Featured Quelle

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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;

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???

 

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