Quelle

[preachinjesus]

The Q or Quelle is the is a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus, It is assumed without proof for the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof. Simply put you cannot make a lie into truth.

I agree with you first sentence here. Please see my above posts, I don't believe a Q document exists or existed. However, we must not simply disregard the scholarship around it with such sweeping claims as it is a "lie." That isn't a proper understanding of the document.

Your second sentence makes no sense to me, perhaps you can clarify.

As far as it being associated with Gnosticism. In The New Testament Apocrypha There is a gospel of thomas which is suppose to be the sayings of Jesus. The Gnostics version ( Just in case there are other versions) has 114 sayings in it only half of which are actually in the Bible we have today. If you would but read them then you'd agree.

Well Thomas isn't found the NT Apocrypha. It is a gnostic work of dubious origin and provenance. It is part of the Ng Hammadi collection, but even prior to that it is part of deuterocanonical work, or even pseudepigrahpal texts. Please check your understanding of the text before critiquing it.

There is correlation between Thomas and actual Gospels, but that occurs (in a limited fashion) with the so-called Gospel of Judas and other deuterocanonical books. Just because a text corresponds with a Gnostic text doesn't invalidate the entire field of research. Look at Jude's use of Enoch. This isn't a Gnostic text but it is a highly charged, apocalyptic text prior to Christ in the Second Temple period. Jude uses it in an eccletic manner, but it doesn't dismiss the canonicity of Jude. I simply fail to see how Thomas' work has any bearing on this discussion and also find your implication of Gnosticism on Q dubious. You've provided no grounds for these claims.

It matters little to me whether you agree or not. However just for those who believe they need to make such out landish statements like this one below
;
"if liberal theology is allowed to go unchecked, it will lead to terrible things."

Glad you have an open mind and are willing to listen to folks who have studied this topic at a rigorous level.

Obviously this person believes he is going to wipe out free will believers with a discussion on the "Q" When it was actually first written about by a man who hated Calvinism. Herbert Marsh in 1801 first Hhypothesized this nonsense because he just could not believe that God's word was inspired by God. Like Thomas He doubted. So he set out to prove that Mathew and Luke were copies of Mark and the "Q" source because of there similarities. May I say here they are similar because God dictated it to them, and not because of a document they copied.
The whole reason this is a thread is because we have those amoung us that doubt the inspiration of the books of Mathew and Luke. Why should I be surprised that Calvinist doubt God's Holy and Inspired Word.

Next we will see a thread on "M" and "L" that are even more so called documents used in the writing of the gospel.
MB

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

The disposition of Rev Marsh towards Calvinists has nothing to do with the issues we are talking about concerning Q. Again, you've made terribly incorrect claims about the document and the nature of the inspiration in you earlier post. I notice here that you've done nothing to defend your position, or clarify your position, concerning the nature of inspiration.

You can accept the Q hypothesis and still be evangelical and still accept inerranccy as defined in the Chicago Statement. Such limited views of inspiration really do nothing to advance the conversation on this topic.

 

[MB]

You still made no links of Q w/ gnosticism. Fact is, if Q is legit (not saying it is), then you are saying significant portions of Matthew and Luke are Gnostic. Do you really understand what you are saying?

I don't have any problem with understanding. Although we both know you do because, here you are trying to make it seem I said something I didn't. Normal for you I gather.
MB

 

[12strings]

I suppose you don't know who Herbert Marsh is. You have the internet look him up and see for your self.

No, I had not heard of him; but let me see if I"ve got your argument straight:

1. SolaSaint's motivation for holding to Q is that he hopes it will somehow promote calvinism and stamp out free will.
2. His hopes are misplaced because the first proponent of Q hated calvinism.
3. However, you (MB) do not accept Q either, though you do oppose calvinism.
4. All Calvinists doubt God's holy Word...and by the way, so does the guy who invented Q.


Is this right? If not, please correct me. IF so, I still don't get how calvinism is related to this thread.

 

[Greektim]

I don't have any problem with understanding. Although we both know you do because, here you are trying to make it seem I said something I didn't. Normal for you I gather.
MB

Ok... let me ask then...

The Quelle denies the inspiration of the Word of God and places inspiration all on a single document closely associated with Gnosticism.

First did you say this?

Second did you mean it?

Third if I have misunderstood please explain. It sure seems like you think Q is "closely assocated" w/ gnosticism. Then you later associated it w/ gnostic writings such as gnostic gospels. Is this correct?

 

[MB]

Ok... let me ask then...


First did you say this?

Second did you mean it?

Third if I have misunderstood please explain. It sure seems like you think Q is "closely assocated" w/ gnosticism. Then you later associated it w/ gnostic writings such as gnostic gospels. Is this correct?

I never once implied that Matthew and Luke were copied from "Q" I have said since the beginning that this Quelle document never existed.
You said;

Fact is, if Q is legit (not saying it is), then you are saying significant portions of Matthew and Luke are Gnostic.

No I'm not saying this at all, you said this and I never said any such thing.
MB

 

[Greektim]

I never once implied that Matthew and Luke were copied from "Q" I have said since the beginning that this Quelle document never existed.
You said;

No I'm not saying this at all, you said this and I never said any such thing.
MB

So when you said, "The Quelle denies the inspiration of the Word of God and places inspiration all on a single document closely associated with Gnosticism." you were not referring to the document but the hypothesis? I just want to make sure I understood you b/c it sounds like you were referring to a document called Q that according to you is "closely associated" to gnositicism.

If you are referring to the Q hypothesis, in what way at all is the hypothesis associated with gnosticism???

And I noticed you didn't answer the 3 questions. Is that how you would prefer to have discussions? All giving.... not taking???

 

[humblethinker]

Interesting thread, despite the distractions. Thanks QF for asking the question.

 

[quantumfaith]

Interesting thread, despite the distractions. Thanks QF for asking the question.

Thanks HT, I (like most) know not if Q as a document ever existed as a common source or collection of Jesus's sayings. I am convinced that there was indeed oral traditions passed on in the form of hymns etc. passed among early groups of "the way" in their developing worship practices. I fail to understand how some view even the "possibility" of a document like Q so "negatively" or some form of "danger" to "Holy Inspiration".

Hope all is well with you and Blessings for this New Year.