Why I think the authors of gMatthew and gLuke are ideological hooligans

[Marcion]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

 

[SigurdReginson]

gMatthew? gLuke? aMatthew? aLuke?

You're throwing out a lot of terms I'm unfamiliar and posting only opinions. Could you post some sources to add context for me, please?

 

[Marcion]

gMatthew = gospel of Matthew
aMatthew = author of gMatthew

a reconstruction (there are different ones online) of the sayings in Q used by aMatthew and aLuke: The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Any interpretation of the writings in the New Testament can be considered as an opinion, even the more Christian ones. So I'm not sure why you made that remark.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning."

And you know this how?

 

[Marcion]

"In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning."

And you know this how?

You cannot know anything for sure about the history of the New Testament.
Most theologians accept that aMatthew and aLuke used both gMark and Q in composing their gospel stories.
So this means that in those days both gMark and Q were still accessible.
At one point in time people stopped copying Q and it went missing, unlike gMark.
The idea why this could have happened is that Q in its original form became a threat to Christian ideology once gMatthew and gLuke had become accepted gospels in the wider Church.

It became a threat because it was not "safely embedded in" (changed by) Christian interpretations.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You cannot know anything for sure about the history of the New Testament.
Most theologians accept that aMatthew and aLuke used both gMark and Q in composing their gospel stories.
So this means that in those days both gMark and Q were still accessible.
At one point in time people stopped copying Q and it went missing, unlike gMark.
The idea why this could have happened is that Q in its original form became a threat to Christian ideology once gMatthew and gLuke had become accepted gospels in the wider Church.

It became a threat because it was not "safely embedded in" (changed by) Christian interpretations.

Yes, many uncertainties. Hence my questioning of your assertions.

 

[Marcion]

Yes, many uncertainties. Hence my questioning of your assertions.

Despite all the uncertainties, I feel quite convinced that aMatthew and aLuke did something unforgiveable by violating the Q sayings in the way they did. Of course by doing so they helped shape Christianity and sent in on an even more divergent path taking it away from the main stream spiritual philosophy into the realm of religion.

 

[Left Coast]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

GMark is thoroughly ideological, or better said mythological, and we have no reason to accept it as historically trustworthy.

The existence of some "Q" source that has never been found is one hypothesis for Matthew and Luke's shared content, although it has come under scrutiny by scholars as well. I'm not convinced there was any "Q," and that the content shared by Matthew and Luke wasn't just copied by Luke from Matthew, like they both copied Mark.

 

[moorea944]

All scripture is God inspired. So why would we say anything different. And who are we to question the creator of the Universe.

Second...... if you have four people sitting around the table and someone put an apple in the center of it and were told to write a 10 page document on the apple, all four letters would be different, yet they are writing about the same thing. The apple.

There is nothing wrong with the Gospels. The apostles were not hooligans or bad people. They were God inspired people.

 

[37818]

Most theologians accept that aMatthew and aLuke used both gMark and Q in composing their gospel stories.

But that is not all Christian theologians.

 

[sojourner]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

You’re forgetting that Paul was earlier than any of the Gospels, and Paul’s theology is centered in a divine Jesus who was resurrected. I don't think you can make the case that the Gospels are that far off the mark of the orthodox thinking of the time.

 

[sealchan]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

On what basis do we have anyway of knowing to what extent these authors deviated from the teachings of Jesus?

 

[sealchan]

You cannot know anything for sure about the history of the New Testament.
Most theologians accept that aMatthew and aLuke used both gMark and Q in composing their gospel stories.
So this means that in those days both gMark and Q were still accessible.
At one point in time people stopped copying Q and it went missing, unlike gMark.
The idea why this could have happened is that Q in its original form became a threat to Christian ideology once gMatthew and gLuke had become accepted gospels in the wider Church.

It became a threat because it was not "safely embedded in" (changed by) Christian interpretations.

That's not the only possibility...people may simply have seen Matthew or Luke as more worth their effort...Q may simply be a version that went out of preference given the competitive interest that probably existed between the various gospels.

 

[alypius]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

What evidence is there supporting this claim?

 

[Marcion]

What evidence is there supporting this claim?

The evidence is that both versions of the same Jesus sayings created by aMatthew and aLuke differ, sometimes considerably in both wording and meaning.
The most primitive (unaltered) parts of those sayings can be used to reconstruct the original source aMatthew and aLuke used.
This original more complete body of Jesus sayings (both aMatthew and aLuke left out some of those sayings) has a very strong internal coherence, it is a very clear body of spiritual instructions with quite a different way of speaking than the sayings or parts of sayings that were made up by aMatthew or aLuke themselves.

Many people would argue that the letters of Paul are older than the gospel stories and that his view of Jesus reigns.
However, there is no proof whatsoever that those letters existed before the second century when they suddenly appear in the Bible of Marcion together with an older version of gLuke.
There are also no mentions of any historical Paul dating from the first century and even the first church fathers remain totally silent about Paul or his letters.
The Christian Paul of the letters and its additions and of Acts is a Christian myth eventhough there may have existed anecdotes about a first century Paul who had nothing to do with those pseudo-graphical letters.

 

[Marcion]

GMark is thoroughly ideological, or better said mythological, and we have no reason to accept it as historically trustworthy.

The existence of some "Q" source that has never been found is one hypothesis for Matthew and Luke's shared content, although it has come under scrutiny by scholars as well. I'm not convinced there was any "Q," and that the content shared by Matthew and Luke wasn't just copied by Luke from Matthew, like they both copied Mark.

The second half of gMark seems the most mythical and ideological (the Hellenistic influence that shaped most of Christianity).
However the first half of gMark may contain plenty of historical elements (perhaps somewhat exaggerated here and there), miracles of that kind are not exceptional in any serious spiritual path.

Q is too strong and coherent a text and too different from the writings of the gospel writers themselves to dismiss it so easily.
You could dispute its origins if you want to plead for a mythical Jesus, but the person who spoke those words must have been deeply spiritual himself/herself, far more spiritual than the gospel authors who added so many fake Jesus sayings.

 

[Left Coast]

The second half of gMark seems the most mythical and ideological (the Hellenistic influence that shaped most of Christianity).
However the first half of gMark may contain plenty of historical elements (perhaps somewhat exaggerated here and there), miracles of that kind are not exceptional in any serious spiritual path.

Really? Miracles are not exceptional?

So the sky opened and God's voice boomed down approval of you at the moment of your baptism, then? And you've seen people instantly cured of leprosy and paraplegia or a violent storm instantly stopped with a word?

I'd love some good evidence of any of that. But I'm willing to bet money you don't have any. And that kind of implausible, supernatural stuff runs through the entire Markan narrative, including the first half.

Q is too strong and coherent a text and too different from the writings of the gospel writers themselves to dismiss it so easily.

Q is not its own text. A separate text of Q material has never been found. Q is a hypothetical reconstruction of material shared by Matthew and Luke. Its hypothetical content comes entirely from those two Gospels. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

You could dispute its origins if you want to plead for a mythical Jesus, but the person who spoke those words must have been deeply spiritual himself/herself, far more spiritual than the gospel authors who added so many fake Jesus sayings.

I don't have to plead for a mythical Jesus to identify Mark as a historically implausible, carefully constructed piece of literary apologetics from start to finish.

 

[2ndpillar]

gMatthew = gospel of Matthew
aMatthew = author of gMatthew

a reconstruction (there are different ones online) of the sayings in Q used by aMatthew and aLuke: The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Any interpretation of the writings in the New Testament can be considered as an opinion, even the more Christian ones. So I'm not sure why you made that remark.

As Yeshua was a light to the Law and the prophets, who was to fulfill them eventually (Mt 5). If you don't like the light, go to the source, the Law and the prophets themselves. Yeshua simply explained the kingdom, laid out in the Law and the prophets, in the form of parables, in which only those with ears to hear could understand, which according to Daniel 12:10, would exclude the "wicked"/lawless.

 

[pearl]

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 -- the basic radical elements -- 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 may contain embellishments -- embellishments designed to bolster the fortunes of a struggling movement during an extraordinarily competitive period. Embellishments and obvious contradictions notwithstanding, the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Luke and Mark, do agree in essentials and do paint a rather consistent portrait of Christ. There are elements in the stories that would not have been fabricated for a completely mythological figure; the flight after Jesus arrest; Peter's denial; Christ's inability to work miracles in Galilee; his early uncertainty as to his mission; his confessions to ignorance of the future; his moments of bitterness; his cry on the cross. It stretches the imagination that so appealing a figure could be created by a few simple men in a single generation.
Some of the embellishments in the gospels must 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 -- water walking and bread making notwithstanding.

 

[pearl]

The existence of some "Q" source that has never been found is one hypothesis for Matthew and Luke's shared content, although it has come under scrutiny by scholars as well. I'm not convinced there was any "Q," and that the content shared by Matthew and Luke wasn't just copied by Luke from Matthew, like they both copied Mark.

The majority of scholars agree there is evidence for the two source theory within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and a number who do not accept the theory, just as a number of scholars do not agree there is sufficient evidence for a four source theory within the Pentateuch.