Hi to my Forum Friends,
In the long running discussion I began ten days ago, titled "'Once Saved, Always Saved' -- Really?" -- someone erroneously said there are contradictions in the Bible that Christians cannot explain.
And, our devout atheist Friend, Uno, declares, "Of course they cannot explain the contradictions. They've never studied them. These aren't the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school."
Since there are no contradictions in the Bible, there is no need to explain anything. Yes, devout atheists and their loyal bedfellows, the secularists and vanilla-flavored non-believers, always come up with what they, in their spiritual darkness, believe to be contradictions. Those are only figments of their overactive imaginations and their sincere desire for God and the Bible to not exist.
Then, Uno attempts to repeat one of the oft repeated atheist smoke screens, "I can almost guarantee you that none of them have ever heard of the "Q" gospel. Most scholars agree that the gospels were hammed together from various sources who sort of, ummm, borrowed material from more ancient sources to come up with the fictional story of Jesus. That original author is called 'Q'"
Yes, my Friend, we are fully aware of this fallacy. We just file it with all the other atheist created smoke screens.
This Q&A article from Got Questions Ministries should lay this misunderstanding to rest:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What Is The Q Gospel? Is There Any Evidence For The Gospel Of Q?
GotQuestions.Org -- Got Questions Ministries
http://www.gotquestions.org/Q-Gospel.html
Question: "What is the Q gospel? Is there any evidence for the gospel of Q?"
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).
Recommended Resource: "Three Views On The Origins of the Synoptic Gospels" by Robert L. Thomas.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uno, my Friend, I believe I am safe in saying that the last two paragraphs in the article above definitely describe you. Therefore, it is no surprise that you will attempt to trot out this and other Trojan Horses in your attempt to disprove God and His Bible. But, one day, my Friend, whether you want to believe in God or not -- those Trojan Horses are going to bite you in the butt.
Let me suggest that today, right now, would be a good time to put away all your Trojan Horses and other toys for disproving God -- and get right with Him. He is willing to forgive you and WILL accept YOU into His family. Why not do it -- right now -- while there is still time?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
