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.
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.