The Q Source may have been written down as early as the 30’s, perhaps even while Jesus was still alive or just after His death.
Many scholars hypothesis that Quelle is the source of the three synoptic Gospels.
So, many sayings of Jesus were indeed part of a shared belief.
Can you tell me, with a straight face, that if any of the gospels had said anything other than that it would have been included in the New Testament?
The NT was canonized in 397AD at the (3rd) Council of Carthage.
To find out what pre-canonization Christians believed, you have to look at writings from church fathers pre-397.
The fathers have recorded agreement on many key issues.
Even the Council of Nicea took place prior to NT canonization, so look at the declarations made there (including the Nicene Creed).
There are so-called “gospels” that were not included.
One reason they were not included is that they didn’t align with the teachings of the Apostles and their successors.
It is not a wondrous bit of evidence that the basic tenets of Gospels align with one another, unless it is evidence that the New Testament was first edited for just that purpose. It is like pointing out the marvelousness of a bag full of just black marbles when the floor is littered with marbles of other colors that were not put in that same bag.
So you are suggesting that prior to the canonization of the NT, the Gospels were edited in order to align with each other?
That’s what you told me:
I thought you were suggesting that the four canonized Gospels had been edited.
An editor also decides what stories to include in a collection. Your claim that the Gospels matching up in any way is evidence of anything is silly when you realize that any stories that didn’t match up were cast aside.
You don’t think the existence of four separate biographies that record many of the same key facts about a given subject is evidence of anything?
I would suggest that it’s evidence that the subject existed, and that a group of people (the Church) believed certain things about him; namely that he was divine, and that he rose from the dead.
It is evidence that those stories were chosen because they matched up in some ways. Four out of four matching in some ways isn’t amazing at all if we don’t know how many other books weren’t included, and it is even less amazing when you see how much those four books don’t match up.
Edited to add: When I asked what people believed back before The NT was established, I mean everyone that considered themselves some sort of Christian, and not just those you consider part of “The Church”.
:rolleyes:
So you believe in a conspiracy theory.
If the establishment of the Catholic Church and the canonization of the New Testament were an organized conspiracy based on deception, I must say it was quite an impressive one.
It’s true what they say. America is so Protestant, even the atheists are Protestant.
:rolleyes: No, not a “conspiracy theory”…but your disdain for sects other than you own is again noted.
YOU said that books that didn’t match up were left out-
Do you have evidence that there was such a thing as a Christian outside the institutional Church?
The idea that one can be a Christian while fully detached from the institutional Church is a very modern idea.
Jesus and the Church were inseparable for the first 1600+ years of Christianity.
That’s correct. Books were included in the canon if they aligned with Apostolic teaching. If they contradicted Apostolic teaching, they were thrown out.
There has to be a standard by which to measure truth claims.
In the Catholic Church, Apostolic teaching/tradition is the standard. Since the Bible was canonized, it has become a supplemental support to Apostolic tradition, but the Tradition always came first.
Then they cannot be used for evidence that said Apostolic teachings are accurate.
But it’s not like the Gospels dropped out of a vacuum. They were in circulation in the churches along with Paul’s epistles. If the Apostles and their successors had seen anything objectionable in M, M, L, or J, they would not have made it into the canon.
My point is that the Apostles and the writers of the Gospels did believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. That seems obvious enough.
The argument of whether the Apostles were right or wrong concerning these things is a different one.
So all this time I was asking for evidence that what you believe is fact, what you instead provided was evidence that that people that believe as you do actually believe as you do? The fact that people believe something is not evidence that such a thing is real, no matter how much effort is made to keep the records clear of any contamination. I accept that the Catholic Church honestly believes what it believes.
Do you accept that other sects honestly believe what they believe?
Sorry I missed this Fear Itself
I will concede to that.
Jesus didn’t say that it’s impossible, but exceedingly difficult (camel passing through the eye of a needle). That’s one hell of a purgatory, squeezing through that. Jesus said “be perfect”. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches today and always. You cannot enter heaven unless you are perfect.
I believe that Jesus did mean it literally when he said it to the “rich young man”. Jesus demands different things from each of us, probably whatever is most difficult.
Well the Catholic Church is not doing a very good job then, because they do indeed demand perfection.
Of course I do.
I even accept that you honestly believe what you do!