When was first Gospel written and what was it?
Comments
-
Exactly. The fictitious Q theory along with markan priority is .... well .... a load of garbage.
Please reread the forum guidelines.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Exactly. The fictitious Q theory along with markan priority is .... well .... a load of garbage.
Please reread the forum guidelines.
Is it the word "Garbage" that you are referring to? If so, see the same usage by the apostle in Phillipians 3:8.
0 -
And no, he doesn't follow the fathers--he picks and chooses the parts he agrees with.
Yes, isnt it amazing how he completely ignored every church father or historian that taught "Q" theory [:)]
You single out miniscule issues and ignore the large ones. If you want to deny that Peter taught in Rome it still does nothing to advance your theory.
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" (Luke 1:1-2)
Luke told us that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses. "Q" theory tells us they werent. Seems pretty clear to me. Either you believe the Bible or you dont.
0 -
Is it the word "Garbage" that you are referring to?
The forum guidelines are available as a sticky post at the top of the 'General' forum (here). For your convenience, they read,
"Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
- Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
- Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
- Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software."
In my opinion, the latter part of this thread is close to contravening 1 and 2. In my opinion, your post did not conform with the expectations outlined at point 3.
0 -
Is it the word "Garbage" that you are referring to?
The forum guidelines are available as a sticky post at the top of the 'General' forum (here). For your convenience, they read,
"Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
.
.
.In my opinion, the latter part of this thread is close to contravening 1 and 2. In my opinion, your post did not conform with the expectations outlined at point 3.
[Y]
0 -
In my opinion, the latter part of this thread is close to contravening 1 and 2. In my opinion, your post did not conform with the expectations outlined at point 3.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I have said nothing on here that I would not say if you were sitting in my living room and we were discussing "Q" theory.
As far as rules 1 and 2, it is not "the latter part" of the thread that isnt about Logos software, it wasn't from the very first post.
I personally see nothing wrong with an occasional discussion of Biblical or Theological topics on a forum such as this one. Truth about any topic is not bound by time or space, location or by any laws made by man. You can censor it one place and it will spring up somewhere else. I believe the truth on this issue is particularly elusive to newcomers, because it has been obscured by "scholars", and if even one person reads my post and looks at sources that show the correct view, then the complaints of a few legalists wanting to censor it was a small price to pay [H]
0 -
When and if Q turns up, perhaps then my opinion will change.Exactly. The fictitious Q theory along with markan priority is .... well .... a load of garbage.
Let me clear this up for everyone if I may. Amazingly difficult as it might be for certain unbelieving "SCHOLARS" to believe, Matthew really was written by Matthew. It is first in the canon because it was written first. There is plenty of evidence to support these facts. Such evidence must be entirely and willfully ignored in order to place mark first, or to give credibility to any other version of oral tradition theories.
Matthew was the work of all the apostles during the time period in acts 2-3.
Why four gospels by David Allen Black is a good place to start.
I see that your answer is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw
In that case, I suggest that you read the Church Fathers and the texts and don't bother with any scholarly works. As regards Black, I recall someone saying "Beware of the man of one book." The priority of Mark is fairly well established in scholarly circles. I would suggest that you review some of the literature. Admittedly, there is some dissent – some scholarly such as Metzger, Ehrman, (yes) Black, Goodacre – and some merely dismissive such as you. You should examine the facts rather than simply dismissing a position.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
The priority of Mark is fairly well established in scholarly circles.
When you said "priority of Mark", I believe what you are referring to is the Markan priority hypothesis. It is a hypothesis, or a theory. It is not a fact. It has never been proven. Not only is there no evidence to support it, but the vast majority of testimony from the early church and relevant historians all contradict it.
... is fairly well established in scholarly circles.
In logic this is a red herring fallacy called "argumentum ad populum", or "appeal to concensus".
Does it need to be pointed out that even if all scholars did agree on something, that this does not necessarily make it true?
You should examine the facts rather than simply dismissing a position.
I have examined the facts, and now I dismiss the position which was found to be in error.
Q theory is a bogus invention of an unbelieving mind, and it cannot be reconciled with what scripture itself teaches about its origin.
0 -
The priority of Mark is fairly well established in scholarly circles.
When you said "priority of Mark", I believe what you are referring to is the Markan priority hypothesis. It is a hypothesis, or a theory. It is not a fact. It has never been proven. Not only is there no evidence to support it, but the vast majority of testimony from the early church and relevant historians all contradict it.
... is fairly well established in scholarly circles.
In logic this is a red herring fallacy called "argumentum ad populum", or "appeal to concensus".
Does it need to be pointed out that even if all scholars did agree on something, that this does not necessarily make it true?
You should examine the facts rather than simply dismissing a position.
I have examined the facts, and now I dismiss the position which was found to be in error.
Q theory is a bogus invention of an unbelieving mind, and it cannot be reconciled with what scripture itself teaches about its origin.
You seem to equate any view of the priority of Mark and the existence of Q as being a reaction of disbelief, but you really have nothing on which to base your position. The fact that both Luke and Matthew, when they argree with one another follow Mark as well as what has been called "special Matthew" and "special Luke" points to both the priority of Mark and that Matthew and Luke had access to their own traditions. You can be as abusive as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. One might ask why you bothered to raise this question since it is outside the parameters of the list. It would appear that your sole object is to create dissention.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
But I have said nothing on here that I would not say if you were sitting in my living room and we were discussing "Q" theory.
You have, perhaps unwittingly, selectively read the guidelines. The third guideline begins, 'please treat others with love, courtesy, respect and kindness...'
You, however, write,
the complaints of a few legalists wanting to censor it was a small price to pay
Neither MJ nor I have resorted to discourteous remarks. I would be exceedingly grateful if you could respond in kind and correspond in manner befitting of a forum dedicated to Bible study software.
Incidentally, this is illustrative of why I believe your earlier post does not conform with the expectations set forth by Logos.
I personally see nothing wrong with an occasional discussion of Biblical or Theological topics on a forum such as this one.
This is evident from your contribution to this thread. You are, however, now aware of Logos' intentions with regards to this forum and their express wish that users do not discuss theology or controversial matters.
Logos has provided Faithlife.com where such conversations are entirely appropriate. I respectfully request you continue this debate there.
Thank you.
0 -
The fact that both Luke and Matthew, when they argree with one another follow Mark ...
More fallacious logic. Luke and Matthew in agreement proves they are following Mark, but Mark and Luke in agreement does not prove they are following Matthew? And you begin your sentence with the word "fact"?
That the synoptic gospels contain overlapping material does not make it a "fact" that Luke and Matthew are following Mark.
The fact is that Luke tells us that he followed the account of Eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-2). Matthew was an eyewitness. He was numbered among the 12 apostles. Mark was not.
One might ask why you bothered to raise this question since it is outside the parameters of the list. It would appear that your sole object is to create dissention.
I did not raise the question. I did not start this thread. The discussion was already two pages long before I posted anything. My sole object in posting here is to make it known that Q-theory is not the only "theory", that there are much better explanations which do not require buying into the "scholarly" view that scripture is not inspired and did not originate with Jesus and his apostles. You would do well to stick with the topic of discussion.
0 -
You are, however, now aware of Logos' intentions with regards to this forum and their express wish that users do not discuss theology or controversial matters.
Andy, thanks for your contribution to my education. When I first saw the thread, a theological conversation was already taking place. In fact, some of them are still posting right now. I am curious as to why you had not already chastised all the other posters. Why would you single out one individual, and not address the entire thread? Aren't the rules for everyone to follow?
0 -
Aren't the rules for everyone to follow?
I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Blessings
0 -
My sole object in posting here is to make it known that Q-theory is not the only "theory"
Well, unless we find a copy of Q, it will always remain a theory – just as the Griesbach theory remains a theory and will continue to do so. The question is which theory best explains most of the facts and leaves out the fewest facts. It has been duly noted that the Markan priority and Q are theories. Now you can put a cover on your keyboard since your aim has been accomplished.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Scripture comes first. Mans theories ... well, do we really need them?
As a matter of fact, yes, we do need them. Unless we can categorize and organize the material and then draw conclusions from it, all we do is to "Pete and Repeat" (were sitting on a fence – Pete fell off and who was left?).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Unless we can categorize and organize the material and then draw conclusions from it, all we do is to "Pete and Repeat" (were sitting on a fence – Pete fell off and who was left?).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2Ti 2:2)
Those who repeat the truth are never a danger for anyone. It is those who "draw conclusions" that contradict truth who are a danger.
0 -
. I am curious as to why you had not already chastised all the other posters. Why would you single out one individual, and not address the entire thread?
As I was the first to evoke the guidelines, I'll answer although I am not Andy.
- Many threads that cross the line are self-correcting. I have learned to wait and see if the thread rights itself to avoid the cop image.
- The post which caused me to respond was the first to use degradation as a form of argument. That is a form not permitted in my living room - ever.
Aren't the rules for everyone to follow?
Yes, and all fall short of perfection. In society as a whole, we don't correct all errors, only egregious errors - especially those that affect others.
When I know a poster well enough to believe that they will understand I post this graphic to remind them not to be foolish in their line of argument. When I don't know them, I point them to the guidelines.
Note to all Logos users: just because you don't agree doesn't mean an argument is fallacious. An argument may be sound (logically correct) and still false if a premise is false.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
That is a form not permitted in my living room - ever.
I doubt there is much of interest in your living room. Come over to my place, we discuss things that really matter [:D]
0 -
I doubt there is much of interest in your living room.
Quite true - the kitchen is much more interesting[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Closing remarks for my part...
I'm hoping to be able to study under Black - he teaches at my seminary. He's only teaching greek during J term, and thats not a class I want to pack into two weeks.
Also apologies to Logos for violating rule number 1 &2.Is it the word "Garbage" that you are referring to?
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Closing remarks for my part...
I'm hoping to be able to study under Black - he teaches at my seminary. He's only teaching greek during J term, and thats not a class I want to pack into two weeks.
Also apologies to Logos for violating rule number 1 &2.Yay Ken [Y]
0 -
the kitchen is much more interesting
Can I give you a hand with anything? If you ask me, the kitchen is the third most important room in the house. FYI... The first is the bathroom, and the second is the bedroom.
0 -
Yes, isnt it amazing how he completely ignored every church father or historian that taught "Q" theory
You single out miniscule issues and ignore the large ones. If you want to deny that Peter taught in Rome it still does nothing to advance your theory.
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" (Luke 1:1-2)
Luke told us that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses. "Q" theory tells us they werent. Seems pretty clear to me. Either you believe the Bible or you dont.
This wasn't some minuscule point but absolutely necessary for Black's position, which has to have this implausible scenario in order to account for the obvious interdependence of the texts (he at least understands the arguments for the priority of Mark and seeks to offer an alternative, however implausible, if one may not say ridiculous). The bottom line is that he is unable to account for the evidence in a plausible way. His reconstruction also requires him to dismiss the very evidence of the fathers whom he claims to be following (and I found it annoying that he never conceded this, but kept up the pretense that his view is derived from the fathers, not the fathers except where he has to offer an alternative to Markan priority to account for the evidence, contradicting the fathers and not even acknowledging it to the unsuspecting reader who has just been told how the rest of scholarship doesn't follow what the fathers said).
Can you name the church father whom I have ignored, or are you all talk and fluff? What father said that Greek Matthew was written first? They said that Matthew wrote a Hebrew/Aramaic sayings source first. I agree with them. Like I said, you need to read them instead of just taking someone else's word and then attacking everyone else without knowing their position.
You do realize that Luke wasn't an eyewitness, and that he used 'sources' don't you? And that he apparently knows the Aramaic or Hebrew underlying the speeches of Jesus found in Greek Matthew? "Q theory" doesn't state that Q wasn't written by eyewitnesses--show me where Streeter in his classic defense ever states this. You should read Thiede's argument that Matthew took down short-hand notes of Jesus' preaching near the Sea of Galilee which he identifies with Q. You like to quote Scripture, but why don't you believe the parts about not falsely accusing others, and listening to both sides of a matter first?
0 -
This wasn't some minuscule point but absolutely necessary for Black's position ...
If Black would happen to be wrong on one point or another, it does not invalidate his entire thesis. If you disagree with his reconstruction of Peters preaching which was essentially the creation of Mark, that does not prove a Markan priority.
Nor would disproving Blacks theory entirely prove that Q-theory is correct. This is basic logic.
The church Fathers are not the most unified bunch, so anyone who quotes them will always have an opponent who can find another one to contradict what has been quoted. Sometimes they even contradict themselves. But attempting to pretend that they are a monolithe is not the point.
The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
It was critical scholarship that later on wanted to deny apostolic authorship and invented numerous theories, none of which can be proven.
Those who invented Q theory wrote off all the early Christian testimony and invented their own fictitious account of where the scriptures came from. The primary motivation is obvious to see ... they do not believe the scriptures. Astonishing fulfillment of New Testament prophecy which came to pass in the late 1st century forever proved Christ and his apostles to be absolutely genuine. Scholarship had to find a way to deny this amazing Revelation from God. Inventing theories that the scriptures were written after the fact, with plenty of time for "editing" of course, by people who did not witness anything was the solution.
Today the late dating is falling apart as more and more evidence proves it wrong. Yet many still cling to the bogus theories that gave rise to those bogus dates.
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew ...
- Eusebius of Caesaria, citing from Origin (185-253AD)0 -
The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
I hope you don't expect that the Church Fathers would call it "Q" since that is a designation derived from German (Quelle – "source"). Since you cite Eusebius, let us see what he has to say regarding this.
1 And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,2 a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.Church History, Book 2, cap 15. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Edited by Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890.
It is hardly questionable that there were oral traditions circulating at the time. Note all of the apocryphal gospels which were written, mostly under gnostic influence. That these have been subsumed under the label "Q" seems to bother you.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
If Black would happen to be wrong on one point or another, it does not invalidate his entire thesis. If you disagree with his reconstruction of Peters preaching which was essentially the creation of Mark, that does not prove a Markan priority.
No, if he is wrong on this, then he hasn't accounted for the obvious textual interdepedence and he consequently doesn't have an argument. There's no 'happens to be' about it--it's crucial to his position that Mark and Luke used Matthew, rather than Greek Matthew using Mark and Q (or, as I prefer, and so hereafter, Aramaic Sayings Matthew).
[quote]
Nor would disproving Blacks theory entirely prove that Q-theory is correct. This is basic logic.
Again it's not, because Black's is trying to disprove Q/Aramaic Sayings source. If he fails to do this, then Aramaic Matthew Sayings source still stands as the only alternative. You don't seem to be following the logic here, despite your appeal to 'logic'.
[quote]The church Fathers are not the most unified bunch, so anyone who quotes them will always have an opponent who can find another one to contradict what has been quoted. Sometimes they even contradict themselves. But attempting to pretend that they are a monolithe is not the point.
So your guy has to throw out the earliest fathers--including Papias--and you make excuses for him. When scholars do this, they are the devil. When Black does it, you excuse it. Am I wrong?
And no, actually the earliest church fathers are unified. Prove otherwise instead of just stating it. They would have to be unified, since they all basically followed Papias, who learned his stuff from John the Evangelist himself, who knew Peter and probably wouldn't have gotten his facts about Peter and Mark's Gospel wrong. Oops, now it's you who are throwing out the fathers because they disagree with your theory[^o)] I hope God doesn't send you to hell for it like you seem to want to want him to do to others.
[quote]The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
No, they didn't say 'Q'. But they did say that Matthew was originally a Hebrew or Aramaic sayings source which was later interpreted. Since Q can be defined (Thiede etc) as an Aramaic sayings source which was later interpreted, how is it different?
[quote]It was critical scholarship that later on wanted to deny apostolic authorship and invented numerous theories, none of which can be proven.
And your view can be proven? What other theories are these? Streeter didn't want to deny apostolic authorship. So why did he come up with Q? Because he sat down and saw that there must be textual interdependence. If you knew Greek and had a halfway reasonable mind you would see it too.
[quote]Those who invented Q theory wrote off all the early Christian testimony and invented their own fictitious account of where the scriptures came from. The primary motivation is obvious to see ... they do not believe the scriptures. Astonishing fulfillment of New Testament prophecy which came to pass in the late 1st century forever proved Christ and his apostles to be absolutely genuine. Scholarship had to find a way to deny this amazing Revelation from God. Inventing theories that the scriptures were written after the fact, with plenty of time for "editing" of course, by people who did not witness anything was the solution.
Wrong again, Q was around before Bultmann, and was motivated by the desire to account for the textual interdependence. The original proponents of Q identified it with Papias' sayings source, which was eyewitness testimony. Streeter wasn't an unbeliever either. Thiede has argued that the Gospel of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hardly fits your caricature does it?
[quote]Today the late dating is falling apart as more and more evidence proves it wrong. Yet many still cling to the bogus theories that gave rise to those bogus dates.
It's not falling apart. I hold to an early date for the Aramaic sayings source and Mark, but I would hardly say the consensus is falling apart. How is it falling apart exactly? Even most so-called evangelicals put Matthew around 70 AD.
[quote]Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew ...
- Eusebius of Caesaria, citing from Origin (185-253AD)You didn't even finish the quote. This really seems to demonstrates either dishonesty or gross ignorance on your part, since the quote contradicts you and speaks only of Hebrew Matthew:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language
Furthermore, as everyone knows, Origen got this from Papias, the guy whom you now say didn't know what he was talking about, for no other reason than that Black can't accommodate what he says and still dispose of Marcan priority.
0 -
I hope you don't expect that the Church Fathers would call it "Q" since that is a designation derived from German (Quelle – "source"). Since you cite Eusebius, let us see what he has to say regarding this.
The quotation you posted actually supports my view and is rejected by Q-theory advocates. It says nothing of mysterious sources, by any name you wish to give them. It in fact tells us who the source was, and it is referring to direct apostolic authorship at the hand of Peter. "Q" theory denies apostolic authorship, as that was the whole purpose for which it was invented.
It is hardly questionable that there were oral traditions circulating at the time. Note all of the apocryphal gospels which were written, mostly under gnostic influence. That these have been subsumed under the label "Q" seems to bother you.
Key phrase here is "at the time". At which time? Are you claiming that apocryphal gospels were being written and circulated at the same time that the apostles were out preaching, as Peter was in your quotation? If so, you are mistaken. This should be obvious just by looking at the their content.
The countefeits and perversions which arose quickly afterwards were foretold by Jesus and the apostles. (Mark 4:15, Acts 20:29-30, 1Tim 4:1) Their existence does not disprove apostolic authorship of the four genuine gospels, nor does it prove Q-theory or Markan priority to be correct.
The real issue here is that proponents of Q theory and/or Markan priority deny apostolic authorship. At best, a small handful of authentic sayings of Christ are mixed in with a bunch of fiction (your "oral traditions") added later by non-eyewitnesses.
The New Testament authors claim to be eyewitnesses. If a person does not believe them, then I have to wonder why they would bother to have any interest in the New Testament at all? Why spend time and effort studying a book you do not believe? But that seems to be what modern scholarship has evolved into.
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem ..." (Acts 10:39)
0 -
You didn't even finish the quote. This really seems to demonstrates either dishonesty or gross ignorance on your part, since the quote contradicts you and speaks only of Hebrew Matthew:
While reading your lenghty post, I made notes of several incorrect statements and logical errors. I had intended to respond to it until I got to this portion, which caused to me question whether or not it is worth it.
I quoted a portion of the text and supplied an ellipsis for the sake of brevity. Now I am being accused of dishonesty or gross ignorance. Judging from the length of your post, I understand that brevity on a message board is not a concern which you share, but the ad hominem nature of your attack is uncalled for in any case.
No one here has rejected papias or any of the church fathers. At this point the majority of your post is straw-man argumentation, and I find it almost humorous that it was yourself who objected to the "tone" of others earlier in the thread.
Since I cannot see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion, I believe this is a good point to end it.
I highly suspect from some of your comments that you have not even read Black. Anyone else who might be following this thread and have an interest, I encourage you to read Black for yourself. He has been misrepresented here. My comments were factual but some were taken out of context or misconstrued.
To Summarize: The Bible is true. Matthew was written by Matthew along with the other apostles. It is first in the canon because it was the first to be written. Q-theory is a man-made theory which is false.
One last note on the "textual interdependence" comment. This is where Black is strongest. He completely reconstructs the gospel of Mark from readings in Matthew and Luke. Anyone who claims he is weak in this area simply did not read it or is not intellectually honest.
0 -
Key phrase here is "at the time". At which time? Are you claiming that apocryphal gospels were being written and circulated at the same time that the apostles were out preaching, as Peter was in your quotation? If so, you are mistaken. This should be obvious just by looking at the their content.
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.Lk 1.1-4
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles. I think it incontrovertable that the gospels are the summation of the teaching of the early Church and not simply historical accounts. In fact, not historical accounts at all. A simple comparison of the gospels with attention to the order of events which differ from one to the other and even the content of some events, many of which could only have happened once. and therefore not be reports of subseqent similar events, make plain. I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
