Early Christian writings..

[Extirpated Wildlife]

What is the Lost sayings of the Gospel Q?

 

[ZiSunka]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

 

[isshinwhat]

I personally do not think there was a Q Gospel. The theory says that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q to write their Gospels, but the Early Fathers are unanimous that Matthew was the first Gospel account written. That is the reason I have to reject the theory. I trust the Early Church moreso than hisotrians 2000 years after the fact.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

I just re-read my post and I apologize if it sounds rude. I wrote it quickly.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[ZiSunka]

It didn't sound rude at all.

And I agree with you, although I do think that there was a lot of writing after the resurrection that simply didn't get handed down and is now lost. These writings may have had an influence on some of what is now in the Biblical canon. But I don't think that there would be any major surprises in those writings. Jesus is clearly the only way, which is radical enough, and early writings would have supported this outrageous concept, not refuted it.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Thanks..

I was plaining on reading some of that stuff. I may have other questions later, but i enjoy the help.

 

[dignitized]

The "Gospel of Q" is an easy way to explain the agreement of the first 3 gospels without having to accept that Scripture is God-breathed.

 

[Avila]

And I agree with you, although I do think that there was a lot of writing after the resurrection that simply didn't get handed down and is now lost. These writings may have had an influence on some of what is now in the Biblical canon. But I don't think that there would be any major surprises in those writings. Jesus is clearly the only way, which is radical enough, and early writings would have supported this outrageous concept, not refuted it.

ITA!! Why else would the Patristic writings be so "in tune" with one another in their theology and doctrine? This is, of course, excluding the spurious writings.

 

[dignitized]

I assume by spurious Avile you mean the NT Deuterocanonical texts Too often Spurious is applied to Apocryphal texts as well.

 

[VOW]

To Br Max:

You mean like the Gospel of Thomas? Or the "missing books" of Mark?

I saw the movie "Stigmata" and became curious about the so-called Gospel of Thomas. The priest in the movie quotes one verse from this alleged Gospel, and it's quite intriguing.

I have to admit, the author of the screenplay must have scoured the Gospel to find the ONLY line that made any sense. When I read Thomas, a giant question mark formed over my head, and I finally threw my hands up in the air and said, "What IS this GARBAGE?"

People like to tout the "missing books of the Bible" and act like the world was done a great disservice when Thomas was omitted from accepted Scripture. After reading Thomas, I wanted to holler in a bullhorn: "Hey, folks, there's a REASON why this nonsense wasn't included!"


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[dignitized]

Vow,

There is a great difference between Apocryphal (HIDDEN WRITTINGS) and Pseudopigraphal (FALSELY ATTRIBUTED WRITINGS). There are many books out there with these texts included which are rather valuable but they are only such if they include the history of the text as well as the content. Many texts that claim to be patristic origins are from much later dates. Many other later texts are equally false in their claimed authorship. A later example of this phenomenon would be the false decretals of Isidore, which ST. Thomas Aquinas sadly depended a great deal on for support for his Suma.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Br. Max
The "Gospel of Q" is an easy way to explain the agreement of the first 3 gospels without having to accept that Scripture is God-breathed.

Isn't it more reasonable to say that the other two authors of the synoptic Gospels copied Mathew in structure?

 

[dignitized]

s0uljah,

Its easiest to tell the truth that not only did Matthew, Mark and Luke share a common teacher in Peter, but that they were all three Pens in the hand of God through the Holy Spirit. God is the author the Gospels, Matthew Mark and Luke were just the men who shared Gods writing with us.

 

[Avila]

Br. Max - yes, I meant the ones, such as a supposed letter regarding Mary (I can't remember, maybe by Ignatius? or Polycarp?) that does not fit in with the author's other writings or Tradition.

 

[your_quagga]

VOW,

the film stigmata is probably the worst film about faith that i have seen in a long time...it's treatment of the gospel of thomas is rather punk at best, and my favorite part of the film is gabriel bryne deciding to become a jesuit because he knew "there must be something else" beyond forensic science...yeah, there's a career move...

the so called "q" is a mythological text reconstructed from the structure of the canon...

 

[dignitized]

quagga: I agree the whole notion of the movie stigmata was absurd. The idea that a Saint of God would come back and possess an unbeliever thus causing her to manifest the "stigmata"?? Dogma was more spiritually true.

 

[your_quagga]

i agree br.max....and i laughed very hard at alanis morrissette...hahahaha....

but stigmata goes a long way to show how perverse things can get when you start pretending there are extraneous gospels. had the treatment of the text of the thomas gospel been more accurate, it might have made for an interesting film in which there was demonic possession as a result of a false text being presented as Truth...but hollywood will be hollywood...hahaha....

 

[VOW]

I thought the people who produced "Stigmata" should have been horsewhipped. A priest who has lost his faith hooks up with a non-Christian and they both are studying the Gospel of Thomas when she gets the stigmata. I was trying to keep an open mind up to the point of her "parody" of the Crucifixion...then I knew the whole mess was demonic.

Then when the priest "explains" that nobody suffers the FIVE wounds of Christ and survives, I was ready to start throwing furniture.

"Dogma" made me cringe...it was like "American Pie meets the Vatican."

I'd rather just watch re-runs of the three "Oh God" movies with George Burns. They were funny, entertaining, and nowhere near as blasphemous.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[your_quagga]

you have to admit though, dogma did support the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.......i found it to be pretty innocuous, though i think people can do better things with their time and talents and energy overall....

 

[dignitized]

I went to see stigmata because I have been studying the phenomenon. I know of a person who is a stigmatist so I am of course curious about the stigmata. I found their treatment of the stigmata not only fictitious but rather - well for a lack of a better word retarded.

ANYHOW - Before accepting as gospel texts not included in the canon of scriptures, we'd be well advised to check out why those texts were rejected.