Duvduv

That sounds like it would fit with the idea of an original "bare bones" story of a Jewish holy man, speaking on behalf of a demiurge or otherwise, born to Mary and Joseph. Starting to have echos of Yeshu ben Pandera to me at this point.

aa5874

Your statement appears to be flawed or contradictory.

If YOUR Yeshua was born to Joseph then he was NOT Yeshua ben Pandera.

What really is the problem why people refuse to accept the Biography, the deascription of Jesus???

People accept that John was a Baptizer but refuse to accept that Jesus was a WATER Walker.

People accept that Gabriel was an angel in the NT but refuse to accept that gJohn's Jesus was the God Creator.

Why don't people reject the description of the disciples of Jesus in gJohn but reject the description of Jesus???

Who was Peter in gJohn?? The answer can ONLY be found in gJohn.

Who was Caiaphas in gJohn?? The answer can only be found in gJohn.

Who was Jesus in gJohn?? The answer clan ONLY be found.

The answer is in the very first chapter and the first verses.

gJohn's Jesus was the Word and God the Creator.

The question is rather straightforward.

Who is Jesus according to John's gospel???

We read gJohn to answer the question, RIGHT.

Well, let us read gJohn together.


We have READ gJohn and Jesus in gJohn was God the Creator.

Anymore questions about gJohn's Jesus.

John 10:30 KJV

Duvduv

It's not contradictory because the original Jewish story had Yeshu fathered by Joseph and those believers would never have accepted the claim that ir was out of wedlock.
John was called the Word and GJohn says he had a mother, but how did it happen that the Logos was born to a woman?

Adam

Such dogmatism on Q is not appropriate from someone who has not been active on the current thread On Quelle, in which no one has sought to refute my Post #67 http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313218&page=3
in which I showed that there is narrative material in Q and that Q narrative is included in gMark.

now that Gospel of Thomas has demonstrated that Q material appears in gMark, we don't know how much other Triple Tradition material appears in Mark. I say there was a lot, much of it narrative. See from my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread my Post #74:
Q/Twelve-Source http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983&page=3
and follow also the link to my Underlying article.

Diogenes the Cynic

You seem to have the impression that claiming something is the same thing as proving it.

Adam

I agree with you that I have not proven to everyone that 30% of gMark is from Q, including much narrative. You can't deny, however, that significant sayings and parables in gThomas are in gMark, and they're also in the Q sections of gMatthew and gLuke. This fails to prove that narratives are also from Q, but the problem may just be that gThomas contains no narrative. Nor have I even proven that gMark contains Q, as some scholars prefer to call the "Quadruple Tradition" (my concept) the Parable Source.

By linking the Twelve-Source with Q, as I do, I facilitate replacing the failed tradition that Matthew wrote gMatthew with the feasible provenance that he wrote Q1-Twelve-Source. (At that point I falter--am I required to deny that there are miracle stories in it?)

Duvduv

Adam or Diogenes, can you direct me to where I can see the oldest alleged fragment of the Book of Q? If people are so confident it existed, it must be there somewhere.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's a strawman. Show us a fragment of Papias.

Duvduv

I don't know when "Papias" wrote anything, but here is a link.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

As far as I know there are no remains of Q, because Q is an academic theoretical construct and cannot be proven to have existed.

But speaking of Papias, he seems there to have a difference of opinion even from the gospels regarding an actual brother of Jesus named James. Didn't he read Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56??

These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

It occurred to me that the expression "the Just" must correspond to "hatzaddik" as in the case of Simon the Just who is known as "Shimon Hatzaddik." If so, then some man in some way identified with a sect back in the 2nd century was known as "Yaakov Hatzaddik" and could just as easily have been Yaakov of Sachanya mentioned in the Talmud who healed people using the name of Yeshu ben Pandera, which I assume for a non-rabbinic Jew rejecting the claims of the rabbis about Yeshu would have been "Yeshu ben Yosef."

Duvduv

Speaking of Simons, Papias apparently left out Simon as sons of an "aunt". Apparently the gospels of this Papias were different from the canonical ones:
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon?

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?