The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Don't you think if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have written her extreme & unrealistic saying as she did?

This argument is entirely useless.

No, it is not useless: if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have avoided to write something so immoderate.
Did you read my other arguments? posting.php?mode=reply&f=3&t=7622#pr118297

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

to rgprice,

Don't you think if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have written her extreme & unrealistic saying as she did?

This argument is entirely useless.

No, it is not useless: if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have avoided to write something so immoderate.

Says who? Yes I read your arguments. There is zero basis in claiming that Luke wouldn't have written what he/she did if he knew what Matthew said. None at all. How could you possibly assume that. You have no idea what the intentions or methods of Luke were.

As for the alms issue, yeah something looks fishy there, but Q is by no means the only possible explanation. The Q idea itself has far too many problems. There are too many places where Matthew and Luke integrate the supposed "Q" information into Mark is exactly the same way. The idea that two people would independently integrate all of that material exactly the same, over and over, is just absurd.

This is where Marcion's Gospel comes in. It is possible that both Matthew and Luke Marcion's Gospel or a proto-Gospel to Marcion's and that this is where the "Q" material comes from. Its not from a separate document, but essentially a different version of Mark, in which all of this material is already integrated into Mark's narrative.

[hakeem]

Hopefully anything that I just said even makes sense :p

Everything I said here could be wrong, but the point remains that, the problem can be vastly more complicated than the 2 source vs single source hypotheses.

What you say does not appear to make sense. Your post is just filled with confusion and speculation.

Lets us look at the facts.

The Epistle writers of the so-called Pauline Epistles place the apostles before him in Jerusalem.Galatians 1:17-18 &2.1

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Galatians 1:18-
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Galatians 2:1
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

The Epistle writer implied that the apostles were living in Jerusalem for at least 17 years.

Look at the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians . The writer claimed he was going to Jerusalem to minister and give alms to the saints.

Romans 15:25-26&31

But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.


Romans 15:26
For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.


Romans 15:31
That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints

1 Corinthians 16:3

And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

It is extremely clear that the so-called Paul writes about apostles and saints that were living in Jerusalem for at least 17 years during his supposed ministry.

But, now look at gMark [the short version].

Where do the apostles live in gMark? Who was the apostle Peter?

The author of gMark placed the apostles in Galilee and claimed the apostle Peter was a fisherman In Galilee.

Mark 1 16-20

Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: [for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little farther thence,[ he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him

The author of gMark did not need the so-called Pauline Epistles at all for his story that the apostles were from Galilee and that Peter was a fisherman in the area.

In fact, in gMark, the apostle Peter is identified as a Galilean and it is claimed Peter spoke like a Galilean

Mark 14.70

And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

There is nothing at all about Jesus and the apostles living in Galilee in the Epistles.

The gMark author writes about the Galileans-- Jesus and the apostles.

The Epistles are about apostles and saints living in Jerusalem.

Further, in gMark, Jesus told the apostles that after he was resurrected that they should meet him in Galilee.

Mark 14.28

But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

The earliest story of the Galileans, Jesus and the apostles, were not dependent upon the Epistles with stories about Peter, James and the apostles living in Jerusalem for at least 17 years.

In gMark, the Galileans, Jesus and the apostles, only went to Jerusalem to observe a Passover. Jesus was killed and the apostles fled. They were not living in Jerusalem for at least 17 years before the Passover.

Now, look at a map of the region.

gMark’s Galilean story is placed over 120 kilometers away from Jerusalem.

Galilee was part of the former kingdom of Israel whereas Jerusalem in the kingdom of Judah.

In fact it is claimed in gMatthew that the Galileans did go back to Galilee as promised and saw the resurrected Jesus.

Matthew 28:16

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

GMark preceded the so-called Pauline Epistles since it was the later stories of Jesus and the apostles, like Gluke and Acts, that claimed the Galileans were staying in Jerusalem after the resurrection to get power to preach the Gospel.

Luke 24:49

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

The Pauline Epistles used Gluke and Acts of the Apostles to fabricate their stories that the Epistle writer met Peter and James in Jerusalem.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Says who? Yes I read your arguments. There is zero basis in claiming that Luke wouldn't have written what he/she did if he knew what Matthew said. None at all. How could you possibly assume that. You have no idea what the intentions or methods of Luke were.

So you think it is realistic that in order to become Christian, one has to hate every members of his family, including himself and his wife?

According to Aramaic scholar Jack Kilmon:

"The interesting interface between Aramaic and Greek is that where Greek has many words for one meaning, Aramaic ... a "meat and potatoes" language ... has one word with several meanings ..."
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."

"Luke" had a bad translation of the saying. She certainly did not get that from gMatthew, but from a document like "Q".

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

What you say does not appear to make sense. Your post is just filled with confusion and speculation.

I second that: rgprice is quick to criticize my pieces of evidence supporting "Q" but at the same time, proposes a complicated process full of assumptions and speculations (to make you dizzy) for the fabrication of the gospels & Acts.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

There are too many places where Matthew and Luke integrate the supposed "Q" information into Mark is exactly the same way. The idea that two people would independently integrate all of that material exactly the same, over and over, is just absurd.

There is nothing absurd if "Luke" and "Matthew" had a copy of "Q", which included integration of common material into gMark, such as in "Jesus and Beelzebub" (Mt12:22-30 & Lk11:14-23) & John and Jesus' baptisms (Mt3:7-12 & Lk3:7b-9, 16-17).
By the way, the non-Markan material in these integrations is not exactly the same.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

As it can be easily seen the author of gMark did not use or need the so-called Pauline Epistles for his story about the Galileans -Jesus and the Apostles. In gMark, the Galileans [Jesus and the Apostles] were sailing on the sea of Galilee and at one time he Jesus even walked on the same sea in the middle of the night as witnessed by the apostles--no such event is in the Epistles.

Another example to show that gMark is independent of the Epistles can be found in the teachings of the so-called Paul. In the Epistles the Pauline Jesus must be crucified, dead, buried and resurrected for the salvation of mankind.

1 Corinthians 15:17

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

In the Pauline Gospel his Jesus must die and resurrect for salvation.

But, look in gMark.

The Markan Gospel is preached by his Galilean Jesus while he was alive after the baptism.

Mark 1 14

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The Markan Gospel by Jesus living in Galilee had nothing at all to with the resurrection--the people in Galilee only needed repent of their sins and follow the Galilean to be saved.

So we see GMark's Jesus must be alive to preach his Gospel but the Pauline Jesus must be dead and resurrected.

The Epistles with the teaching of salvation by the resurrection is a very late doctrine introduced after the earliest Gospels were already written.

[Stuart]

GLuke is minus 99% of Marcionism.

Gluke was written to replace gMathhew.

The latter statement is perhaps true regardless of where you sit on the position of GLuke's relationship to GMarcion. But it is also a corrective of the Marcionite gospel and John, and probably also Mark.

For the former ... huh? Luke is based on the Marcionite gospel base, and replaced the Marcionite gospel. Of course it reversed most of the Marcionite tendencies.

I think you probably suffer from a wrong impression of the Marcionite texts. If you look at Paul it is very clear that the Marcionite versions are already composite compositions, made up of fragments from a variety of theological standpoints, only some of them Marcionite. The evidence of the text suggests that the Marcionite forms remained shorter because the snowball effect of additional material largely ground to a halt when they broke with the main church which contained the other sects (they also are missing the so-called Lukan redaction layer). The gospel almost certainly is of the same legacy, derived from elements both Marcionite and a significant amount from other sectarian positions.

Note, all the gospels betray sectarian opinions. Luke's is layered on top of his sources, in the same fashion as the others.

[hakeem]

GLuke is minus 99% of Marcionism.

Gluke was written to replace gMathhew.

The latter statement is perhaps true regardless of where you sit on the position of GLuke's relationship to GMarcion. But it is also a corrective of the Marcionite gospel and John, and probably also Mark.

For the former ... huh? Luke is based on the Marcionite gospel base, and replaced the Marcionite gospel. Of course it reversed most of the Marcionite tendencies.[/quote]

The author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew or their sources and changed the Jesus story.

....I think you probably suffer from a wrong impression of the Marcionite texts. If you look at Paul it is very clear that the Marcionite versions are already composite compositions, made up of fragments from a variety of theological standpoints, only some of them Marcionite. The evidence of the text suggests that the Marcionite forms remained shorter because the snowball effect of additional material largely ground to a halt when they broke with the main church which contained the other sects (they also are missing the so-called Lukan redaction layer). The gospel almost certainly is of the same legacy, derived from elements both Marcionite and a significant amount from other sectarian positions.

Note, all the gospels betray sectarian opinions. Luke's is layered on top of his sources, in the same fashion as the others.

Marcion was never a member of any Church. The contemporary of Marcion, Justin Martyr, wrote nothing about Marcion ever attending a Christian Church.

Please, Marcion wrote no Gospel using gLuke. The contemporary of Marcion, Justin Martyr stated Marcion preached about another God and another son and taught his followers to deny that Jesus was sent by the maker and was the son of the maker.

Marcion and the Marcionites laughed at those who believed the Gospels.

Justin's ApologyXXVI

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us....

Marcion teachings were from Empedocles-- not the Gospels. See Hippolytus Refutation Against All Heresies 7

Hippolytus Refutaion of All Heresies 7

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigento. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.

Marcion's teaching are the opposite of gLuke.

[mlinssen]

So

Would Thomas not comment on the 70 CE destruction of the Temple? No, absolutely not, under no circumstances would he not.
You may find a pointer to the reasoning behind that in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4536&start=10#p115718

And then you can make a reasonable comment on that reasoning. Although there are exceptions to that rule as well, of course LOL

Again, your reasoning is flawed. There were writers living after c 70 CE who did not mention the destruction of the Temple. Aristides wrote his Apology in the time of Hadrian and wrote nothing about the destruction of the Temple of c 70 CE.

Again, and again, and again: exceptions don't define the rules, they only strengthen them.
Give me a number of percentage of writers living after 70 CE that did mention the destruction, and those that didn't

And again, if you want to comment on my "reasoning" then you can't do so without actually referring to it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4536&start=10#p115718