what we call now the 'Eucharist' are not present. That is the first proof that this texts is much older than that they state. When this text was found in the library of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 19th century, they immediately declared the text to be a fraud. Something we now know not to be true. If Paul created a new theology is very questionable. What he did, he did explain the old prophetic tradition and saw that fulfilled in the exalted Christ, who God revealed to him.
The sayings of jesus is the gospel of Thomas
88-90% of the naghamadi texts or dead sea scrolls were nit written on papyrus but in fact Valerian sheep skin which wasn't available to the Christians at the time of the "suspected" writng.
Dead Sea scrolls are Jewish text. All the books from the Hebrew bible. That’s all it is…
hahahhah your ignorance is showing@@LauriXjane
never said they werent semetic writtings im saying what they are being passed off as isnt whatthey are@@LauriXjane
The God Spell (Gospel) of Q is the word of Q-Anon. Q is also in the “Star Trek: The Next Generation. If you believe in the science of space and time, Einstein’s theory of relativity, then you can see the paradox of the existence of the pure force of Jesus’ words only! It is a phenomenon of reality.
TM
@@tonymcqueen7904 Q meaning source.
Q IS NOT A DOCUMENT ITS ORAL HISTORY OF JESUS
Great video. I would suggest abstaining from refering to Jesus as Jesus Christ, as that is an insider judgement call, and out of place in an historicist endeavour, whose objective is not to propagate "in group" doctrine/propaganda but provide an objective study.
That is a great suggestion. I will do that moving forward. Thanks!
Lol okay by that logic don't call Alexander the great, great.
"Yo so Alex was a pretty big conquerer."
@@ianbowden2524 are you suggesting Alexander had some sort of divine parentage, was pre-existent, and fulfilled a prophetic foreshadowing, establishing a worldwide religion?
Because if you were, sure you might have a case for similitud, as you suggest.
As for Alexander being great, that's retrospectively assigned considering his accomplishments.
In contrast. Jesus was a failed messiah, as evidenced by his crucifixion. So the appellation of Christ isn't deserved, and only assigned by his devotees, rather than from a historicist position.
Furthermore, it being a religious term and claim disqualifies it from having a place in an academic understanding of history.
Historians/academics don't make religious pronouncements. That's the job of clerics, devotees, and apologists.
@@boxerfencer it's just a title idk I just don't care.
@@ianbowden2524 could have fooled me. Just a title? Yeah, a religious title; not publically demonstrable at that.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
I think you presented your view well. But by defining "High Christology" as being that Jesus was fully divine as not really human misses the mark. High Christology is defined as Jesus being fully God and fully human, a position that the church had settled on as a position for the nature of Christ. The example you gave was considered an aboratant belief, and thus why the church developed the theological position in Christology.
It think that western academic scholarship present themselves has very well organized in scholastic manners, but treat Jesus as haphazard vagabond walking around coming up with pithy little sayings. Sayings that were put down on parchment and pondered for several decades before people decided to organize them into what we call the gospels. Thus the oral tradition model would be weak in that the original sayings would degrade in content with the followers filled in the gaps to make their own stories.
What if Jesus was a high intellectual person who organized himself, his words, and his teaching process to the best possible manner to develop other people into their highest potential not matter what their background was. Knowing that one day his dependance on the Spirit would become their dependance of the Spirit. In the same manner that the Rabbis of his day wrote things down, some of his students would work together to remember what he said and write them down. Rather than just oral tradition, you would have 100s, then 1000s, then 10,000s of students all learning and repeating the teachings. I will concede that if all these parchments were considered to be Q along with what some call oral tradition, but as such I don't Q as single document was written. I think that the Church may have commissioned some of the students and others to write what we the Gospels. I think it is completely possible that the Synoptic Gospels are the progenitors of the first written books to represent Jesus.
According to Acts and other accounts, Mark was found to be in multiple places in church history where the students turned teachers gathered in groups to both study and teach what they had learned from Jesus and then by the Spirit continued to learn from the scripture of old. Matthew and Luke as well as John all gather in the same locations for the same purpose.
If you read the academic work of Richard Bauckham you see that by studying and reference to the Jewish and Rabbinic and intertestamental literature, the Gospels in that context come out with the highest form of Christology right from the beginning, of course we accept that some of the credal forms found in the New Testament were written and used early on, which scholars seem to agree to be true. Thus High Christology, and original "books" can be considered to the Gospels that we have, a Q document is not required and the very idea that forms Q, can be Jesus and his students themselves to produce such correlations.
All that said, a hypothetical book like Q that can not be found, but such obvious correlations seem to be there, makes it nice to create an original source that no one can check. Thus we can fill in the blanks for ourselves and thus say "I believe it best be explained in Q". For you see we can say that that form of the ideas outlined in the gospels. For example we can see that reincarnations is alluded to in the gospels, why not say it was a higher teaching it Q, but the church down played as they made Jesus out to more like God. Yes we could do that and some scholars who take high view of the existence of Q do just that and the teach that Q had it.
This is not necessarily a good form, but we do it, and such as we are has meer humans.
"Most scholars" are wrong; either the method those used to date the manuscripts were inaccurate or they don't have the earliest ones. The original apostles who were with Jesus wrote them
THINK FOR YOURSELF and DONT just follow what others told you to believe was true your whole life - FREE YOUR Mind
Mind shift RUclips
Nobody knows who wrote the gospels. There is no proof that Mathew, mark and Luke did anything like writing the gospels
That is very true. I always refer to them as Matthew, Mark and Luke because it's an easy frame of reference, but there is no concrete proof those were the names of the gospel writers.
Oh my goodness, you do this video wearing an AC/DC T-shirt? Seriously? And you want listeners to take you seriously? You said one thing that is true, that is that Q is hypothetical. If you start from the wrong premise, you are sure to make wrong inferences. The statement that Matthew and Luke contain so much of Mark...etc. is hugely misleading. True theologians realise that the earlier Christology is the highest Christology, so that is also false. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone copied from anyone. In fact there are very personal features in every gospel proving that the so called "copy and paste" hypothesis is utter nonsense. Also, each gospel contains details that confirm the handed down tradition of authorship. No buddy, you're confusing people who do not have the background to judge this for themselves. You personally do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to judge the truth of these things; are you a Christian at all?? Everything here and the so called Q-source, is pure conjecture. Stop this nonsense or face the consequences.
If you're interested in the literary relationship of the synoptic gospels, Mark Goodacre's "The Synoptic Problem" is a very good introduction to the topic. I can't guarantee that you'll agree with everything he writes, but I'm sure you can learn a lot from the book.
Wow, it's almost like you didn't watch the video. First, Matthew and Luke do contain most of Mark verbatim word for word. Second, the highest christology is the latest. This is very widely known and generally accepted. Third, yes, there is a lot of literary borrowing from Matthew and Luke, and last you don't need the Holy Spirit to understand this. It's called textual criticism. Oh, and what's wrong with an awesome AC/DC shirt?
@@wannabe_scholar82 Hi Wannabe,
I've never been under the impression that there was any copying going on from one gospel to the other. Since you posted this comment, I've been comparing Mark with the other two synoptic gospels verse by verse (in original Greek) to see if there is such. You'll understand that this is a slow process, and I'm still busy with the comparison, but I'm anxious to let you know what I've found.
To date, I have yet to find a single case of narrative that would be considered plagiarist copying from one account to the other. Where exact wording agrees, this is generally scripture quoted from the Tanach (Old Testament), and that is to be expected. Even words of Yeshua (Jesus) are quoted with different sentence construction, alternate wording or changes in emphasis. This is exactly what you'd expect to find if witnesses were relating the same events (amazingly reliably, I might add) or where the testimony of witnesses concerning events were recorded by different authors. You could not expect such reliable witnesses to relate entirely different, conflicting or opposing narratives, now could you? In fact, hostile scholars often claim that the gospels ARE conflicting and inconsistent. I think they should make up their minds which it is to be honest....
Considering the sweeping statement that, "you could reconstruct the entire gospel of Mark from verses contained in Luke and Matthew, barring a few (I forget the number, was it eighteen verses?)" I must conclude that this statement is disingenuous or poorly informed and most certainly unscholarly. If you can find broad sections of scripture that I have been unable to come by in my analysis, that are indeed word-for-word copies from one gospel to the other, I'd be extremely interested in looking at those, but cannot waste further time in this verse by verse analysis, seeing that the hypothesized statement is clearly not true overall.
If the statement was that you could reconstruct the exact story, bar a few verses, that would of course be true, as the authors are covering the exact same events, and each just contains elements that the others have omitted. It is very interesting to see where they differ as well, as that sheds light on the person writing the gospel and their perspectives. For instance, If you look at Mark, it is logical that his gospel should not contain as much as the others, considering that Mark John was an early teen at the time and was not a disciple. Being the first writer, he only wanted to compose an accurate record of the general history and facts. Being the child of a prosperous family, he was reasonably educated and literate, and actually did an amazing job in terms of completeness, objectivity and accuracy. He had limited exposure to Yeshua, except for probably being present at the last supper and surreptitiously following the disciples and Yeshua to Gethsemane. This is why he is the only writer to include the story of the young man whom they found at the arrest of Yeshua, who had on only a linen cloth, and left it in the hands of his would be captors as he fled into the night naked - That was Mark John, the author.
Also, how do you explain the sections left out by each of the other authors if they were indeed copying from Mark, seeing as they do not omit the exact same parts? Had this been the case, in other words, had they left out the same sections, one could then reasonably question the reliability of those pericopes, but this is not the case. Thank you for the interaction and prodding a more detailed investigation.
P.S. - As for the higher order of christology, Mark records Yeshua's words to the Sanhedrin as, "I am, And from now on you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty, and coming on the clouds." If you even half understood the context, you would understand that this statement contains divine nomenclature, a messianic title, Prophetic quotation that can only be divine and messianic, and the most direct inference that He is equal to God in every respect; each of which would have been clearly understood by any Jew of the time. THAT is the declaration with the highest christology ever recorded. THAT is why the chief priest tore his clothes and declared the charge of blasphemy to have been heard by all present.
When you say most biblical scholars i have to laugh out loud because I've never known a single Bible scholar who would agree with what you just said. Your historical knowledge is quite a bit lacking.Strange that you have such a huge following.
Have you LISTENED to AC/DC?
Wearing that shirt + talking about Jesus = End of times moral degeneracy.
I do listen to AC/DC and I love talking about Jesus! Crazy times we are living in!
The prayer is an abomination. That’s not The most high will. Jesus was a con artist that tricked tribal people.
Exactly
14:00 Some scholars think that the Sayings Gospel of Thomas is an annotated version of Q to confirm with more (proto-)gnostic views.
J. J. Benitez ('Trojan Horse Operation') and Joseph Atwill (ruclips.net/video/zmEScIUcvz0/видео.html + Ceasar's Messiah film), also Mauro Biglino about the Old Testament (The Bible Does Not Talk About God | Summary & Analisis of Mauro Biglino’s Thesis); They can help to expand the vision...