Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing new there bro. Same old Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius et al stuff that has been debunked thousands of times. The writer of that article refers to 'Jesus of Nazareth' without seemingly being aware that there was no 'Nazareth' at that time and he clearly confuses a possible historical 'Jesus' with Jesus The Christ of Gospel fame.
Nothing new there bro. Same old Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius et al stuff that has been debunked thousands of times. The writer of that article refers to 'Jesus of Nazareth' without seemingly being aware that there was no 'Nazareth' at that time and he clearly confuses a possible historical 'Jesus' with Jesus The Christ of Gospel fame.
It may be the same old, same old...but perhaps some of us haven't read the same old before.
It may be the same old, same old...but perhaps some of us haven't read the same old before.
I would think we have old beast ...as, since this site started, those arguments have been flavour of the month by theists trying to prove their Jesus man-god did exist.
For there to have been a "long lost" manuscript, such a manuscript would have to have existed in the first place. But there is no historical evidence that the so called "Q" document ever existed. The idea of the "q" source was in fact first proposed in 1900, because it helps to overcome the so called "synoptic problem," by which scholars have recognized that the author of Gospel Matthew plagiarized very heavily from Gospel Mark, and the author of Gospel Luke plagiarized from both Gospel Mark and Gospel Matthew. The solution, it was proposed, was that gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke all borrowed from a single source. This became known as "the Source." Quelle in German. But no such source has ever been known to exist, or has ever even been hinted at historically. Modern theologians simply made the idea up in an effort to explain a well known flaw in Christian theology.
There is no evidence of its actual existence other than that it would be AN explanation for the common content of the synoptics. I don't recall but think there are some issues with the synoptics simply borrowing from each other that don't completely explain things.
To my knowledge the existence of Q is rather like the existence of dark matter, it can be inferred to exist but has never been measured. And it's not a popular topic among fundamentalists, and I don't think they buy into it as the prefer more "magical" explanations. It's more a Higher Criticism kind of thing, and IIRC even Bart Ehrman buys into it. So I'm not entirely comfortable considering it "made up", especially to explain a theological shortcoming. It's not particularly a problem for Christians if the synoptics cribbed from each other, after all. This is just academics trading theories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
