Mark Goodacre has taken up the job of arguing against "Q" and his website on the topic is well worth a read. For example, to see Matthew and Luke at work look here. Here you see Luke just copy the words of Matthew - you really need to read it in Greek to see this but it comes out well enough in English.
I haven't a list of the minor agreements to hand but have a look at the whole site and see what you think.
Thanks Wheels for the website. I don't have time to read the whole website as I am extremely busy getting ready for the holidays. But trust me, I will. Mark Goodacre's examples (in the website) is exactly what I'm looking for to get a good argument against the existence of the "Q" source.
I don't think Mark had access to "Q" (too many deletions) so my argument against Mark Goodacre's examples would not be what he included in "The explanation". I would argue (probably unconvincingly) that the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus' temptation, and the mustard seed were popular stories and the writer of "Q" copied these stories from another sayings source (or vice versa).
The source that Mark copied these stories off of was not "Q" but another source that wrote these stories down similarly. Your examples have turned my argument into there being more than one "sayings gospel" other than "Q" that was written prior to Mark's gospel. Yes, my claim has turned into an argument for more than one hypothetical "sayings gospel" before Mark was written. I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism.
Do I have scriptural evidence for this? Mmmmm, well, maybe I do. Luke 1:1 states, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us." I'm going to interpret "many" as more than two (two or more hypothetical gospels and Mark).
I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism. What have I gotten myself into? Speaking of believing in non-existent things without sufficient evidence, Robert Price says, "What a tangled web you weave once you think you can believe". Isn't that the truth.
I just thought of something. Another alternative could be that Matthew's and/or Luke's account overlapped (possibly orally) into Mark's account over time and that's why these three popular stories seem to match in some aspects. Remember we only have the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy... of Mark. Grrrreat, this thought might keep me up all night thinking.
I do remember one thing that made me so convinced that there was such thing as a "Q" source and that Luke could not have been copying from Matthew. The evidence is where Luke places some of these word for word ("Q") sayings. For instance, a popular word for word agreement is when John's disciples are sent to ask Jesus if he is the "expected one" (Matt. ch.11/Luke ch.7). Matthew places this story
after the demands of discipleship (v. 18-22), the stilling of the sea (v. 23-27), the demons are cast into swine (28-34), restoring the life of the official's daughter (18-26), and the sending and instructing of the twelve apostles.
Luke places the word for word agreement of the sending of John's disciples
before all these events. Now I know your response might be that Luke is writing a "consecutive order" (Lk. 1:3) but it seems to me that Matthew was trying to write an orderly account as well. Matthew never says, "And some time during Jesus' life he did ....". Matthew specifically tells of Jesus' journies in his life. For instance, He departed ____ and went into _____ (12:9,13:53 etc.).
So we have a problem. If Luke is copying from Matthew then he is saying that the writer of this gospel is an eyewitness (Luke 1:2). How can he believe that the writer of Matthew is an eyewitness when he gets the order of Jesus' ministry wrong. Not only that but Luke is going to say that this writer is an eyewitness and then jot down a different genealogy, birth narrative, and resurrection account???
Furthermore, if Luke is copying Matthew then he leaves out the killing of all the babies two and under (ch. 2); the calling of the disciples(Ch. 4); Jesus' teaching on being salt and light, murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love (Ch.5); charitable deeds, fasting (ch. 6); Restoring the sight of two blind men, healing a mute - demon possessed man (Ch. 9); The invitation to come to Jesus (ch. 11); The committing of the unpardonable sin, dissing his real mother and brothers (ch. 12); The parables of the wheat and tares, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the dragnet, the householder, the rejection at Nazareth (ch. 13); The recount of the murder of John the Baptist, the walking on water, the healing of many (ch. 14.); The debate over tradition, the healing of the gentile woman's daughter, the feeding of the 4,000 (ch. 15); The debate over a sign from heaven, Jesus calling his disciples faithless idiots (ch. 16); Instruction about taxes (ch. 17); Cutting off evil hands and feet, instruction on a sinning brother, instruction about forgiveness (ch. 18); Instruction about divorce (ch. 19); The parable of the Laborers, instruction about ambition (ch. 20); The cursing of the fig tree, the parable of the two sons (ch. 20); The parable of the Marriage feast, the greatest commandment (ch. 22); The condemnation of the pharisees, the lamentation of Jerusalem (ch. 23); The parable of ten virgins, parable of the talents, judgement of the gentiles (ch. 25); The zombie apocalypse (ch. 27). The appearance of Jesus to the women, the bribery of the soldiers and last, but definitely not least, the great commission (ch. 28).
It is mind boggling to me to think that Luke has Matthew's gospel in his hands and he is going to leave out some of these important things. And at the same time he is going to say the accounts handed down to him were "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word". If he thought the writer of Matthew was an eyewitness, then why leave out so many important details? How can Luke compile an accurate account and leave out so much?
Honestly, all you have to do is say that I have no evidence of this non-existent thing or things and you win the debate.
One thing I think we can agree on is that the writers of the gospels were delusional.
I wanted to mention something else since Christmas is approaching. I noticed you know about some of the different views on the nature of Christ in post #39 of this thread. You mentioned "Adoptionism", "Sabellianism" and "Arianism". Here's some trivia for you.
Question: Out of these three views, which view of Christ is the "naughtiest"?
Answer: "Arianism"
At the council of Nicaea, Nicholas of Myra (St. Nick - a.k.a Santa Claus) bitch slapped Arius across the face for his views on the nature of Christ. I am not kidding. Trust me, I couldn't make up something this funny. I will cut and paste from the article and then give you the link at the end.
Noting the
attendees of the Council of Nicaea, the article states, "circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends)."
Then under the
Arian controversy heading, the article states, "The Arian discussions and debates at the council extended from about May 20, 325, through about June 19. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_NicaeaTwo things strike me as odd.
1.) If the nature of Christ is so clear in the bible according to fundamentalist Trinitarians, why did it take almost a month to hammer out the correct nature of Christ. Shouldn't someone just have pointed to the "I AM" statements in John and say, "This debate is over because it is so clear here in John 8:58 that Jesus is claiming to be God!" As a skeptic I had to ask myself why wasn't the "I AM" statements clear enough during the time of this council. After researching, I found some convincing evidence for myself that Athanasius (the catalyst of the budding Trinitarian movement) didn't even think Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I AM" (Against The Arians - Discourse IV Chap. 20). I'll poke around and find the link if you are interested. It's getting late.
2.) As you probably know, the Arian controversy didn't end after the council of Nicaea (google Arian controversy). It is mind boggling to me how Arius could convince people to follow him after people found out that Santa Claus disapproved of his teachings. WHAT IDIOTS! DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT BY FOLLOWING ARIUS THEY WOULDN'T GET ANY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS!!!
I am leaving for a week for the holidays and will be in a remote area with no internet service. To the three people still viewing this thread (moderators included), I wish you a merry xmas.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,
AND TO ALL A GOOD FIGHT (with religious family members)
