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.
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
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.
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.
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.
If this explanation is correct then Pompeo is dumber than a box of rocks. I really hope Pompeo is not dumber than a box of rocks.
Basically, Bannon thinks that the non-MAGA but not-uniparty normie public is too dumb to grasp voting machine hacks without Biden being caught on tape ordering it.
On the other hand, there is enough evidence with voter rolls and law violations to overturn the election. This stuff is easy for normies to understand if they can be made to see it.
The other problem is that the voting machine stuff is way easier to falsely caricature than other stuff. The non-technical normie, even the MAGA-type, has a very poor understanding of how this works. That makes in vulnerable to psyop counterattacks from the MSM. By the way, I firmly believe that voting machines were manipulated but trying to convince a normie who isn't MAGA is a tall task even if the normie isn't hostile.
That's Bannon's view. I disagree with parts of it but those are disagreements of strategy and information. As far as I can see, he hasn't said anything that reveals a disagreement about goals.
It's in the video. Annoying to find. They got a very short comment from Trump as he was about to depart for Alamo. He isn't at the alamo yet.
Headline on screen: "Breaking News President Trump Departs for Alamo, Texas"
Trump: "This impeachment is causing tremendous anger" Trump: "I want no violence"
That was about it.
Looks like an official link was just posted: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-approves-district-columbia-emergency-declaration/
I don't know if Parler was a honeypot. I do know that it was a shit site with questionable beginnings. I signed up for it and followed people just to give support but didn't post anything.
By the time Parler was online, Gab had already been banned from app stores and financially deplatformed. For Parler to have built their system on Amazon's cloud services was retarded and I thought so from the start.
If they were moving politically they should have defended Gab instead of starting Parler. But they wanted to rub shoulders with the polite crowd.
I will defend Parler like I defended Gab because an attack on Parler is an attack on free speech, but the Parler guys were dumber than a box of rocks in the way they went about things. This is in addition to their stupid UI and abhorrent verification system.
This better be a distraction. Please be a distraction.
They are saying these Ukrainians being sanctioned are Russian agents.
Check out the details. They are blaming this on Russia.
One of the sites being sanctioned is https://nabu-leaks.net/
I couldn't find the other ones (Era-Media, Only News, and Skeptik TOV)
Based on what I see on their home page, the Nabu Leaks anti-Dem, pro-Trump...
What does this mean?
Okay. Thanks for all the responses. I watched the videos, too.
So the right way to take Q (for the average Joe) seems to be
-
Don't get shocked when reallllly crazy stuff happens.
-
Know how bad shit really is.
-
Keep doing your own thing for America.
Got it. That makes much more sense. I think I am already on board with #2 and #3 before Q, so I guess I can remind myself of #1 when crazy stuff happens.
That's pretty reasonable.
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.