Q is short for Quelle which means 'source' in German. The Book of Q is also called the Lost Gospel, Q Source, Q Document. It is the common material between Matthew and Luke. like a code...
The Bible Q theory is just that: A theory with no archaeological evidence.
Basically, they noticed that some parts of the four gospels are the same and some are not. Scholars who try to "explain" the Bible came up with the theory that the common parts came from a common source that the scholars decided to call Q. No Biblical Q source has ever been found. It's pure imagination that has become part of the official story because enough scholars have decided that it must be so.
Have you noticed why this is a psy op against Christianity yet? The real common source is...Jesus. There is no need to make up a new source. It is part of a broader argument to reduce the remarkable consistency of the Bible to the existence of a common literary source rather than the fact that Jesus was real.
Anyways, since our Q is probably not a theologian, I suppose he might have co-opted the symbolism. I get the feeling that our Q is more of the 007 variety though...military intelligence and all.
I JUST explained to my 7 year old this morning about God existing before our universe and how scientists try to explain this away by saying maybe there was a "singularity" which burst forth in energy and became the Universe but it's just them trying to use different language to explain the same thing because they're anti-christs and don't want to admit the existence of the Creator.
What I wrote above isn't about the Bible, it's about Biblical scholarship, which is a different animal. I can totally believe that Q is a devout Christian who knows his (their? pronouns...) Bible. That doesn't mean he (they?) knows about lefty-driven Biblical scholarship, which is totally separate matter from the Bible itself.
Quote from Wikipedia article on Christ Myth Theory
During the early 20th century, several writers published arguments against Jesus' historicity, often drawing on the work of liberal theologians, who tended to deny any value to sources for Jesus outside the New Testament and limited their attention to Mark and the hypothetical Q source.
Therefore, Doherty concludes that Christianity started with the myth of this incarnated Christ, who was subsequently historicised. According to Doherty, the nucleus of this historicised Jesus of the Gospels can be found in the Jesus-movement which wrote the Q source.[88] Eventually, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly gentile community.[88] In time, the gospel-narrative of this embodiment of Wisdom became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus.[137]
Our Q is probably real. This other thing is probably lefty psyop.
I haven't read many. I got started here only this month. If you have a Q drop that tells us that Q knows about the work of liberal German theologians who want to claim that Jesus is a myth, feel free to share. That seems totally irrelevant to what Q is about from what I have gathered here and the few Q drops I have managed to process in the time I have been here.
Why the eagerness to force the connection to the Biblical Q source? I have already told you that there is no hard evidence for the Biblical Q source and that it has been used against Christianity (and given sources). As long as our Q is with Christ and is working to save us, that forced connection to the shared letter is irrelevant.
a month is enough time to read the drops, so that really isn't an excuse. and Q tells us to 'think logically', so why wouldn't we read the Q source?? it doesn't matter if it's 'hypothetical', still the words of Jesus. the Q source= the coincidences between the Gospels, which is exactly what Q recommends...connecting the dots.
You haven't said anything of substance here and answered none of my questions.
I can't read the Q source because the Q source doesn't exist. There are no physical copies of a Biblical Q source and there are no references to a Biblical Q source in historical documents or even folklore. Also, I don't need to connect any dots using a Q source with the Bible. Do you know how I know the Gospels share so much common information? Because it all comes from Jesus. Okay, I guess I can connect the four dots (the Gospels) to the one source (Jesus). Matthew and John directly witnessed Jesus, Luke heard from Paul, Mark heard from Peter. Why would I need the existence of a hypothetical Q source to figure out why the Gospels tell the same stories about Jesus when the obvious reason is that people witnessed the truth.
I can read Q drops but I can't go through it all in that amount of time unless I am unemployed. Also, I said a month because we're well into January but my first post here was 4 days ago. If I believe the guys who run qproofs sites, there is a lot of unpack here beyond just reading. Maybe you're a genius who can understand Q immediately after just a month of reading Q drops. In that case, congrats, and I would ask for your help.
I will just agree to disagree. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. There are more important things going on than this anyways.
The popular belief is that Matthew was written for / aimed at the Jews (heavy on ancestral line, which is important to Jews) and makes many more Jewish law references than other gospels.
Q refers to a collection of quotations or sayings of Jesus that is assumed to have existed. “Q” for “quotes”, more or less. The synoptic gospels have significant overlap between them, inclusive of things Jesus said. Scholars hypothesize the Q source as a means of explaining this.
Q is short for Quelle which means 'source' in German. The Book of Q is also called the Lost Gospel, Q Source, Q Document. It is the common material between Matthew and Luke. like a code...
Was just about to post this. People need to research more before posting something that could be explained with a quick search.
The Bible Q theory is just that: A theory with no archaeological evidence.
Basically, they noticed that some parts of the four gospels are the same and some are not. Scholars who try to "explain" the Bible came up with the theory that the common parts came from a common source that the scholars decided to call Q. No Biblical Q source has ever been found. It's pure imagination that has become part of the official story because enough scholars have decided that it must be so.
Have you noticed why this is a psy op against Christianity yet? The real common source is...Jesus. There is no need to make up a new source. It is part of a broader argument to reduce the remarkable consistency of the Bible to the existence of a common literary source rather than the fact that Jesus was real.
Anyways, since our Q is probably not a theologian, I suppose he might have co-opted the symbolism. I get the feeling that our Q is more of the 007 variety though...military intelligence and all.
I JUST explained to my 7 year old this morning about God existing before our universe and how scientists try to explain this away by saying maybe there was a "singularity" which burst forth in energy and became the Universe but it's just them trying to use different language to explain the same thing because they're anti-christs and don't want to admit the existence of the Creator.
have you read the Q drops? Q has repeatedly told us that this is Biblical, so Q knows a great deal about the Bible. Q is also more than a 'he'...
What I wrote above isn't about the Bible, it's about Biblical scholarship, which is a different animal. I can totally believe that Q is a devout Christian who knows his (their? pronouns...) Bible. That doesn't mean he (they?) knows about lefty-driven Biblical scholarship, which is totally separate matter from the Bible itself.
Just for people who are interested...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEArvidsson2006116%E2%80%93117_346-0
Quote from Wikipedia article on Christ Myth Theory
Our Q is probably real. This other thing is probably lefty psyop.
so you haven't read the Q drops? Q knows everything...
I haven't read many. I got started here only this month. If you have a Q drop that tells us that Q knows about the work of liberal German theologians who want to claim that Jesus is a myth, feel free to share. That seems totally irrelevant to what Q is about from what I have gathered here and the few Q drops I have managed to process in the time I have been here.
Why the eagerness to force the connection to the Biblical Q source? I have already told you that there is no hard evidence for the Biblical Q source and that it has been used against Christianity (and given sources). As long as our Q is with Christ and is working to save us, that forced connection to the shared letter is irrelevant.
a month is enough time to read the drops, so that really isn't an excuse. and Q tells us to 'think logically', so why wouldn't we read the Q source?? it doesn't matter if it's 'hypothetical', still the words of Jesus. the Q source= the coincidences between the Gospels, which is exactly what Q recommends...connecting the dots.
You haven't said anything of substance here and answered none of my questions.
I can't read the Q source because the Q source doesn't exist. There are no physical copies of a Biblical Q source and there are no references to a Biblical Q source in historical documents or even folklore. Also, I don't need to connect any dots using a Q source with the Bible. Do you know how I know the Gospels share so much common information? Because it all comes from Jesus. Okay, I guess I can connect the four dots (the Gospels) to the one source (Jesus). Matthew and John directly witnessed Jesus, Luke heard from Paul, Mark heard from Peter. Why would I need the existence of a hypothetical Q source to figure out why the Gospels tell the same stories about Jesus when the obvious reason is that people witnessed the truth.
I can read Q drops but I can't go through it all in that amount of time unless I am unemployed. Also, I said a month because we're well into January but my first post here was 4 days ago. If I believe the guys who run qproofs sites, there is a lot of unpack here beyond just reading. Maybe you're a genius who can understand Q immediately after just a month of reading Q drops. In that case, congrats, and I would ask for your help.
I will just agree to disagree. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. There are more important things going on than this anyways.
The popular belief is that Matthew was written for / aimed at the Jews (heavy on ancestral line, which is important to Jews) and makes many more Jewish law references than other gospels.
Mark was written for / aimed at the Romans
Luke for Greeks
John for all.
Q refers to a collection of quotations or sayings of Jesus that is assumed to have existed. “Q” for “quotes”, more or less. The synoptic gospels have significant overlap between them, inclusive of things Jesus said. Scholars hypothesize the Q source as a means of explaining this.