Drexel

If
Q1 was written in the 50's CE and has Jesus as a teacher; and
Q2 was written in the 60-70's and has Jesus as a child of Wisdom; and
Q3 was written in the 70-80's and has Jesus as a (son of) God,

then how can Paul have Jesus as a (son of) God already in the 50's?

MortalWombat

The earliest stages of Q may not have had Jesus as their source (especially given their Cynic flavor). His name may have been affixed to them at later stages.

not a theist

Pauline Christianity may not have been normative for all of early Christianity.

Drexel

Well, if we assume that James and Peter were the original followers of Jesus, whoever he might be, and they met Paul some time in the 40's or 50's, shouldn't they have been shocked to find their teacher had evolved into a god?

Kosh

Perhaps they were. Ever read the parts about their meeting? Notice how they had some differences? Notice the results? "Ah, Paul, we got a special mission for you. You go teach that to the Gentiles, OK? <snicker> "

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello there, Drexel,

I can see that you're trying to make sense of some of these tall tales as put out by our mainstream NT scholars. Stratification of Q, and all that...

Well, all I can say to you is, Good Luck!

If you ask me, this is all stuff and nonsense, in any case. Obviously there's a contradiction there, that you've pointed out. The Pauline letters, assuming they were really written by Paul, don't square at all with these sorry attempts to stratify Q

Moreover, there probably was never a Q. And Paul didn't really write these things. The whole thing is joke!

Basically, our whole NT studies field is a faith-based exercise that has very little to do with science.

Cheers,

Yuri.

*** I doubt, therefore I might be. ***