The synoptic problem

[hatsoff]

I'm just a little curious to poke and prod on the Christian end of the synoptic problem. Do you folks take issue with Markan priority? With Q? With the independence of Matthew and Luke?

I'm in agreement with the majority view that Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark as a source. I do not hold to Q as a single written document (although of course it may have been).

The OP rarely directs the thread, anyway, so I'm just going to leave this open-ended: what are your thoughts on the synoptic problem?

[Guest heretic5]

I'm just a little curious to poke and prod on the Christian end of the synoptic problem. Do you folks take issue with Markan priority? With Q? With the independence of Matthew and Luke?

I'm in agreement with the majority view that Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark as a source. I do not hold to Q as a single written document (although of course it may have been).

The OP rarely directs the thread, anyway, so I'm just going to leave this open-ended: what are your thoughts on the synoptic problem?

Thank you for the question. The short answer is that there is no "synoptic problem". The reason for that answer requires the examination of a chain of logic. The beginning of the chain is that God truly said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." One of the implications of that statement is that God would "walk His talk" by loving His neighbor as He loves Himself. (Because, otherwise, He would be a hypocrite.) One of the ways in which God loves His neighbor as He loves Himself is that He preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, that is, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Qur'an which three places are the "three measure of meal". Given that God preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, then there must be some way to tell whose words are whose. The way to tell whose words are God's words is to find out which words were written in the mouth/pen of two or three witnesses/authors of books in the Bible. If God's words are to be established in the mouth/pen of two or three authors of books in the Bible, then they must be inspired to write the same words. That is to say, they did not write merely what they wanted to write. They instead wrote what they were inspired to write. So there might or might not have been a Q that they were inspired to copy. However that might be, the synoptic gospels are synoptic by divine purpose. The purpose is to enable people to know which words are God's words and which are not. Hoping that this explanation is a help, heretic5.

[Floatingaxe]

I'm just a little curious to poke and prod on the Christian end of the synoptic problem. Do you folks take issue with Markan priority? With Q? With the independence of Matthew and Luke?

I'm in agreement with the majority view that Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark as a source. I do not hold to Q as a single written document (although of course it may have been).

The OP rarely directs the thread, anyway, so I'm just going to leave this open-ended: what are your thoughts on the synoptic problem?

Thank you for the question. The short answer is that there is no "synoptic problem". The reason for that answer requires the examination of a chain of logic. The beginning of the chain is that God truly said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." One of the implications of that statement is that God would "walk His talk" by loving His neighbor as He loves Himself. (Because, otherwise, He would be a hypocrite.) One of the ways in which God loves His neighbor as He loves Himself is that He preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, that is, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Qur'an which three places are the "three measure of meal". Given that God preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, then there must be some way to tell whose words are whose. The way to tell whose words are God's words is to find out which words were written in the mouth/pen of two or three witnesses/authors of books in the Bible. If God's words are to be established in the mouth/pen of two or three authors of books in the Bible, then they must be inspired to write the same words. That is to say, they did not write merely what they wanted to write. They instead wrote what they were inspired to write. So there might or might not have been a Q that they were inspired to copy. However that might be, the synoptic gospels are synoptic by divine purpose. The purpose is to enable people to know which words are God's words and which are not. Hoping that this explanation is a help, heretic5.

"the Qu'ran" ?????????????? Great, newbie! Welcome and way to go for your first post. Don't start equating the Qu'ran with the Word of God.

[stafy]

I'm just a little curious to poke and prod on the Christian end of the synoptic problem. Do you folks take issue with Markan priority? With Q? With the independence of Matthew and Luke?

I'm in agreement with the majority view that Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark as a source. I do not hold to Q as a single written document (although of course it may have been).

The OP rarely directs the thread, anyway, so I'm just going to leave this open-ended: what are your thoughts on the synoptic problem?

Thank you for the question. The short answer is that there is no "synoptic problem". The reason for that answer requires the examination of a chain of logic. The beginning of the chain is that God truly said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." One of the implications of that statement is that God would "walk His talk" by loving His neighbor as He loves Himself. (Because, otherwise, He would be a hypocrite.) One of the ways in which God loves His neighbor as He loves Himself is that He preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, that is, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Qur'an which three places are the "three measure of meal". Given that God preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, then there must be some way to tell whose words are whose. The way to tell whose words are God's words is to find out which words were written in the mouth/pen of two or three witnesses/authors of books in the Bible. If God's words are to be established in the mouth/pen of two or three authors of books in the Bible, then they must be inspired to write the same words. That is to say, they did not write merely what they wanted to write. They instead wrote what they were inspired to write. So there might or might not have been a Q that they were inspired to copy. However that might be, the synoptic gospels are synoptic by divine purpose. The purpose is to enable people to know which words are God's words and which are not. Hoping that this explanation is a help, heretic5.

"the Qu'ran" ?????????????? Great, newbie! Welcome and way to go for your first post. Don't start equating the Qu'ran with the Word of God.

Please don't answer this question, but can someone actaully tell me in plain english what is this newbie is on about.

Edited March 3, 2007 by stafy

[Guest heretic5]

I'm just a little curious to poke and prod on the Christian end of the synoptic problem. Do you folks take issue with Markan priority? With Q? With the independence of Matthew and Luke?

I'm in agreement with the majority view that Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark as a source. I do not hold to Q as a single written document (although of course it may have been).

The OP rarely directs the thread, anyway, so I'm just going to leave this open-ended: what are your thoughts on the synoptic problem?

Thank you for the question. The short answer is that there is no "synoptic problem". The reason for that answer requires the examination of a chain of logic. The beginning of the chain is that God truly said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." One of the implications of that statement is that God would "walk His talk" by loving His neighbor as He loves Himself. (Because, otherwise, He would be a hypocrite.) One of the ways in which God loves His neighbor as He loves Himself is that He preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, that is, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Qur'an which three places are the "three measure of meal". Given that God preserves the words of His neighbor in the same places that He preserves His own words, then there must be some way to tell whose words are whose. The way to tell whose words are God's words is to find out which words were written in the mouth/pen of two or three witnesses/authors of books in the Bible. If God's words are to be established in the mouth/pen of two or three authors of books in the Bible, then they must be inspired to write the same words. That is to say, they did not write merely what they wanted to write. They instead wrote what they were inspired to write. So there might or might not have been a Q that they were inspired to copy. However that might be, the synoptic gospels are synoptic by divine purpose. The purpose is to enable people to know which words are God's words and which are not. Hoping that this explanation is a help, heretic5.

"the Qu'ran" ?????????????? Great, newbie! Welcome and way to go for your first post. Don't start equating the Qu'ran with the Word of God.

Thank you for having provided this forum and thank you for your reply because it was very informative, albeit probably not in the way that you might think. Please be advised that I will not post in this forum again, nor will I be receiving further notifications of replies. heretic5.

[MorningGlory]

Thank you for having provided this forum and thank you for your reply because it was very informative, albeit probably not in the way that you might think. Please be advised that I will not post in this forum again, nor will I be receiving further notifications of replies. heretic5.

Well, no pun intended, but even a heretic knows that the Bible and the Quran are not compatible documents and clearly do not point to the same God.

the Quran and its adherants claim to recognize Jesus as a prophet, yet they follow none of his teachings. Why is that?

Good point, WhySoBlind. The simple answer to your question is that the Qu'ran is a lame attempt by Satan to write a 'holy book'; the basis for the devil worshipping cult of Islam. We know that he copies God in all things; in the seventh century he formed his own 'religion'. But even the prince of darkness and his demons acknowledge the Son of God; He is simply demoted to the status of prophet. And, no, nothing in Islam' follows the teachings of Jesus.

[hatsoff]

I think it may be wise to point out that the letter Q in the original question does not mean Quran:

Bible document 'Q' is a hypothetical document believed to be the source from which Matthew and Luke took some of their material about Jesus, particularly his sayings.

The 'Q' document has never been found, it's existence has been suggested by Biblical scholars because of the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the differences of these to the Gospel of Mark. Some scholars believe such a document once actually existed and some doubt it's existence.

The designation 'Q' comes from Quelle (the German word meaning Source), the description German scholars gave to this hypothetical writing.

Blessings, H.

Just for further clarification, although Q does usually refer to a single document, it can also be reconstructed as a combination of sources, both oral and written. Most of the time, though, it is considered to be a single sayings Gospel, much like Thomas.

Personally, I'm not convinced it was a single document, although that does seem to be the most likely individual explanation.

[hatsoff]

The only explanation that I need is that Q ( the missing link) is the Holy Spirit, man must have something tangible and so the men called scholars go of on a flight of fantasy and instead of embracing reality & truth they invent non-existent documents to supply explanations for what they cannot understand without trust.

Okay, first of all, while Q is presently not known to exist, that doesn't mean it's non-existent, much less that it never existed.

As for the Holy Spirit, well, I find no reason to chalk up physical similarities to divine intervention. Even if you believe such things are possible, why insist it must, not just might, be so? That kind of arbitrary decision seems to defy sensibilities.

[hatsoff]

There

Edited March 5, 2007 by hatsoff

[Tubal-Cain]

Hello hatsoff. I think Markan priority and the literary independence of Matthew and Luke from each other are certain. I think there was a common source, whether written or oral or a combination of both, that Matthew and Luke shared.