Little Dot

It would help if you gave some scripture references to prove what you're saying.

Little Dot

Basically what you'r saying is let's play like there is a "Q" source. Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?

Hmmmmmmmm, maybe I could go to my bank and play like I have a million dollars there and see if I can get them to give it to me, it makes about as much sense as what you're saying.

Evad

Actually spin only appears to have one defense. Though it often appears to differ slightly it all amounts to "agree with me or you are stupid." Ive seen the strategy before, but never with such unwavering overconfidence.

Fun, isn't it?! :deadhorse:

Toto

That's a total misinterpretation.

The existence of Q is a possible explanation for the common language in Matthew and Luke. You may agree or disagree, but it is not ludicrous.

There are other explanations - it might be that Luke copied from Matthew directly. Would you like to argue for that?

stephan huller

No that's not what he is saying. He's saying that it is logical to assume that some other source was used to develop Matthew and Luke from Mark. If you have a rational opinion to share about the development of the gospels it would be welcomed here. It certainly beats rejecting the 'Constantine inventing Christianity' thing for the umpteenth time.

Yet this is quickly becoming equally tiresome. It would be useful in order to have a worthwhile discussion to actually say something original other than repeating the points of faith and hope to get into arguments with 'infidels.' This thread began with you asking:

It was quickly determined that most of us feel that it is more interesting the way they agree - whole passages verbatim - with one another than the other way around. Now you seem intent to argue over Q. There is much to debate here. But you haven't put an opinion on the table other than an meaningless 'defense of the faith' which is histrionic at best.

Your God is not going to secure you a place in the afterlife for shining darkness in a forum of enlightened discourse. If you have something original to say, please say it - otherwise shut up.

spin

I gather you didn't think about what was said to you before you reacted against it. We have evidence that needs explaining. The best explanation that has been proffered is that the textual material found in both Matt and Luke but not in mark belongs to a document used in both gospels. This is not rocket science. It's a very standard scholarly view, but I gather you are suspicious of even christian scholars. Laugh as much as you like. It's only going to be a reflection on you. If you have a better explanation, all you need do is express it. Or waste your time complaining about what you can not improve upon.

avi

Not really. This passage, Matthew 21:5 only confirms that Matthew was more conversant than some of the other gospel writers, with the traditional Hebrew literature:

Matthew 21:4 simply announces that the author of the gospels has read Zechariah, without however, citing the specific passage.

The bit about throwing branches on the ground, Matthew 21:8, as if JC were a conquering hero in a military victory parade, is nonsensical, in view of JC's having conquered no one, least of all, the Roman army.

Dorothy: Do the Christians today believe that Zechariah had been/is a "prophet"? How about the Muslims? What is it about Zechariah's writing that suggests he had functioned as a "prophet"? Is it not incongruous, that Mark, a supposed sidekick of Peter, if not an actual witness, himself, makes no reference to JC's riding a donkey, isn't his choice of animal, rather, a young horse, a colt: Greek word "pwlon"? Perhaps Mark's Greek was inadequate, and he chose the wrong word? Have you ever attempted to ride a young animal, unaccustomed to transporting heavy humans? This notion of JC riding a colt, which had never before been ridden, makes little sense to me....

Dot, can one document (i.e. PROVE) an historical event, by copying, many decades AFTER the event, text written several hundred years BEFORE the event took place? Can I quote from Shakespeare's St. Crispen's Day Speech in Henry V, to verify, explain, and detail the Normandy Invasion?

avi

avi

That's because Matthew uses the Greek word

βασιλιάς

which also means, "king". (I don't know the difference between βασιλιάς and ρήγας ....)

avi

avi

Thank you Evad. Are there OTHER references to "the" mashiach, in the old testament, in connection with the "end of days", i.e. the acharit ha-yamim?

And, who was this "annointed" guy in this gruesome passage? It is David. So, is David, "the" Mashiach, or just a plain vanilla "mashiach"? Was that the "end of days", back then, in the time of David? the acharit ha-yamim?

I remain confused between "king", and "mashiach".

On the one hand, "mashiach" means "annointed", but on the other hand, it supposedly corresponds to "the great helmsman", guiding the woeful Israelites back to Israel, bringing about world peace, etc....

If David is the "mashiach", then, how do we explain Jeremiah 23:5, how does one raise a "mashiach", if that is what is intended by the word "branch", to David, if David is "the" mashiach, already?

This is very confusing....

Are there three entities, or only two: David, and his Seed, with David being the annointed, versus, David, his seed, and the annointed, three separate zygotes?

So, here, David is himself, the "mashiach"

This certainly looks like a copy of 2Samuel 22:51.

I am not buying it. I remain singularly unimpressed with the idea of "mashiach". Thus far, I have zero confidence in the notion that the concept of "the" mashiach had been elaborated in the old testament. It appears, from these citations, to be simply another accolade for David, similar to "the sweet psalmist of Israel".

Where is the description of "the" mashiach, who will function as outlined at the judaism 101 web site? Looks to me, like a whole lot of contemporary hand waving, not ancient Jewish written history.

So, unless there are other citations to be examined, did the Christians usurp this word, mashiach, or did the LXX, (sadly, Codex Sinaiticus is missing Samuel and Psalms,) mis-translate it, or did the Jews adopt some of the Christian malarky (Maimonides)? Do the DSS contain 2Samuel or Psalms? So many questions, so few answers....

avi

Atheos

As has been pointed out, the existence of "Q" is a widely held opinion because it is one of the most plausible explanations of the evidence.

To put this into perspective using your analogy, let's say you're a detective. You're hired to follow this guy around. You notice that his car is a Bugatti Veyron. He drives it to the local pier where he gets in a yacht that has his name on it. After yachting for a few hours he heads to an exclusive country club. You could use these clues to conclude that he's very wealthy (has access to millions of dollars) or you could look for alternative explanations. Perhaps he stole the car and the yacht, but that wouldn't explain the country club membership. Perhaps he has a magic genie in a lamp who gives him these things when he rubs the lamp.

As you can see there are good explanations that fit all the evidence, there are reasonable explanations that have problems with some of the evidence, then there are really goofy explanations that require magic.

We skeptics tend to dismiss the ones that require magic until we've been presented with evidence of the magic. Your mileage may vary.

Just as the existence of lots of money in a bank somewhere is the single best explanation for the evidence you saw following our fictional person around, the existence of "Q" is the single most elegant explanation of all the available evidence when analyzing the canonical gospels. That's why it has gained so much acceptance.