| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stephen bayzik" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2003 12:43:50 PM |
| Object: |
Logia |
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
(Greek: "sayings," "words," or "discourses"), hypothetical collection,
either written or oral, of the sayings of Jesus, which might have been in
circulation around the time of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels
(i.e., those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Most biblical scholars agree that
Matthew and Luke based their written accounts largely on The Gospel
According to Mark. The versions of Matthew and Luke, however, both share a
good deal of material that is absent from Mark. This shared material is
largely made up of sayings attributed to Jesus, an ostensible coincidence
that has led biblical scholars to hypothesize the existence of an
undetermined source, perhaps the logia, from which the shared material is
drawn.
Matthew and Luke, however, share narrative material as well as the sayings
of Jesus. Scholars have therefore hypothesized the existence of a kind of
proto-gospel that incorporates the logia. Experts have called this
hypothetical source Q (from German Quelle, "source"). The existence of Q,
sometimes called the lost source, is theoretical; some scholars, although
believing that Q exists, contend that the logia is an entirely different
entity.
The first references to the logia were made by Papias, a 2nd-century bishop
of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, in his work Logixn kyriakxn exAgAseis
("Interpretation of the Logia of the Lord"), and by other early Christian
writers, such as Polycarp, a 2nd-centurybishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor.
According to Eusebius, a 4th-century church historian, Papias wrote that the
Apostle Matthew arranged the logia of Jesus in an orderly form in Hebrew.
Some scholars contend that the logia was a collection of Old Testament
oracles predicting the coming of the Messiah, but this view has been
challenged. Though the logia may not have been part of the theoretical lost
source known as Q or of the Old Testament messianic oracles, it is generally
assumed that early Christians either wrote down or transmitted orally the
sayings of Jesus, much as Jews of the period collected the sayings of
respected rabbis, and that this material was used by both Matthew and Luke.
Source Britannica.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 06:36:56 PM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voggg7s5pq8t89@corp.supernews.com>...
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
(Greek: "sayings," "words," or "discourses"), hypothetical collection,
either written or oral, of the sayings of Jesus, which might have been in
circulation around the time of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels
(i.e., those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Most biblical scholars agree that
Matthew and Luke based their written accounts largely on The Gospel
According to Mark. The versions of Matthew and Luke, however, both share a
Why do you think that Matthew who was an apostle and spent the rest of his
life as Jesus follower would need Mark an outsider
to compose his "Gospel"?
Was Mark better informed about Jesus than Matthew?
Was Mark among the twelves?
I am baffled how stupid scholars can get
good deal of material that is absent from Mark. This shared material is
largely made up of sayings attributed to Jesus, an ostensible coincidence
that has led biblical scholars to hypothesize the existence of an
undetermined source, perhaps the logia, from which the shared material is
drawn.
Matthew and Luke, however, share narrative material as well as the sayings
of Jesus. Scholars have therefore hypothesized the existence of a kind of
proto-gospel that incorporates the logia. Experts have called this
hypothetical source Q (from German Quelle, "source"). The existence of Q,
sometimes called the lost source, is theoretical; some scholars, although
believing that Q exists, contend that the logia is an entirely different
entity.
The first references to the logia were made by Papias, a 2nd-century bishop
of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, in his work Logixn kyriakxn exAgAseis
("Interpretation of the Logia of the Lord"), and by other early Christian
writers, such as Polycarp, a 2nd-centurybishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor.
According to Eusebius, a 4th-century church historian, Papias wrote that the
Apostle Matthew arranged the logia of Jesus in an orderly form in Hebrew.
Some scholars contend that the logia was a collection of Old Testament
oracles predicting the coming of the Messiah, but this view has been
challenged. Though the logia may not have been part of the theoretical lost
source known as Q or of the Old Testament messianic oracles, it is generally
assumed that early Christians either wrote down or transmitted orally the
sayings of Jesus, much as Jews of the period collected the sayings of
respected rabbis, and that this material was used by both Matthew and Luke.
Source Britannica.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 08:41:02 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0310131536.1c6f670c@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<voggg7s5pq8t89@corp.supernews.com>...
Why do you think that Matthew who was an apostle and spent the rest of
his
life as Jesus follower would need Mark an outsider
to compose his "Gospel"?
Was Mark better informed about Jesus than Matthew?
Was Mark among the twelves?
I am baffled how stupid scholars can get
Let this suffice to define your general academic level of intelligence.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were not the authors of the Gospels.
============================================================================
============
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
14 Oct 2003 12:07:01 PM |
|
|
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voml58n7tus56b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0310131536.1c6f670c@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<voggg7s5pq8t89@corp.supernews.com>...
Why do you think that Matthew who was an apostle and spent the rest of
his
life as Jesus follower would need Mark an outsider
to compose his "Gospel"?
Was Mark better informed about Jesus than Matthew?
Was Mark among the twelves?
I am baffled how stupid scholars can get
Let this suffice to define your general academic level of intelligence.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were not the authors of the Gospels.
What do you think my point is before you start assholing around.
============================================================================
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
14 Oct 2003 05:26:37 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0310140907.4fd3c982@posting.google.com...
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:<voml58n7tus56b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
Let this suffice to define your general academic level of intelligence.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were not the authors of the Gospels.
What do you think my point is before you start assholing around.
To define new verbs like "assholing". :-)
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jimmy adams" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
14 Oct 2003 12:59:52 PM |
|
|
In article <bbba7302.0310131536.1c6f670c@posting.google.com>,
Not-easily-duped <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> writes
"stephen bayzik" <sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<voggg7s5
pq8t89@corp.supernews.com>...
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
(Greek: "sayings," "words," or "discourses"), hypothetical collection,
either written or oral, of the sayings of Jesus, which might have been in
circulation around the time of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels
(i.e., those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Most biblical scholars agree that
Matthew and Luke based their written accounts largely on The Gospel
According to Mark. The versions of Matthew and Luke, however, both
share a
Why do you think that Matthew who was an apostle and spent the rest of
his
life as Jesus follower would need Mark an outsider
to compose his "Gospel"?
Was Mark better informed about Jesus than Matthew?
Was Mark among the twelves?
I am baffled how stupid scholars can get
Accepted wisdom says that Mark was Peter's secretary in Rome, and
wrote his gospel in around 70 a.d., from Peter's memories. The other
apostles were all dead by then, and as has already been pointed out,
the other gospel writers were not the apostles of the same names.
The church does not deny this, but does not make a big thing of it,
either.
jradams@bigfoot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
14 Oct 2003 05:21:58 PM |
|
|
"jimmy adams" <jimmy@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KalIFCAYmDj$EwtM@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
In article <bbba7302.0310131536.1c6f670c@posting.google.com>,
Accepted wisdom says that Mark was Peter's secretary in Rome, and
wrote his gospel in around 70 a.d., from Peter's memories. The other
apostles were all dead by then, and as has already been pointed out,
the other gospel writers were not the apostles of the same names.
The church does not deny this, but does not make a big thing of it,
either.
Excellent comments.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
15 Oct 2003 11:20:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:59:52 +0100, jimmy adams
<jimmy@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Accepted wisdom says that Mark was Peter's secretary in Rome, and
wrote his gospel in around 70 a.d., from Peter's memories. The other
apostles were all dead by then, and as has already been pointed out,
the other gospel writers were not the apostles of the same names.
The church does not deny this, but does not make a big thing of it,
either.
That would be a bad move which might lead some to figure out what a
bunch of baloney the whole thing is.
Just think for a moment. Eighty years after the guy died someone wrote
that, A Christian, someone who is supposed to believe among other
things that:
-He is a miserable sinner because someone ate the wrong fruit.
-A virgin gave birth to a jewish charismatic leader who created fish
and bread out of nothing, revived a corpse, and came back to life
three days after being executed.
Read the Bible it is the best cure for religion.
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 09:31:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:43:50 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
Why?
Not all that interested.
They are a pretty boring read - with confused and contradictory
message.
So however they originated, they don't support the existence of
divinity - and therefore are not relevent to whether or not one SHOULD
believe.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 06:41:07 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<mh3kovgcleootqkltuf3jbpjgus5tmm089@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:43:50 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
Why?
Not all that interested.
They are a pretty boring read - with confused and contradictory
message.
So however they originated, they don't support the existence of
divinity - and therefore are not relevent to whether or not one SHOULD
believe.
Mark.
Where did the name Mark originate, jerk?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 08:45:26 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0310131541.624bcc8b@posting.google.com...
Where did the name Mark originate, jerk?
It is primarily a Latin (ie. Roman) name. Certainly not the name a good
little Jewish boy would be given. :-)
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 07:27:59 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2003 16:41:07 -0700,
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<mh3kovgcleootqkltuf3jbpjgus5tmm089@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:43:50 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
Why?
Not all that interested.
They are a pretty boring read - with confused and contradictory
message.
So however they originated, they don't support the existence of
divinity - and therefore are not relevent to whether or not one SHOULD
believe.
Mark.
Where did the name Mark originate, jerk?
From Latin - "Mars" god of war (hence Marcus, marcellus etc) god of
war.
Why do you ask?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 08:50:22 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:9pgmov4j52bes6fmm85dlo3hpd32m7g5m5@4ax.com...
On 13 Oct 2003 16:41:07 -0700,
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
Where did the name Mark originate, jerk?
From Latin - "Mars" god of war (hence Marcus, marcellus etc) god of
war.
Why do you ask?
Perhaps he thought it was the name given to him after his bar mitzvah
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
11 Oct 2003 08:57:53 PM |
|
|
stephen bayzik wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
All one needs to know is that the authors are unknown and
they aren't worth the bother to read.
Why waste time trying to prove the "gospels" false when it
is plainly, and painfully, obvious that they are false. They
don't matter anyway! It's useless to claim what a god wants,
or says, until the god is proven to exist.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
11 Oct 2003 11:59:00 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xJ2cnVdnTPq8KBWiXTWJkw@sti.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
All one needs to know is that the authors are unknown and
they aren't worth the bother to read.
Why waste time trying to prove the "gospels" false when it
is plainly, and painfully, obvious that they are false. They
don't matter anyway! It's useless to claim what a god wants,
or says, until the god is proven to exist.
The question (to a rational and educated person) is not true or false. The
Christian gospels are literary monuments to be studied as well as the
Tanoak, the Quran, Vedas etc. Failure to do so would at best make one a
functional illiterate.
PS. notice I am not engaging in an argument on the nature (or existence) of
God, gods, the Christ.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 12:10:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:59:00 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xJ2cnVdnTPq8KBWiXTWJkw@sti.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
All one needs to know is that the authors are unknown and
they aren't worth the bother to read.
Why waste time trying to prove the "gospels" false when it
is plainly, and painfully, obvious that they are false. They
don't matter anyway! It's useless to claim what a god wants,
or says, until the god is proven to exist.
The question (to a rational and educated person) is not true or false. The
Christian gospels are literary monuments to be studied as well as the
Tanoak, the Quran, Vedas etc. Failure to do so would at best make one a
functional illiterate.
Nobody would bother with "true or false" - it obly Christians didn't
claim they are true, attempt to use tham as "proof" of anything etc.
They are simply irrelevant as what Christians imagine they are.
PS. notice I am not engaging in an argument on the nature (or existence) of
God, gods, the Christ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 05:03:40 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:tfohov43voo5uspugivj7ug1dmphgcq90s@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:59:00 -0400, "stephen bayzik"
<sbayzik@idirect.com> wrote:
Nobody would bother with "true or false" - it obly Christians didn't
claim they are true, attempt to use tham as "proof" of anything etc.
They are simply irrelevant as what Christians imagine they are.
Your point is well taken. But keep in mind not all Christians can be
stereotyped as "have Bible, will preach."
Take care,
--
Stephen Baize
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 10:16:37 AM |
|
|
stephen bayzik wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
stephen bayzik wrote:
Just a wee bit of information regarding the Gospels.
All one needs to know is that the authors are unknown
and they aren't worth the bother to read.
Why waste time trying to prove the "gospels" false when
it is plainly, and painfully, obvious that they are
false. They don't matter anyway! It's useless to claim
what a god wants, or says, until the god is proven to
exist.
The question (to a rational and educated person) is not
true or false. The Christian gospels are literary
monuments to be studied as well as the Tanoak, the Quran,
Vedas etc. Failure to do so would at best make one a
functional illiterate.
So, only literate people waste time reading ancient
mythologies? Studying the minutia of those texts does not
make one literate, but most often makes them boring since
that's all they can talk about and are illiterate about the
rest of the real world.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 04:57:46 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DfKdnRMbqcfI7RSiXTWJhg@sti.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
The question (to a rational and educated person) is not
true or false. The Christian gospels are literary
monuments to be studied as well as the Tanoak, the Quran,
Vedas etc. Failure to do so would at best make one a
functional illiterate.
So, only literate people waste time reading ancient
mythologies? Studying the minutia of those texts does not
make one literate, but most often makes them boring since
that's all they can talk about and are illiterate about the
rest of the real world.
You must have had a boring education. Sorry about that, perhaps football,
soccer, etc. would make you feel more in tune with life.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
12 Oct 2003 08:08:05 PM |
|
|
stephen bayzik wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
stephen bayzik wrote:
The question (to a rational and educated person) is not
true or false. The Christian gospels are literary
monuments to be studied as well as the Tanoak, the Quran,
Vedas etc. Failure to do so would at best make one a
functional illiterate.
So, only literate people waste time reading ancient
mythologies? Studying the minutia of those texts does not
make one literate, but most often makes them boring since
that's all they can talk about and are illiterate about the
rest of the real world.
You must have had a boring education.
No, entomology is more exciting than you think. Studying
reality is far more exciting than studying ancient
mythologies, and it has practical uses in the real world.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 12:50:05 AM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EDqdnd5aB7tuZxSiU-KYhA@sti.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
You must have had a boring education.
No, entomology is more exciting than you think. Studying
reality is far more exciting than studying ancient
mythologies, and it has practical uses in the real world.
UDP for WebTV
Never had anything against the study of insects. :-)
But there is more to life than that? But if that is your idea of "reality",
and "man qua man", then continue to study your bellybutton.
Remember the old adage, 'learn more and more about less and less' than you
will wind up learning nothing.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
13 Oct 2003 09:05:50 PM |
|
|
stephen bayzik wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
stephen bayzik wrote:
You must have had a boring education.
No, entomology is more exciting than you think. Studying
reality is far more exciting than studying ancient
mythologies, and it has practical uses in the real world.
Never had anything against the study of insects. :-)
Yes you did. You claimed, without knowing anything about me,
that I had a boring education. The base for your claim was
that anyone that hasn't had an education that you approve of
- one that studies only mythologies - is interesting.
But there is more to life than that?....
Yes. Far more. There is so much more to life that I'm not
going to waste it studying only mythologies.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: Logia |
14 Oct 2003 05:29:35 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DwydnV0OtMZixBaiXTWJlg@sti.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
No, entomology is more exciting than you think. Studying
reality is far more exciting than studying ancient
mythologies, and it has practical uses in the real world.
Never had anything against the study of insects. :-)
Yes you did. You claimed, without knowing anything about me,
that I had a boring education. The base for your claim was
that anyone that hasn't had an education that you approve of
- one that studies only mythologies - is interesting.
But there is more to life than that?....
Yes. Far more. There is so much more to life that I'm not
going to waste it studying only mythologies.
Excellent!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
