Was Jesus Only Human?

[firedragon]

Q is a myth. No one has ever seen Q. There's zero manuscript evidence for it.

See my post # 233 for more.

You are a theologian with education in the field. Please can you elaborate how scholars came up with the "Q"source theory (Which is a theory) and on what basis you deny it?

Saying there is no Q manuscript is not an argument for a theory of the synoptic issue.

 

[Spartan]

You are a theologian with education in the field. Please can you elaborate how scholars came up with the "Q"source theory (Which is a theory) and on what basis you deny it?

Saying there is no Q manuscript is not an argument for a theory of the synoptic issue.

Liberal theologians came up with the Q hypothesis in order to explain common material in the Gospels (so they must have been copied from an earlier source). IMO they also did that to try to distant (and deligitimize) the traditional Gospel authors from the earliest times following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so, the further Matthew, John, and Peter (Mark's Gospel) are from the time of Christ then according to the liberal Q lovers, those disciples can't possibly be eyewitnesses. The Q pundits deligitimize them. That's the short explanation.

p.s. I'm not a Ph.d. type of theologian. I have a B.A. and a Masters in Biblical Theology but I don't claim to be a full-fledged scholar.

Cheers...

 

[sojourner]

Show me the manuscript evidence for Q.

It's embedded in Matt and Lk. Pick up a copy of Synopsis of the Four Gospels (United Bible Societies), and/or
Q: The Earliest Gospel (Kloppenborg, WJK Press) and/or The complete Gospels (Miller, ed. Polebridge Press).

 

[firedragon]

Liberal theologians came up with the Q hypothesis in order to explain common material in the Gospels (so they must have been copied from an earlier source). IMO they also did that to try to distant (and deligitimize) the traditional Gospel authors from the earliest times following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so, the further Matthew, John, and Peter (Mark's Gospel) are from the time of Christ then according to the liberal Q lovers, those disciples can't possibly be eyewitnesses. The Q pundits deligitimize them. That's the short explanation.

p.s. I'm not a Ph.d. type of theologian. I have a B.A. and a Masters in Biblical Theology but I don't claim to be a full-fledged scholar.

Cheers...

I think B.A and Masters is pretty great.

See, your argument against the theory of the synoptic problem is not based on argument but since its against your belief that the Gospel writers were indeed the disciples of Jesus. thus you are beginning your thesis from patristic quotes and sources which are 2nd and 3rd century faith matters while the Gospels, if written by the disciples themselves should be early or mid 1st century. The foundation to your thesis is late traditions.

But you are not addressing the synoptic problem. If you wish to prove that theory wrong, you should attack it based on the theory and textual evidence.

 

[sojourner]

You are a theologian with education in the field. Please can you elaborate how scholars came up with the "Q"source theory (Which is a theory) and on what basis you deny it?

Saying there is no Q manuscript is not an argument for a theory of the synoptic issue.

The book: Q: The Earliest Gospel by John Kloppenborg (publ. by WJK Press) is an excellent resource for information regarding Q. It even includes a reconstructed Q text. There is material common to both Matt and Lk that is not common to Mark (but some is also common to Thomas). The short theory is that the common material represents an early source that Mark didn't take advantage of. That source is called "Q" from German Quelle.

 

[sojourner]

Liberal theologians came up with the Q hypothesis in order to explain common material in the Gospels (so they must have been copied from an earlier source). IMO they also did that to try to distant (and deligitimize) the traditional Gospel authors from the earliest times following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so, the further Matthew, John, and Peter (Mark's Gospel) are from the time of Christ then according to the liberal Q lovers, those disciples can't possibly be eyewitnesses. The Q pundits deligitimize them. That's the short explanation.

p.s. I'm not a Ph.d. type of theologian. I have a B.A. and a Masters in Biblical Theology but I don't claim to be a full-fledged scholar.

Cheers...

I don't know where you got your information, but this isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" battle of intrigue, and it's not about the ulterior motive of "delegitimizing" the "traditional Gospel authors." It's about finding a reasonable explanation (based on evidence) for why Matt an Lk share common material that is not shared by Mark. It's interesting that Q shares some material with Thomas.

 

[firedragon]

The book: Q: The Earliest Gospel by John Kloppenborg (publ. by WJK Press) is an excellent resource for information regarding Q. It even includes a reconstructed Q text. There is material common to both Matt and Lk that is not common to Mark (but some is also common to Thomas). The short theory is that the common material represents an early source that Mark didn't take advantage of. That source is called "Q" from German Quelle.

Oh yes. Great scholar. Read the critical edition of Q as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I didn't say that the text, itself was prior to 50 CE. I said (or at least meant to say) that the source for Thomas is earlier than 50 CE. That may be where the confusion lies.

It is easy to say that oral traditions even date back to the life of Jesus, by the way I agree as do most theologians, and the source of Thomas, Q?, and Mark, all known possible written records date after 50 AD, and as referenced some scholars date Thomas after 100 AD of Syrian origin.

 

[shunyadragon]

Liberal theologians came up with the Q hypothesis in order to explain common material in the Gospels (so they must have been copied from an earlier source). IMO they also did that to try to distant (and deligitimize) the traditional Gospel authors from the earliest times following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so, the further Matthew, John, and Peter (Mark's Gospel) are from the time of Christ then according to the liberal Q lovers, those disciples can't possibly be eyewitnesses. The Q pundits deligitimize them. That's the short explanation.

p.s. I'm not a Ph.d. type of theologian. I have a B.A. and a Masters in Biblical Theology but I don't claim to be a full-fledged scholar.

Cheers...

Extreme sarcasm noted as well as your your degrading many academic theologians simply as 'liberal theologians. It is by far the dominant academic view that the apostles were not the authors of the gospels, because as a matter of fact nothing of the gospels remotely date from the lives of the apostles and early in church history the gospels did not have authors.

You can disagree, ok, but you need to document your view with evidence and academic references.

Reminder: Using internal evidence only is too circular for sound argument.

 

[sojourner]

It is easy to say that oral traditions even date back to the life of Jesus, and the source of Thomas, Q?, and Mark, all known possible written records date after 50 AD, and as referenced some scholars date Thomas after 100 AD of Syrian origin.

The sources are still there, and the sources must be before 50.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what really is your point ? You don´t believe Christ was the manifestation of God, nor had the power to do miracles.

Never said this, and I have never proposed anything close to this. What I believe is not the subject of the thread

The history of them are the Gospels, so you find a way, you think, to deny their veracity.

Internal evidence only is not convincing evidence outside those that believe, and lacks convincing veracity in an argument. .

So, your reasoning goes this way, miracles cannot occur/ the record of Christś miracles is faulty/ therefore Christ did not do miracles.

No and never proposed this.

Please respond, are you a member of the Baha'i faith ?

Yes, but not an issue concerning this thread. The proposal in this thread is an objective discussion as to whether Jesus could be 'only human,' and that is what I am addressing

 

[shunyadragon]

The sources are still there, and the sources must be before 50.

Nothing must be as far as written records. Yes, oral traditions,

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nothing during the lifetime of Jesus.

...Because the writers were following their rabbi, working to do good works for tens of thousands across Israel and beyond, until the rabbi released them from (direct) mentorship, upon His resurrection from the dead!

NO, THERE WAS NOTHING DURING THE LIFETIME OF JESUS WRITTEN ABOUT HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. I WONDER WHY THAT WAS?

 

[shmogie]

Never said this, and I have never proposed anything close to this. What I believe is not the subject of the thread



Internal evidence only is not convincing evidence outside those that believe, and lacks convincing veracity in an argument. .




No and never proposed this.



Yes, but not an issue concerning this thread. The proposal in this thread is an objective discussion as to whether Jesus could be 'only human,' and that is what I am addressing

Could be only human. An extremely unique only human, since his teachings, through twelve he appointed. to the largest religion in the world.
Teachings completely different from any other religion. Most, if not all, teach that humans can do something to please God and become acceptable to him. Making the individual the author of his own salvation by his own efforts.

Christianity teaches the unconditional love of God, and that none of us can by his own paltry efforts do anything to bribe God to show us His favor.

His salvation is a free gift, unmerited favor, that we access by faith, nothing else.

The teachings stand alone, whether you believe Him God incarnate, or an uneducated laborer.

Could be is a wide open space you can drive a truck through, He could have been an alien from another galaxy ...................................

 

[shunyadragon]

...Because the writers were following their rabbi, working to do good works for tens of thousands across Israel and beyond, until the rabbi released them from (direct) mentorship, upon His resurrection from the dead!

NO, THERE WAS NOTHING DURING THE LIFETIME OF JESUS WRITTEN ABOUT HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. I WONDER WHY THAT WAS?

Good question, unanswered.

 

[Spartan]

I think B.A and Masters is pretty great.

See, your argument against the theory of the synoptic problem is not based on argument but since its against your belief that the Gospel writers were indeed the disciples of Jesus. thus you are beginning your thesis from patristic quotes and sources which are 2nd and 3rd century faith matters while the Gospels, if written by the disciples themselves should be early or mid 1st century. The foundation to your thesis is late traditions.

The supporting attestations for the traditional gospel writers may be 2nd and 3rd century, but that doesn't mean the gospel authors themselves are not mid to late 1st century writers. Scholars look not only at what was presented in the gospels, but also titles that can change, verbiage, things that aren't mentioned (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) and a lot of other factors to date the gospels. And those dates start within 20-30 years of the resurrection and go to 95 AD for John, who tradition says lived to be a very old man. In fact, critical scholarship places the first mention of the resurrection within a handful of years of the event itself. Here's the support for that:

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

But you are not addressing the synoptic problem. If you wish to prove that theory wrong, you should attack it based on the theory and textual evidence.

I've presented my answer to that a number of times previously. Here it is again:

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q (or having to make elaborate arguments for similar material in various gospels). Luke carefully investigated what happened from the earliest eyewitnesses, so his gospel reflects that material. Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. They may have even taken notes of some kind to be used later in their separate Gospels. And, according to Acts 1:3, Jesus spent forty days with them after the resurrection, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught:

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

Do you deny the Holy Spirit, firedragon? If so based on what?

 

[Spartan]

Extreme sarcasm noted as well as your your degrading many academic theologians simply as 'liberal theologians. It is by far the dominant academic view that the apostles were not the authors of the gospels, because as a matter of fact nothing of the gospels remotely date from the lives of the apostles and early in church history the gospels did not have authors.

You can have your late-dating, anti-supernatural, anti-deity of Jesus, and revisionist liberal theologians. If they had any real spiritual understanding they'd be conservative theologians, who endorse the traditional gospel authors, the resurrection of Jesus, the reality of the Holy Spirit - who is also God, and other traditional beliefs. As for liberal theologians having the "dominate academic view" that the traditional gospel authors didn't write their gospels, where's your poll on that being the dominate understanding of all theologians? That's only the view among liberals, who screw up almost everything - morality, economics, theology, etc.

You want good New Testament theology, read the traditional Gospels as they are and try not to reinvent them - as liberal theologians tend to do.

And if you think there's some fictitious material in the Gospels, then make your case. Show me your best ONE (1-just ONE, your best ONE) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case. Let's see that bad boy.

 

[Spartan]

I don't know where you got your information, but this isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" battle of intrigue, and it's not about the ulterior motive of "delegitimizing" the "traditional Gospel authors." It's about finding a reasonable explanation (based on evidence) for why Matt an Lk share common material that is not shared by Mark. It's interesting that Q shares some material with Thomas.

Was Jesus Only Human?

 

[Spartan]

It's embedded in Matt and Lk. Pick up a copy of Synopsis of the Four Gospels (United Bible Societies), and/or
Q: The Earliest Gospel (Kloppenborg, WJK Press) and/or The complete Gospels (Miller, ed. Polebridge Press).

That's a theory that Q is embedded in Matthew and Luke. You can believe that but I don't share it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Was Jesus human? Yes. That was easy.