Why I think the authors of gMatthew and gLuke are ideological hooligans

[Marcion]

The Jesus of Q is not a messiah. He was not born of a virgin. He did not perform miracles. He did not die on the cross. There was no resurrection. What remains nonetheless is an extraordinary character -- the basic radical elements -- and an intriguing figure who made a lasting impression on his followers, believed in an immediate Kingdom, and saw himself as a successor to John the Baptist. The gospel may contain embellishments -- embellishments designed to bolster the fortunes of a struggling movement during an extraordinarily competitive period. Embellishments and obvious contradictions notwithstanding, the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Luke and Mark, do agree in essentials and do paint a rather consistent portrait of Christ. There are elements in the stories that would not have been fabricated for a completely mythological figure; the flight after Jesus arrest; Peter's denial; Christ's inability to work miracles in Galilee; his early uncertainty as to his mission; his confessions to ignorance of the future; his moments of bitterness; his cry on the cross. It stretches the imagination that so appealing a figure could be created by a few simple men in a single generation.
Some of the embellishments in the gospels must be seen in the light of the times. It was a time when Jews were waiting anxiously for a Redeemer. It was a time too when magic, witchcraft, demons, angels, possessions and exorcisms were generally taken for granted -- as were miracles, prophesies, divinations and astrology. In that context the miracles ascribed to Jesus, although wrongly interpreted, are not beyond belief -- water walking and bread making notwithstanding.

There is nothing in Q about Jesus not performing miracles. In fact many of the sayings in Q suggest he was just that kind of person.
The contents of the teachings in Q do not point to an ordinary man, but to a more or less realised guru (spiritual master).
The embellishments as you call them are outside of Q, made by the authors of gMatthew, gLuke and gMark.

That those three gospels paint a rather consistent picture of Jesus other than the one that follows from Q is no surprise at all since aMatthew and aLuke based their story line entirely on gMark and just mixed in sayings taken from Q as an embellishment (thereby degrading and abusing the instructions in Q).
The spiritual instruction in Q is entirely tantric (practical), not religious (theoretical) and the powers that come with spiritual self-realisation include the ability to perform so-called miraculous deeds controlling the elements directly with the mind. Of course Jesus was not unique as such a guru and did not claim so either.
No great guru goes withouth demonstrating their spiritual powers to their followers.

What aMark and other gospel writers did was change the original tantric Jesus into a religious icon to be worshipped instead of followed and loved.

 

[Marcion]

Really? Miracles are not exceptional?

So the sky opened and God's voice boomed down approval of you at the moment of your baptism, then? And you've seen people instantly cured of leprosy and paraplegia or a violent storm instantly stopped with a word?

I'd love some good evidence of any of that. But I'm willing to bet money you don't have any. And that kind of implausible, supernatural stuff runs through the entire Markan narrative, including the first half.



Q is not its own text. A separate text of Q material has never been found. Q is a hypothetical reconstruction of material shared by Matthew and Luke. Its hypothetical content comes entirely from those two Gospels. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.



I don't have to plead for a mythical Jesus to identify Mark as a historically implausible, carefully constructed piece of literary apologetics from start to finish.

I would advise you to go into the mountains of Myanmar and stay there in Buddhist tantric monasteries for some time.
It may cure you of your skeptical nature.
A strong text like Q does not fall out of the sky into other texts where its more original pieces are quite out of place.
They could not have been made up by the authors of the gospel stories, since they are just not that type of personalities.
The contrast becomes clear when you compare the two (on a deeper level, you need to know about the type of teaching in Q).

 

[pearl]

Matthew and aLuke based their story line entirely on gMark and just mixed in sayings taken from Q as an embellishment (thereby degrading and abusing the instructions in Q).

I think this is backwards, as any added 'embellishment' would be from MT and Lk not "Q". I think you are setting aside the context of time and culture into which the "Q" sayings ( a reconstruction of which is not in existence) are woven. There is no 'confession' of faith in Jesus of "Q", how could there be in his lifetime?

What aMark and other gospel writers did was change the original tantric Jesus into a religious icon to be worshipped instead of followed and loved.

The followers of Jesus may disagree with you as Jesus is much loved and followed and through whom worship is to God.

 

[Left Coast]

The majority of scholars agree there is evidence for the two source theory within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and a number who do not accept the theory, just as a number of scholars do not agree there is sufficient evidence for a four source theory within the Pentateuch.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm unconvinced by arguments I've read for Q.

 

[Left Coast]

I would advise you to go into the mountains of Myanmar and stay there in Buddhist tantric monasteries for some time.
It may cure you of your skeptical nature.

Doubtful. There are lots of claims, and very little in the way of evidence.

A strong text like Q does not fall out of the sky into other texts where its more original pieces are quite out of place.
They could not have been made up by the authors of the gospel stories, since they are just not that type of personalities.
The contrast becomes clear when you compare the two (on a deeper level, you need to know about the type of teaching in Q).

Perhaps you could give an example?

 

[Marcion]

Doubtful. There are lots of claims, and very little in the way of evidence.



Perhaps you could give an example?

I'm not impressed with your unfounded skepticism.

The strongest example is Q 17: 20b-21 / Luke 17: 20b-21 = Matthew 24: 26

20b The Rule of God does not come by observation [‘parateresos’]. 21 They should not say: “He can be observed in the wilderness, nor in the inner, secret chambers (of temples) [‘tameiois’]. For the Rule of God is within you! [‘entos humon’].

taken from: The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Now read the surrounding texts in your Bible in gMatthew and gLuke.
You will clearly see that aMatthew and aLuke are not at all interested in the deeper content of this saying, they are preoccupied with the return of Jesus Christ and have just pasted parts of the saying into their own texts just like some medieval buildings contain pieces taken from ancient Roman buildings.

But any saying found in this reconstruction of Q-lite has a very different original 'Sitz-im-Leben' from the texts produced by the gospel writers.
Spiritual philosophy or spiritual instruction is something entirely different from religious preaching and theorizing and that is why it is so easy to separate the original parts of the Q-sayings from the rest of the gospel texts. I.E. if you are well enough trained to recognize the difference.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not impressed with your unfounded skepticism.

My purpose isn't to impress you. Happy to admit if I'm shown to be wrong about something. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

Why would I believe something for which there isn't good evidence?

The strongest example is Q 17: 20b-21 / Luke 17: 20b-21 = Matthew 24: 26

20b The Rule of God does not come by observation [‘parateresos’]. 21 They should not say: “He can be observed in the wilderness, nor in the inner, secret chambers (of temples) [‘tameiois’]. For the Rule of God is within you! [‘entos humon’].

taken from: The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Now read the surrounding texts in your Bible in gMatthew and gLuke.
You will clearly see that aMatthew and aLuke are not at all interested in the deeper content of this saying,

Before I comment further on this, what do you think "the deeper content of this saying" is?

they are preoccupied with the return of Jesus Christ

that's all the Gospels.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

Zero examples.

 

[Marcion]

Why would I believe something for which there isn't good evidence?

You can trust or believe anyone you like (or not).
If you trust only people after seeing evidence for everything they teach then that is also your freedom of choice.
Spirituality is not suited for incurable sceptics.
The blind however cannot lead the blind, as Jesus also teaches in Q-lite.

Before I comment further on this, what do you think "the deeper content of this saying" is?

The saying is directed to people who believe that God or the sacred is more accessible in special places such as the secret parts of temples or deep inside the wildernis (such as in deep forests or in deep caves).
The speaker in the saying denies this and tells that God or spirital self-realisation (the Rule of God) can only be found inside the self of the subject and is not associated with any objective places.

The Christian preoccupation with the return of Christ, which indeed dominates gMark and was copied into the other three gospels, twists this central teaching of Jesus, blurs its original words and extends it into the Rule of God coming only after the true christians believing in Christ are rewarded collectively after his return (and the rest are damned).

This is an expample of a clear shift from a spiritual teaching into a religious teaching which in fact also happens in other places in the gospel text.

 

[74x12]

This may sound harsh but I view the authors of gMatthew and gLuke as hooligans because they abused or violated the teachings of Lord Jesus and reworked them for their own theological agenda's, threw away the original teachings and ideologically pushed people in another direction.

In the years before they wrote their gospel stories based on gMark and the Q-sayings people still had access to the real teachings of Lord Jesus and could study and practise their real original meaning.

As a Christian you may shrug your shoulders about this crime because you have no knowledge of the deep difference between the theologies of aMatthew and aLuke on the one side and the teachings of Lord Jesus on the other side.
You will be used to viewing Jesus and his teachings through your Christian coloured glasses and probably don't want to see the original as it would disturb you too much.

How serious was their hooliganism? Or was the story of gMark already a radical distraction from the original Jesus by changing him into a crucified and resurrected godman in the gentile fashion and was aMark just as guilty as the other two authors or even more so because he came first?

Where do you get the "original teachings" of Jesus Christ from? I'm guessing the gospel of Thomas? Is that more trustworthy in your opinion?

 

[Marcion]

Where do you get the "original teachings" of Jesus Christ from? I'm guessing the gospel of Thomas? Is that more trustworthy in your opinion?

No, not Thomas but Q-lite.
The Real Jesus of the Sayings “Q” Gospel – Religion Online