• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Missing Gospels?

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, semantics, "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning."

But far be it from me to suggest that you should be concerned with such things contribute something useful that actually addresses the question posed in the thread.​

Fixt
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
People believe all manner of things.

Many of those who have studied the subject suggest, instead, what has been called the Q-source (although I tend to be a Goodacre fan).

Yes the probable simpler early gospel is called Q.

Urban dictionary:

Goodacre
Usually refers to the surname of someone who is incredibly fit, attractive and intelligent - although their only noticeable flaw is that they seem to think they are better than everyone else and God's gift. Mostly blondes, good at water sports.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
People believe all manner of things.

Many of those who have studied the subject suggest, instead, what has been called the Q-source (although I tend to be a Goodacre fan).
Yes the probable simpler early gospel is called Q.

Urban dictionary:

Goodacre
Usually refers to the surname of someone who is incredibly fit, attractive and intelligent - although their only noticeable flaw is that they seem to think they are better than everyone else and God's gift. Mostly blondes, good at water sports.
Are you seriously making fun of the man's surname? You truly are scraping the bottle of the barrel.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Are you seriously making fun of the man's surname? You truly are scraping the bottle of the barrel.

Not seriously I missed that it was a citation to an author.

Emphasis: I do not believe in the necessity of the existence of Q, but I believe it probable existed considering the chain of editing, additions, and combination of the apparent history of Mark, Mathew and Luke.

One of the reasons I question Apostle authorship or first person authorship during the life of Jesus is the confusing contradictions concerning when Jesus was born. The authors of the final editing and compilation were not familiar with the timing of the census, and when different kings of Palestine lived and ruled under Roman control.
 
Last edited:

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jesus was both Son of Man and Son of God.

Mark 14:21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
 
What are your thoughts on a group of men deciding rather than to include all gospels in the holy writ, to simply discard these gospels.
I am not aware of any Christian Bibles that do not contain all four gospels or any denominations that have added any.

Which is my point. Numerous independent traditions arrived at the same place.

It wasn't really 'a group of men' who decided to discard the other texts deemed inauthentic, it was multiple traditions.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
My thought is then, just like today, there were people holding various opinions. They felt they needed to consolidate into one faith. Gospels following a certain line were the ones chosen for inclusion. I think the confusing concept of Jesus as God was an important consideration.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
Based on some research, I think it is a good idea to consider the Gospel of Q. My argument, based on my revelations, is Jesus was God, and there is no son of God.

Scholars have discovered an evolution of ideas following the death of Jesus, the Jesus movement. There is an excellent account of what happened in book entitled The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Scholars found quotations common to each of the four gospels from Q. Scholars from all over the world have participated in this scholarly enterprise. What they have found are source material preceding the writing of the gospels. All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels. Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in the Lost Gospel of Q. They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

If you follow conclusions about Gospel of Q you can see how Jesus was regarded. First, as a wise or sage man, then as the son of God. The son of God definition of Jesus was necessary to promote a new religion. In some ways, early Christian movement leaders were marketing specialists. When their marketing brand took off "Christianity" was born.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
...In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man.

If you follow conclusions about Gospel of Q you can see how Jesus was regarded. First, as a wise or sage man, then as the son of God. The son of God definition of Jesus was necessary to promote a new religion. In some ways, early Christian movement leaders were marketing specialists. When their marketing brand took off "Christianity" was born.

This, in essence, confirms the allegations in my OP...

...but were decided not to be included because they did not portray Jesus as divine, but as a man.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
First you would have to clarify what the difference is between a 'gospel' and a 'letter' (aside from the obvious that one is in the Bible and one is not).
Actually, some letters are in the Bible. The word "Gospels", in my opinion, is actually a designation given by man. They are the four historical accounts of Jesus and because of "the gospel" that it presents, they are referred to as "the gospels".
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, some letters are in the Bible. The word "Gospels", in my opinion, is actually a designation given by man. They are the four historical accounts of Jesus and because of "the gospel" that it presents, they are referred to as "the gospels".

There are other historical accounts of Jesus that were allegedly left out of the Bible. Why are you referring to them as letters and what disqualifies them from being called gospels?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Unfortunately the authorship of the gospels remains unknown, with the evidence indicating that they were edited and added to over a period after the apostles died with a likely earlier simpler gospel primarily written by the early church fathers. Based on the progressive relationship between the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke I believe the earliest gospel was a simpler biography. The problem includes some of Paul's letters which are most likely not his. This a more important process than the actual final selection of the canon.

Assignment of the authorship is a likely consequence of the church fathers knowledge of the apostles, and to give each authority,



I believe the evolution of the gospels and the final determination of what is the canon was done by mostly non-Hebrew Greek and Roman Church Fathers. There is a strong Hellenist influence by Paul, Augustine and Irenaeus.

There is historical value in the books and letters excluded from the canon, and I can understand from a practical perspective why many were excluded.

I believe it is more important to understand the the evolution and editing of the canon by the early church fathers. This determined what the final selection.
You can present an argument regarding this.
I have yet to read an argument that has any credible basis of /religious text understanding, however.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
There are other historical accounts of Jesus that were allegedly left out of the Bible.
This is a curious sentence.

You claim other historical accounts. What are they?

If you cannot answer the question, your claim is literally baseless.

If you can answer the question, then the books you identify are either in the Bible or excluded from it; there is nothing "alleged" about it.

As for those identified accounts excluded from the Bible, on whose authority should they have been deemed Gospel and worthy of inclusion?​
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You can present an argument regarding this.
I have yet to read an argument that has any credible basis of /religious text understanding, however.

From: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcu/4-7lecture.pdf

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS MATTHEW – MARK – LUKE

"What does “Gospel” mean? What is a “Gospel”? What does the word “Synoptic” mean? NONE of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. The authors were not among the followers of Jesus. The earliest (Mark) was composed about a generation after Jesus’s death, presumably because oral memories were beginning to fade &/or were contaminated by varying traditions. The earliest Gospels were (probably) “Sayings Gospels,” collections of Jesus’s words with no narrative framework. (The relatively late Gospel of Thomas is an example of such a collection.) There are no very early sayings collections that survive, but evidence for the existence of at least one such collection—known as Q, for the German Quelle, ‘Source’—is found in a substantial body of material, not found in Mark, that Matthew and Luke have in common. The canonical Gospels are traditional narratives constructed out of oral materials circulating among various Christian communities after Jesus’s death."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are other historical accounts of Jesus that were allegedly left out of the Bible. Why are you referring to them as letters and what disqualifies them from being called gospels?
I do not know of any historical accounts of the life of Jesus dating to the time of his life including the gospels.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
From: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcu/4-7lecture.pdf

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS MATTHEW – MARK – LUKE

"What does “Gospel” mean? What is a “Gospel”? What does the word “Synoptic” mean? NONE of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. The authors were not among the followers of Jesus. The earliest (Mark) was composed about a generation after Jesus’s death, presumably because oral memories were beginning to fade &/or were contaminated by varying traditions. The earliest Gospels were (probably) “Sayings Gospels,” collections of Jesus’s words with no narrative framework. (The relatively late Gospel of Thomas is an example of such a collection.) There are no very early sayings collections that survive, but evidence for the existence of at least one such collection—known as Q, for the German Quelle, ‘Source’—is found in a substantial body of material, not found in Mark, that Matthew and Luke have in common. The canonical Gospels are traditional narratives constructed out of oral materials circulating among various Christian communities after Jesus’s death."
I believe that the gospels, when written in Greek, were compiled from Hebrew, and other language scribal writings. They therefore are a compilation, and simply restate the scribal notes, with verbal witness as attestation. Perfectly normal in a scribal society, and perfectly normal when writing a text in this subject.

There is variation in the gospels, because it is different people, in certain instances, such as the resurrection narrative.

The resurrection narrative, seems like the same story, told by different people, to me.
Very difficult to fake, and why would later church people make such a complicated forgery, instead of simply having one version and extra writings, or such...

'Before Abraham, I am', John 8:58 the statement by Jesus, makes more sense in Hebrew, than in english, for those unfamiliar with the theology. Why make an obscurity in greek, if not a translation? Clearly those reading the text are not reading the bible in a greek language context, 》》 it's a translation, not an interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Top