Which part?
Q represents the supposedly unknown text that was written before Mark, that was the source for Mark. The other Gospels were written after Mark and were partly copied from Mark. I'm not asserting anything - this is the current state of biblical research.
Buuut... Its the same state as a century ago. They appear not to have moved on. What they won't accept is that we got the Q text in the Nag Hammadi "library" (a bunch of non canonical texts hidden in a pot in a cave). The Gospel of Thomas is it.
The reason they won't mention that is, what I call career Christians won't touch anything "gnostic." They are so against it, they won't even define it.
The gnostic scare has been going on for 1700 years. As an example, Marcion, who was basically the second coming of Paul, was denounced as the Antichrist by "early church fathers" (that's a historical lie - they mean the fathers of the Constantinian church, which was on literal crusades to exterminate other Christian sects, which they called "gnostic.") - about 100 years after his death. Too inconvenient. This is a guy that wrote a gospel, which was rejected in 325. Then look at St. Clement - he was a saint for 800 years, then **_unsainted_** in another gnostic scare. Too inconvenient. So my point is, this stuff keeps happening, and they have a problem. A character problem... But also a whole raft of historical problems.
Luckily, some of the early Christian texts survived at Nag Hammadi. Not all... But enough to be a big problem for these people.
Comte de Sats Germain
npub12h…9qpsf
2025-05-03 06:01:40
in reply to nevent1q…y3tl
Author Public Key
npub12h6h8dj3ale4rk6hkpsp6gcz9kx9xtucyhd3pftn86lnn0j25gdsa9qpsfPublished at
2025-05-03 06:01:40Event JSON
{
"id": "e1868f560532050247a46117422173763cafbbd13a937a372bdc650ea3cd0342",
"pubkey": "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b",
"created_at": 1746252100,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a78f14431d6a900ea51f5c6f5f6ed947106d1e7a2c9fc06fd0a681264cef04d1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"31575c227c2c9a9da060ad357b226478782c12f84da400ad96d87294868dafaf",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
],
[
"p",
"2248fe0518a40ef52013abd98602bfb7110d5f544d43f56fe5522e6273582fdb"
]
],
"content": "Which part? \n\nQ represents the supposedly unknown text that was written before Mark, that was the source for Mark. The other Gospels were written after Mark and were partly copied from Mark. I'm not asserting anything - this is the current state of biblical research. \n\nBuuut... Its the same state as a century ago. They appear not to have moved on. What they won't accept is that we got the Q text in the Nag Hammadi \"library\" (a bunch of non canonical texts hidden in a pot in a cave). The Gospel of Thomas is it.\n\nThe reason they won't mention that is, what I call career Christians won't touch anything \"gnostic.\" They are so against it, they won't even define it.\n\nThe gnostic scare has been going on for 1700 years. As an example, Marcion, who was basically the second coming of Paul, was denounced as the Antichrist by \"early church fathers\" (that's a historical lie - they mean the fathers of the Constantinian church, which was on literal crusades to exterminate other Christian sects, which they called \"gnostic.\") - about 100 years after his death. Too inconvenient. This is a guy that wrote a gospel, which was rejected in 325. Then look at St. Clement - he was a saint for 800 years, then **_unsainted_** in another gnostic scare. Too inconvenient. So my point is, this stuff keeps happening, and they have a problem. A character problem... But also a whole raft of historical problems.\n\nLuckily, some of the early Christian texts survived at Nag Hammadi. Not all... But enough to be a big problem for these people.",
"sig": "f9690a231b6959e6bcbe87758f12c8bdb52592d92a2f952be51bea35428a7e11cac8af09f84e47f30ac350e5c48ca379b6d33d2819b1ff22f3144af61a787f05"
}