πππππ πππ, πππππ
ππππππ
5:5
Anon is sorry as all anon heard was blah blah blah blah God blah blah⦠:D
Do you even Qdrops, Scro?!
Trust no one!
Not even yourself!
But here is this book written by men!
muahahahahahah!
Condoned!
Sanctioned!
Endorsed by Tyrants through out the centuries!
Used to destroy entire cultures wholesale!
Most of its adherents ancestors converted at the tip of a sword!
By all means please continue! :D
splosions!
TJ believed that evil liars had their way with the words of Jesusβ¦.
JUST SAYIN'!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Book the Bible was a compilation of a bunch of books written by men and a bunch of other faggots decided which of these books to include in the big book called the Bible.
The Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 and also referenced in 2 Timothy 3:8.[1] From the context in the Book of Samuel, it is implied that it was a collection of poetry. Several books have claimed to be this lost text, some of which are discounted as pseudepigrapha. Certain members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints secured the copyright to a particular English translation of one of these and republished it in 1887 in Salt Lake City.[2]
The Book of the Wars of the Lord[3] is mentioned in Numbers 21:14. It is speculatively associated with one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.[citation needed] The Book of the Wars of the Lord is also cited in the eighteenth century Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) (trans. Moses Samuel c. 1840, ed. J. H. Parry 1887) Chapter 90:48 as being a collaborative record written by Moses, Joshua and the children of Israel.
The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah are mentioned in the Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:19,29). They are said to tell of events during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah, respectively. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is again mentioned in 1 Kings 16:20 regarding King Zimri, and many other times throughout 1 and 2 Kings.
The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet and Visions of Iddo the Seer (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo) is mentioned in the 2nd Book of Chronicles. (2 Chronicles 9:29, 2 Chronicles 12:15, 2 Chronicles 13:22). This book has been completely lost to history, save for its title.
The Manner of the Kingdom.[4]
Referenced at 1 Samuel 10:25.
The Acts of Solomon.[5]
Referenced at 1 Kings 11:41.
The Annals of King David.[6]
Referenced at 1 Chronicles 27:24.
The Book of Samuel the Seer. Also called Samuel the Seer or The Acts of Samuel the Seer, which could be the same as 1 & 2 Samuel.[7]
Referenced at 1 Chronicles 29:29.
The Book of Nathan the Prophet. Also called Nathan the Prophet or The Acts of Nathan the Prophet or History of Nathan the Prophet.[7]
Referenced at 1 Chronicles 29:29, and also 2 Chronicles 9:29.
The Book of Gad the Seer.[8]
Referenced at 1 Chronicles 29:29.
The Prophecy of Ahijah,[9] might be a reference to 1 Kings 14:2β18.
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 9:29.
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.[10]
Referenced in 2 Chronicles 16:11, 2 Chronicles 27:7 and 2 Chronicles 32:32. Might be the same as 1 & 2 Kings.
The Book of Jehu,[11] could be a reference to 1 Kings 16:1β7.
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 20:34.
The Story of the Book of Kings.[12]
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 24:27.
The Acts of Uzziah. Also called The Book by the prophet Isaiah. Perhaps the same as the Book of Isaiah.[7]
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 26:22.
The Vision of Isaiah.[13]
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 32:32.
The Acts of the Kings of Israel. Also called The Acts and Prayers of Manasseh.[14] May be identical to The Book of the Kings of Israel, above.
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 33:18.
The Sayings of the Seers.[15]
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 33:19.
The Laments for Josiah. Also called Lamentations. This event is recorded in the existing Book of Lamentations.
Referenced at 2 Chronicles 35:25.
The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus.[16]
Referenced at Esther 2:23, Esther 6:1, Esther 10:2, and Nehemiah 12:23.
Enoch, Thomas and a bunch of other cool stuff was conveniently left out. But Why?
kekitty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The Q source (also called Q document, Q Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral tradition.[1][2][3]
Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek; that most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.[5] Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.[6]
Q's existence has been questioned.[6] Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[7] But copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary as it was preserved in the canonical gospels. Hence, it was preferable to copy the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, "where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant".[8] Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis retains wide support.[6
For centuries, biblical scholars followed the Augustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Luke followed both Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different from the other three, which because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels). Nineteenth-century New Testament scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Marcan priority speculated that Matthew's and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from Mark's Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q.[9][10]
Herbert Marsh, an Englishman, is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative" source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and unique to Luke.[11] In his 1801 work, A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels, he used the Hebrew letter Aleph (Χ) to denote the narrative source and the letter beth (Χ) to denote the sayings source.[12]
The next person to advance the "sayings" hypothesis was the German Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1832. Schleiermacher interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, c. AD 95β109 ("Matthew compiled the oracles (logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could")[13] as evidence of a separate source. Rather than the traditional interpretationβthat Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in HebrewβSchleiermacher proposed that Papias was actually referring to a sayings collection of the apostle Matthew that was later used, together with narrative elements, by another "Matthew" and by the other Evangelists.[14]
In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Marcan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the two-source hypothesis has dominated ever since.
At this time, the second source was usually called the Logia, or Logienquelle (logia-source), because of Papias's statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Ξ). But toward the end of the 19th century, doubts began to grow about the propriety of anchoring its existence to Papias's account. So the symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss to denote Quelle, meaning source) was adopted to remain neutral about the connection of Papias to the collection of sayings.
This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and Q. For most scholars, Q accounts for what Matthew and Luke shareβsometimes in exactly the same wordsβbut that are absent in Mark. Examples are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and many individual sayings.[15]
In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third hypothetical source, referred to as M, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke, and that some material present only in Luke might have come from an also unknown L source.[16] This hypothesis posits that underlying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are at least four sources, namely the Gospel of Mark and three lost texts: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by green in the above chart, and L by blue.)
Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.[17] Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.[18][19]
In the early 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. But these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.
This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. James M. Robinson of the Jesus Seminar and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Gospel of Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels. This burst of interest after the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas led to increasingly more sophisticated literary reconstructions of Q.
but all "other" religions are evil Anon⦠and that's not dividing by religion, no!
β¦β¦β¦β¦β¦..
Correct.
Now, if anons are versed in all things Ancient Sumer they will know that this sort of behavior strongly resembles the behavior of the cults which surrounded the various competing "Gods" at that time.
Angry, Jealous, extremely Territorial about their "Possessions". The same sort of behavior expressed by many "Gods" of various cultures which IAO should be considered as nothing more than Infantile.
To think that there is no direct connection to WHATEVER "God" the Bible has them worshipping and some Ancient "God" from the times of Sumer is folly.
So this "God" Jehovah/Yahweh and on and on is more than likely archetypical of some Sumerian Diety or fusion of several Sumerian Deities.
Now, if anons are versed in Sitchen and the tale which the many 1000's of cuneiform tablets seem to be tellingβ¦
"Consider the Vastness of Space"
KEK