annewandering Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) I am watching the show Messiah:Behold the Lamb of God. They were showing how scholars have looked at the Gospels, Matt, Mark and Luke? to determine which is the oldest. They have come up with the conclusion that there is an older document that they call Q that two of these have derived from. This got me to thinking. The Book of Mormon is the oldest document detailing the time Christ was here on the earth. Granted he was in resurrected form. It is unique in that it was written at the time events happened not centuries later. Even considering that parts of it are abridged. That seems pretty important, historically. Edited March 3, 2013 by annewandering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 FYI, Matthew and Luke get much of their main information from Mark. Some scholars believe there was a 'Q' source that Matthew and Luke got other info from. However, some recent scholars (Mark Goodacre) believe that Luke took stuff from Matthew and Mark, and so there is no need for a Q source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyB Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) There is not a single document of "Q" in existence, nor is there reference to it anywhere in early Christian writing. Given that the author of Luke indicated that he used other sources, I would suggest that the idea, he used Mark and Matthew is at least as plausible as Q existing. The BoM is a translation by Joseph Smith (although from my reading he appeared to use dynamic equivalance (eg NIV) not word for word (eg NASB.) of purported ancient writings which are no longer available for confirmation. If you had the plates you could make a case for it being older then the NT but it is a translation without originals. Edited March 4, 2013 by AnthonyB To not offend Vort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 As a faithful LDS member you may have faith the plates existed, that Joseph translated the plates correctly but non LDS may not be so easily persuaded.This is the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. How are non-LDS opinions relevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyB Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Vort, Absolutely none on specifically LDS Gospel understanding, although I would have thought that if you your going to discuss something, you might have to include what it is not. The OP mentioned "historically" and it was directed at that. I have removed the line that appears to have offended you and am quite happy if a mod wants to remove it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Vort,Absolutely none on specifically LDS Gospel understanding, although I would have thought that if you your going to discuss something, you might have to include what it is not.The OP mentioned "historically" and it was directed at that. I have removed the line that appears to have offended you and am quite happy if a mod wants to remove it all.It's not a matter of offense. I am trying to understand how your response was helpful. An LDS woman comes to an LDS-specific subforum and makes an observation about LDS scriptures in the context of LDS doctrine. Your response is to say, "Non-Mormons don't believe that." Well, duh.I am trying to picture you in a Catholic discussion forum where a Catholic has brought up a discussion point about, let's say, Catholic beliefs in papal succession, and a Latter-day Saint chimes in, "Well, you know, non-Catholics aren't really likely to believe any of that." Would you not find that comment to be out of place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finrock Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Good afternoon annewandering. I hope you had a great weekend! :)They have come up with the conclusion that there is an older document that they call Q that two of these have derived from.Coincidentally, I recently started a thread with quotes from the Gospel of Thomas which some scholars believe could be the "Q" document:"There has been much speculation on the relationship of Thomas to the canonical Gospels. Many Sayings in Thomas have parallels with the New Testament Sayings, especially those found in the synoptic Gospels. This leads many to believe that Thomas was also based on the so-called "Q" Document, along with Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Indeed, some have speculated that Thomas may in fact be "Q". Unlike the synoptic Gospels, and like "Q", the Gospel of Thomas has no narrative connecting the various Sayings. In form, it is simply a list of 114 Sayings, in no particular order. Comparison with New Testament parallels show that Thomas contains either more primitive versions of the Sayings, or developments of more primitive versions. Either way, Thomas seems to preserve earlier traditions about Jesus than the New Testament" (Schenk).Going back to the original point, I think your point speaks to the idea of how correct the Book of Mormon truly is. Before Joseph Smith was led to the Golden Plates, the Book of Mormon had been preserved in the ground for thousands of years so that the text could not possibly be altered/lost in any way over the course of time. I think this lends support to what Joseph Smith said when he said that "...the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."Regards,Finrock Edited March 4, 2013 by Finrock Grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Going back to the original point, I think your point speaks to the idea of how correct the Book of Mormon truly is. Before Joseph Smith was led to the Golden Plates, the Book of Mormon had been preserved in the ground for thousands of years so that the text could not possibly be altered/lost in any way over the course of time. I think this lends support to what Joseph Smith said when he said that "...the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."Regards,FinrockYes this is the point I was trying to make. :) The idea that it was out of the hands of mankind for so long would help to preserve the integrity of it. We do know that many of the books were abridged but even the abridgments were done under documented inspiration not by who knows who at who knows what time and from who knows what document. The bible has so much that has flat out questionable provenance that its no wonder Joseph Smith said so long as its translated correctly. This is not a problem in the Book of Mormon if you believe it is a true book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.