quote:

ORIGINAL: Fortydays

I am aware that they did not write there own Books. Im assuming that someone wrote the Books for them after they died. People that knew them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fortydays

I am aware that they did not write there own Books. Im assuming that someone wrote the Books for them after they died. People that knew them.

Does anyone have any good information on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavensDesires

What is "Q"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ007

I know this might seem like an incredible thought here, but I believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John DID write the Gospels that bear their names. I want to encourage all of the believers here to stop listening to the doubts of modern scholars who doubt the validity, inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the holy Scriptures! God has promised us to preserve His word for us today, and we can trust that every word contained in these books is 100% true!

Matthew and John were two of the twelve original disciples, and wrote the Gospels that bear their name.
John Mark was a disciple of Peter's, and wrote his Gospel with first hand accounts from Peter.
Luke was a physician and an educated man, and was a disciple who travelled closely with the Apostle Paul. During that time, he wrote both Luke and Acts.

Dear friends, let us believe the Bible, and doubt all of the doubts of man!!

SUGGESTED READING:
http://thelandofpromise.blogspot.com/2009/09/preaching-word-wheres-bible.html

quote:

Question: Did Moses write about his own death?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mslv4gd

When it comes to the q source theory and synoptic theories in general. These are purely secular in nature.

The source criticism theories are just that "Theory".
They base there views off of looking at the text and making guesses.
"Q" doesn't exist perse they would just like "Q" to exist to match there philosophy.
The philosophy is evolutionary naturalism applied to religion.
They want to interpret the Bible in such a way that there is nothing supernatural about the gospels, especially their inspiration.

We have an actual record of church history written thousands of years ago and records Matthew as the 1st gospel.
naturalist don't like this idea.
So they say that the authors were not the Authors. Since Mark was the smallest gospel, it must have been the first gospel. Because smallest to largest is the evolutionary model.
Then they say that it originally did not have an account of the virgin birth and not really of the resurrection. So then we are left with an evolve hypocritical religion.
Just don't check the acxtual facts because those pesky things just get in the way.
In Christ,
Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavensDesires

What is "Q"?

And along with RC, I'd like to know where you got your information that the four gospels were not written by the men themselves?

quote:


http://www.gotquestions.org/Q-Gospel.html

Answer: The gospel of “Q” gets its title from the German word quelle which means “source.” The whole idea of a Q gospel is based on the concept that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are so similar that they must have copied from each other and/or another source. This other source has been given the name "Q." The predominant argument for the existence of a Q gospel is essentially this: (1) The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after A.D. 70 and therefore could not have been written by the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, or Luke the doctor. (2) Since the authors of the Gospels were not firsthand witnesses, they must have used other sources. (3) Since Mark is the shortest Gospel and has the least original material, Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. (4) Since there are many similarities in Matthew and Luke which do not occur in Mark, Matthew and Luke must have had another source. (5) This source, Q, was likely a collection of sayings of Jesus, similar to the gospel to Thomas.

When considering the possibility of a Q gospel, it is important to remember that no evidence whatsoever has ever been found for the existence of a Q gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q gospel. Second, there is strong evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between A.D. 50 and 65, not after A.D. 70. Many of the early church fathers attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke the doctor. Third, since the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus. Therefore, it is natural that we should expect many similarities. If the Gospels record actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report Jesus saying the same things.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with the idea of the Gospel writers using the other Gospels as sources. Luke states in Luke chapter 1 that he used sources. It is possible that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. It is possible that there was another source in addition to Mark. The possible use of a "Q" source is not the reason why the Q gospel concept should be rejected. The use of a source which contained the sayings of Jesus does not take away from the inspiration of Scripture. The reason the Q gospel should be rejected is the presupposition of most Q gospel advocates - namely, that the Gospels are not divinely inspired.

The vast majority of those who promote the Q gospel concept do not believe the Bible is inspired (God-breathed). The vast majority of proponents of Q do not believe that the Gospels were written by the Apostles and their close associates, or that the Gospels were written within the generation of the Apostles. They do not believe it is possible that two or three authors could use the exact same words without using each others' writings as sources. Crucially, most Q advocates reject the inspiration of the Holy Spirit helping the Gospel writers to accurately record the words and works of Jesus Christ. Again, the use of a "Q" source is not the problem. The problem is the reason why most Q gospel advocates believe a "Q" was used, namely a denial of the inspiration of Scripture (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12,13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20,21).

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

I heard about the "Q", but I am not aware that there is actually one.

quote:

According to the early Church Fathers, Matthew wrote his Gospel first.

I am quoting this from memory. When St Peter was in Rome (I think), the people wanted a record of what he said. Because St. Mark was with him the longest, they asked him to compiled the Gospel for them. When St. Peter heard about it he neither prohibited nor encouraged it.

St. Luke was the 3rd to write the Gospel.

And lastly, St. John wrote the Gospel, the epistles and the Apocolypse towards the end of his life, on the island of Patmos.

From what I can remember, the order of the Gospels where purposedly set according to when they were written. If I can find the source I will post them later on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

I heard about the "Q", but I am not aware that there is actually one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

I heard about the "Q", but I am not aware that there is actually one.

Sure there is. It's even been on TV. The Q.