New Testament books.

[Elijah John]

Should the earliest sources of the New Testament be given more weight than others? Namely, the Gospel according to Mark, the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" sources. All of which historical Jesus scholars see as more accurate reflections of the actual teaching of Jesus than the Gospel furthest remove from the events it narrates. (the Gospel of John.)

Also, how much influence should the findings of historical Jesus scholarship have on faith and practice?

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How can we know. It is the Spirit of truth with the Bible that will lead and guide us into all truth? If we believe God's Word that is.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I guess that depends on what you consider to be more valid.


As far as I understand, the gospel of Mark was written by Mark, Peter's son. Which would mean he was around when these things happened and he would have been an eyewitness to some of the events of Christ's (physical) life.

The gospel of Luke is based upon Luke investigating things from the beginning of Christ's ministry, but not necessarily based upon him personally witnessing those things.

But the disciple Christ loved - the actual author of the "gospel of John" - was an eyewitness; one of the twelve apostles. The validity of his book is not lessened just because he may have written his testimony down after the others (if scholars are even correct about the timing)... not if he was there to actually witness the things he later wrote down.

I have no problem with any of the gospels bearing witness to Christ; but that one is the only book that claims to be written by an eyewitness; and one of the twelve at that.


How could an eyewitness be accurately described as a person farthest removed from the events he narrates?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[ttruscott]

Should the earliest sources of the New Testament be given more weight than others? Namely, the Gospel according to Mark, the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" sources. All of which historical Jesus scholars see as more accurate reflections of the actual teaching of Jesus than the Gospel furthest remove from the events it narrates. (the Gospel of John.)

Also, how much influence should the findings of historical Jesus scholarship have on faith and practice?

Why would you give the scholarship of sinful men (the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" ) the same status as the world of GOD? Can HE not write what HE wanted written after HE created the whole physical universe in a word?

Seek GOD not your own interpretation!!!

[Elijah John]

Should the earliest sources of the New Testament be given more weight than others? Namely, the Gospel according to Mark, the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" sources. All of which historical Jesus scholars see as more accurate reflections of the actual teaching of Jesus than the Gospel furthest remove from the events it narrates. (the Gospel of John.)

Also, how much influence should the findings of historical Jesus scholarship have on faith and practice?

Why would you give the scholarship of sinful men (the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" ) the same status as the world of GOD? Can HE not write what HE wanted written after HE created the whole physical universe in a word?

Seek GOD not your own interpretation!!!

Wow, how do you know that HJ scholars are not believers (some of them, anyway) in search of the Truth? Isn't the quest for Truth a Godly pursuit?

For believers the "Q" source, the "M" source and the "L" source, are components of the "Word of God".

"Q" is the name of the hypothetical source of the material that Mathew and Luke have in common.

"M" is the source of the material unique to Matthew, and "L" is the source of the material unique to Luke.

Combined with the material from Mark, the Q and the M sources became the Gospel of Matthew.

Combined with the material from Mark, the Q and the L sources became the Gospel of Luke.

John is a whole 'nother thing, an outlier.

You speak as though the Bible dropped from Heaven intact, or was dictated. What is your evidence for that?

In fact, the Gospels were constructed from these earlier, (some oral) traditions.

Also, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. They were composed in Greek. Matthew and John were not fluent in Greek, but were perhaps illiterate...or at the very least were literate only in their native Aramaic.

The very human ("sinful men"?) authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke were literate, and fluent in Greek.

If you could produce Gospel manuscripts written in Aramaic which pre-date all of the early sources, then your argument would have more weight.

But I don't think you, (or anyone) can, because I doubt very much they exist.

[Benoni]

Like I said if God's Spirit does not quicken or make alive the Bible it is not much better than the Book of Mormon or the Quran.

It is the Spirit of Truth not man's carnal scholars that lead and guide us into all truth

[JP Cusick]

Should the earliest sources of the New Testament be given more weight than others? Namely, the Gospel according to Mark, the "Q" source, the "M" and "L" sources. All of which historical Jesus scholars see as more accurate reflections of the actual teaching of Jesus than the Gospel furthest remove from the events it narrates. (the Gospel of John.)

Also, how much influence should the findings of historical Jesus scholarship have on faith and practice?

I see it as giving different weights but not giving more or less weight - it is not to be a competition.

The Gospel of Mark probably came first before the Q source, but the Q source could have been around before the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of John has got extra interest precisely because it came last, and it is important what John wrote at a later time because it informs us of the flow from earlier to later.

In the elder (the Old) Testament then the oldest original "J (Yahweh) source" is vitally important to our research, but the New Testament is not the same in that regard.

[Elijah John]

Like I said if God's Spirit does not quicken or make alive the Bible it is not much better than the Book of Mormon or the Quran.

It is the Spirit of Truth not man's carnal scholars that lead and guide us into all truth

And as I asked Ted, what makes you so sure that HJ scholars (at least some of them) are "carnal" scholars? What makes you so sure that they too (at least some of them) are not guided by the "Spirit of Truth"?

Isn't Reason too, God-given? (and academic inquiry?) How about Science? And historical-critical methodology?

[Elijah John]

But the disciple Christ loved - the actual author of the "gospel of John" - was an eyewitness; one of the twelve apostles. The validity of his book is not lessened just because he may have written his testimony down after the others (if scholars are even correct about the timing)... not if he was there to actually witness the things he later wrote down.

I have no problem with any of the gospels bearing witness to Christ; but that one is the only book that claims to be written by an eyewitness; and one of the twelve at that.


How could an eyewitness be accurately described as a person farthest removed from the events he narrates?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Scholars do not believe that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is the author of the GoJ. Reason being (one of the reasons anyway) is the GoJ was written in Greek. It is extremely doubtful that John the Apostle spoke Greek, never mind wrote in Greek.

[Benoni]

Problem is most believers reject this verse because they are not spiritual.

New International Version
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.


John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
and he will shew you things to come.

Does it say anything anywhere in scriptures where human carnal scholar will lead and guide anyone into truth??? Yet this is all the nonspiritual believer have because the things of the Spirit are foolishness to non spiritual believer that are goats..

1 Corinthians 2:
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.