The Q source. Is it truly original Jesus, is it Christian, or is it "Sayings of a Tantric Master"??

[Marcion]

I think it raises a question not yet considered; How much did this wholly human Jesus know? Ignorance is part of the human condition. In order to properly understand the Gospels, and for that matter, the entire Christian Scripture is to begin in the order in which they were written, backwards, beginning with post resurrection faith.
The Jesus of Q is not a messiah. He was not born of a virgin. He did not perform miracles. He did not die on the cross. There was no resurrection. What remains nonetheless is an extraordinary character and an intriguing figure who made a lasting impression on his followers, believed in an immediate Kingdom, and saw himself as a successor to John the Baptist. the gospel we have here may contain embellishments -- embellishments designed to bolster the fortunes of a struggling movement during an extraordinarily competitive period. Some of the embellishments in the gospels ought be seen in the light of the times. It was a time when Jews were waiting anxiously for a Redeemer. It was a time too when magic, witchcraft, demons, angels, possessions and exorcisms were generally taken for granted -- as were miracles, prophesies, divinations and astrology. In that context the miracles ascribed to Jesus, although wrongly interpreted, are not beyond belief. Certainly the figure of Jesus acquired mythological traits.

That is the more general view of the Jesus of Q but it is not mine as you can read in my previous message.
I don't see the Jesus of Q as a human Jesus in the way you seem to imply.
Though I am not a disciple of Jesus, I do believe that the Jesus of Q is 'one with the Father' and capable of doing supernatural feats. I do think the idea of a Son of God and Messiah (predicted in the Jewish scriptures) and born in Nazareth were things made up by Christians later on (put into his own mouth though).

Can you present the Q-lite?

Did I not answer that in my previous posting? Or do you mean something else? Sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English.

 

[firedragon]

That is the more general view of the Jesus of Q but it is not mine as you can read in my previous message.
I don't see the Jesus of Q as a human Jesus in the way you seem to imply.
Though I am not a disciple of Jesus, I do believe that the Jesus of Q is 'one with the Father' and capable of doing supernatural feats. I do think the idea of a Son of God and Messiah (predicted in the Jewish scriptures) and born in Nazareth were things made up by Christians later on (put into his own mouth though).


Did I not answer that in my previous posting? Or do you mean something else? Sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English.

What I am asking is brother, since you are quoting Q-lite many a time, can you give the Q-lite? What is the Q-lite? What are the verses? Please present it.

 

[Marcion]

What I am asking is brother, since you are quoting Q-lite many a time, can you give the Q-lite? What is the Q-lite? What are the verses? Please present it.

I have now answered you twice, please elaborate what is not clear about my answer.
Do you not see the link in my signature? I can repeat it for you in this message if you cannot see signatures of other users:
The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

 

[firedragon]

I think it raises a question not yet considered; How much did this wholly human Jesus know? Ignorance is part of the human condition. In order to properly understand the Gospels, and for that matter, the entire Christian Scripture is to begin in the order in which they were written, backwards, beginning with post resurrection faith.
The Jesus of Q is not a messiah. He was not born of a virgin. He did not perform miracles. He did not die on the cross. There was no resurrection. What remains nonetheless is an extraordinary character and an intriguing figure who made a lasting impression on his followers, believed in an immediate Kingdom, and saw himself as a successor to John the Baptist. the gospel we have here may contain embellishments -- embellishments designed to bolster the fortunes of a struggling movement during an extraordinarily competitive period. Some of the embellishments in the gospels ought be seen in the light of the times. It was a time when Jews were waiting anxiously for a Redeemer. It was a time too when magic, witchcraft, demons, angels, possessions and exorcisms were generally taken for granted -- as were miracles, prophesies, divinations and astrology. In that context the miracles ascribed to Jesus, although wrongly interpreted, are not beyond belief. Certainly the figure of Jesus acquired mythological traits.

The Q source does not present Jesus as a naturalistic person or negate anything as such. You should understand that the Q source is a set of sayings "Of Jesus". What ever he was, who ever he was, Christ or just another man who's sayings people adopted, it is still a collection of sayings. An absence of description in a book of sayings does not mean you can create your own description.

 

[firedragon]

I have now answered you twice, please elaborate what is not clear about my answer.
Do you not see the link in my signature? I can repeat it for you in this message if you cannot see signatures of other users:
The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

I have read that website article, and as you should see it is even quoted in my OP.

Present the Q-lite. Not just "what it is". Not just theory. The exact verses.

 

[Marcion]

I have read that website article, and as you should see it is even quoted in my OP.

Present the Q-lite. Not just "what it is". Not just theory. The exact verses.

It is a reconstruction. The exact verses of this particular reconstruction are in the article.
If it is exact certainty about the historicity of a reconstruction you are after, you will not find it.

 

[firedragon]

It is a reconstruction. The exact verses of this particular reconstruction are in the article.
If it is exact certainty about the historicity of a reconstruction you are after, you will not find it.

I asked nothing about the historicity. I asked for the exact content of Q-lite you keep quoting my friend. Its a simple question.

 

[oldbadger]

As everyone knows, Q is a hypothetical source that came up as a filtration of commonalities between the synoptic gospels Matthew and Luke. Well, there is a lot of scholarship behind it, and some scholars have even endeavoured to construct a scroll which they think would have been similar to this scroll which preceded both Matthew and Luke which would by definition be more authentic, and closer to the source.

I will leave a lot of questions and issues that prop up due to this finding, but there is a curious case that I came across recently due to a gentleman in the forum and I wish to explore this further if anyone could contribute.

Reading this article The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene one would immediately find this finding.

Some evangelical Christians have gone onto propagate that Q would be not just most authentic "earlier", but "THE AUTHENTIC" sayings of Jesus. I hope one could make the distinction between most authentic and the authentic. Nevertheless, this article speaks of a Jesus who is portrayed as a Tantric Teacher or Master which is the correct depiction of Jesus, not the Christian or the Biblical depiction of Jesus as we have currently understood.

What would you have to say about this particular topic? Is this article sound? Was Jesus a Tantric Master?

No. Neither.
Jesus picked up the Baptist's campaign against Temple corruption after his arrest, and carried it forward for about 11-12 months.
What happened after Jesus disappeared is all spin, imo.

 

[firedragon]

No. Neither.
Jesus picked up the Baptist's campaign against Temple corruption after his arrest, and carried it forward for about 11-12 months.
What happened after Jesus disappeared is all spin, imo.

I think you understood the Q source hypothesis wrong. Or maybe I didnt understand you.

 

[Clara Tea]

From my belief system as a follower of Meher Baba, Jesus was an incarnation of the one, eternal Avatar. As God in human form, he could make use of anything needed to fulfill his mission on Earth.

So he could have used Tantra if needed and recast it for a new audience who needed a new formulation. And he could have taught differently to his close ones who were ready to hear more than a general audience could understand.

But I don't believe he was of the lower stature of only being a Tantric Master.

Why does the master of all bother with lowly minions? Why tell Abraham to kill Isaac, if the most powerful of all is able to slay him with a mere glance? Why order man about if God can do all? Why seek admiration and worship from lowly worms? Young kids sometimes become kings of ant hills, killing those who stray, and demanding complete obedience from those whose movements seem almost random. Is God a kid? Something like Trelaine of original Star Trek?

 

[Clara Tea]

No. Neither.
Jesus picked up the Baptist's campaign against Temple corruption after his arrest, and carried it forward for about 11-12 months.
What happened after Jesus disappeared is all spin, imo.

Jesus shall never check into that hotel again....made him carry his own luggage (cross)....treated him terribly (no food...lousy room service)....gave him no respect at all. Frankly, the last thing I'd carry to a crucifixion is a cross.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think it raises a question not yet considered; How much did this wholly human Jesus know? Ignorance is part of the human condition. In order to properly understand the Gospels, and for that matter, the entire Christian Scripture is to begin in the order in which they were written, backwards, beginning with post resurrection faith.
The Jesus of Q is not a messiah. He was not born of a virgin. He did not perform miracles. He did not die on the cross. There was no resurrection. What remains nonetheless is an extraordinary character and an intriguing figure who made a lasting impression on his followers, believed in an immediate Kingdom, and saw himself as a successor to John the Baptist. the gospel we have here may contain embellishments -- embellishments designed to bolster the fortunes of a struggling movement during an extraordinarily competitive period. Some of the embellishments in the gospels ought be seen in the light of the times. It was a time when Jews were waiting anxiously for a Redeemer. It was a time too when magic, witchcraft, demons, angels, possessions and exorcisms were generally taken for granted -- as were miracles, prophesies, divinations and astrology. In that context the miracles ascribed to Jesus, although wrongly interpreted, are not beyond belief. Certainly the figure of Jesus acquired mythological traits.

Wholly human? Dad was God. Though it is obvious that Jesus was stripped of power while being crucified.

All those who shaped human thought and development (Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, and me) are great. (Oh, come on, it's just a two letter word....give me that). Most are not worshiped as Gods.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus shall never check into that hotel again....made him carry his own luggage (cross)....treated him terribly (no food...lousy room service)....gave him no respect at all. Frankly, the last thing I'd carry to a crucifixion is a cross.

.........What makes you think that Jesus did?

 

[firedragon]

Frankly, the last thing I'd carry to a crucifixion is a cross.

What if you are forced by the Roman Empire?