Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Q or Quelle a heretical source

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 12:55:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

This is a curiously rational and legitimate thread

I'm not well versed on Biblical theory, so I can't say much about Q. However, there are the so-called apocryphal gospels that were thrown out.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:24:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

Hmm, lets see with the supposed intelligentsia on this board, I would have expected people to jump all over this question. Maybe the question is over this boards head, and Im not really as stupid as you people would make me out to be.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 12:51:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:24:49 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

Hmm, lets see with the supposed intelligentsia on this board, I would have expected people to jump all over this question. Maybe the question is over this boards head, and Im not really as stupid as you people would make me out to be.

Oops...the moment of reasoning and logic has become evanescent and transitory. Bye bye reasoning and hello irrationality!
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 12:58:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 12:51:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:24:49 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

Hmm, lets see with the supposed intelligentsia on this board, I would have expected people to jump all over this question. Maybe the question is over this boards head, and Im not really as stupid as you people would make me out to be.

Oops...the moment of reasoning and logic has become evanescent and transitory. Bye bye reasoning and hello irrationality!

could you possibly add something intelligent to my posts, or kindly remove yourself from them, if you are inadequate to do so.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 1:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I got bored midway reading this, so I just decided to comment about it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 1:12:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sounds more like a conspriacy. The lack of evidence isn't evidence.

I also wonder why we assume that if someone references something, then the something must be true. What's gonna happen in 1,000 years from now when people (or Apes) look back at our society, see Wikipedia and assume that everything in there was absolute truth because it all had references.

Is it not possible for someone to reference something that doesn't exist? As a way to try to add credibility?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 1:20:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:24:49 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

Hmm, lets see with the supposed intelligentsia on this board, I would have expected people to jump all over this question. Maybe the question is over this boards head, and Im not really as stupid as you people would make me out to be.

This is why you have no friends.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 1:24:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 1:12:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Sounds more like a conspriacy. The lack of evidence isn't evidence.

I also wonder why we assume that if someone references something, then the something must be true. What's gonna happen in 1,000 years from now when people (or Apes) look back at our society, see Wikipedia and assume that everything in there was absolute truth because it all had references.

Is it not possible for someone to reference something that doesn't exist? As a way to try to add credibility?

Look at Manetho, our source for Egyptian history, does not exist. Was it destroyed in a conspiracy... no just the passage of time.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 1:29:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 1:24:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2011 1:12:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Sounds more like a conspriacy. The lack of evidence isn't evidence.

I also wonder why we assume that if someone references something, then the something must be true. What's gonna happen in 1,000 years from now when people (or Apes) look back at our society, see Wikipedia and assume that everything in there was absolute truth because it all had references.

Is it not possible for someone to reference something that doesn't exist? As a way to try to add credibility?

Look at Manetho, our source for Egyptian history, does not exist. Was it destroyed in a conspiracy... no just the passage of time.

Well, that, and bias conflicts attempting to revise it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
so far there has been one respectable non troll like response, that was the first one by wnope. He said it was interesting but has not researched enough. Admittance of not knowing is not a bad thing, its a humble thing, unlike a some people tend to think here.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:40:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM, BennyW wrote:
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?

Well get this benny there is no Q or Quelle on record. So, you may ask what is Q or Quelle? Well let me explain. Historians have noticed many points that Matthew and Luke appeared to be copying from Mark and other points that they were the same or very similar on that did not come from Mark. To explain these,a 2nd Source material for Matthew and Luke has been proposed and widely accepted by historians. The person who came to this conclusion, who was german, called in Quelle or as it is now called "Q." One of the biggest problems with this theory has always been the absence of the actual document. I am proposing that can easily be solved if we assume "Q" was a heretical source.

With that said, I am not quite aware of the reasoning that historians think there was another source and that Luke did not copy off of Mark and Matthew, but that theory is not really ever discussed, so I only assume there are valid reasons for dismissing that possibility.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:46:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:40:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM, BennyW wrote:
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?

Well get this benny there is no Q or Quelle on record. So, you may ask what is Q or Quelle? Well let me explain. Historians have noticed many points that Matthew and Luke appeared to be copying from Mark and other points that they were the same or very similar on that did not come from Mark. To explain these,a 2nd Source material for Matthew and Luke has been proposed and widely accepted by historians. The person who came to this conclusion, who was german, called in Quelle or as it is now called "Q." One of the biggest problems with this theory has always been the absence of the actual document. I am proposing that can easily be solved if we assume "Q" was a heretical source.

With that said, I am not quite aware of the reasoning that historians think there was another source and that Luke did not copy off of Mark and Matthew, but that theory is not really ever discussed, so I only assume there are valid reasons for dismissing that possibility.

It does seem quite speculative and takes quite a leap to simply assume there must have been another source. You say yourself that you are not aware of the reasoning behind the theory. i propose that it is possible that they both had the same experience and had heard things from the same people so that they would come out being very similar in certain areas.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:46:14 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:40:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM, BennyW wrote:
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?

Well get this benny there is no Q or Quelle on record. So, you may ask what is Q or Quelle? Well let me explain. Historians have noticed many points that Matthew and Luke appeared to be copying from Mark and other points that they were the same or very similar on that did not come from Mark. To explain these,a 2nd Source material for Matthew and Luke has been proposed and widely accepted by historians. The person who came to this conclusion, who was german, called in Quelle or as it is now called "Q." One of the biggest problems with this theory has always been the absence of the actual document. I am proposing that can easily be solved if we assume "Q" was a heretical source.

With that said, I am not quite aware of the reasoning that historians think there was another source and that Luke did not copy off of Mark and Matthew, but that theory is not really ever discussed, so I only assume there are valid reasons for dismissing that possibility.

It does seem quite speculative and takes quite a leap to simply assume there must have been another source. You say yourself that you are not aware of the reasoning behind the theory. i propose that it is possible that they both had the same experience and had heard things from the same people so that they would come out being very similar in certain areas.

As, i said in the original post, I am not trying to discuss whether Q does or does not exist, but whether there would be reason to doubt this based on the Q material, and also what the implications of this being true would be on Christianity.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 8:56:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:49:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:46:14 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:40:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM, BennyW wrote:
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?

Well get this benny there is no Q or Quelle on record. So, you may ask what is Q or Quelle? Well let me explain. Historians have noticed many points that Matthew and Luke appeared to be copying from Mark and other points that they were the same or very similar on that did not come from Mark. To explain these,a 2nd Source material for Matthew and Luke has been proposed and widely accepted by historians. The person who came to this conclusion, who was german, called in Quelle or as it is now called "Q." One of the biggest problems with this theory has always been the absence of the actual document. I am proposing that can easily be solved if we assume "Q" was a heretical source.

With that said, I am not quite aware of the reasoning that historians think there was another source and that Luke did not copy off of Mark and Matthew, but that theory is not really ever discussed, so I only assume there are valid reasons for dismissing that possibility.

It does seem quite speculative and takes quite a leap to simply assume there must have been another source. You say yourself that you are not aware of the reasoning behind the theory. i propose that it is possible that they both had the same experience and had heard things from the same people so that they would come out being very similar in certain areas.

As, i said in the original post, I am not trying to discuss whether Q does or does not exist, but whether there would be reason to doubt this based on the Q material, and also what the implications of this being true would be on Christianity.

I see
So for the sake of argument let us assume Q does exist. It's existence would not necessarily mean it is heretical. There are a number of sources mentioned in the Bible that we do not have but that aren't considered heretical.
The option you are looking for is that it was heretical. If this were the case then it might throw some things into question, but since there is no proof of it I on't see how speculating about it can do any actual damage to the credibility of the gospels.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?

You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 9:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 8:56:00 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:49:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:46:14 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:40:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 8:33:58 PM, BennyW wrote:
If Q was destroyed how would we know it existed in the first place?

Well get this benny there is no Q or Quelle on record. So, you may ask what is Q or Quelle? Well let me explain. Historians have noticed many points that Matthew and Luke appeared to be copying from Mark and other points that they were the same or very similar on that did not come from Mark. To explain these,a 2nd Source material for Matthew and Luke has been proposed and widely accepted by historians. The person who came to this conclusion, who was german, called in Quelle or as it is now called "Q." One of the biggest problems with this theory has always been the absence of the actual document. I am proposing that can easily be solved if we assume "Q" was a heretical source.

With that said, I am not quite aware of the reasoning that historians think there was another source and that Luke did not copy off of Mark and Matthew, but that theory is not really ever discussed, so I only assume there are valid reasons for dismissing that possibility.

It does seem quite speculative and takes quite a leap to simply assume there must have been another source. You say yourself that you are not aware of the reasoning behind the theory. i propose that it is possible that they both had the same experience and had heard things from the same people so that they would come out being very similar in certain areas.

As, i said in the original post, I am not trying to discuss whether Q does or does not exist, but whether there would be reason to doubt this based on the Q material, and also what the implications of this being true would be on Christianity.

I see
So for the sake of argument let us assume Q does exist. It's existence would not necessarily mean it is heretical. There are a number of sources mentioned in the Bible that we do not have but that aren't considered heretical.
The option you are looking for is that it was heretical. If this were the case then it might throw some things into question, but since there is no proof of it I on't see how speculating about it can do any actual damage to the credibility of the gospels.

So I guess, what you would be saying then is that, the fact that we don't have a copy of it, and don't have mention of it, is not really a problem even if it was what would now be referred to as orthodox.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 9:40:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Right now I am reading, The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, but when I am done I am considering reading up on Q possibly starting with The lost Gospels: The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton Mack and if I can get a relatively cheap copy, seems to be a pricey book The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre to see if I think Q is real or not. So, far everything I have read in Biblical Scholarship or watched presupposed Q, so it seems likely. If it does, I would be interested to see if the ideas of Q come out close to any of the heretical views of Jesus going around in the 1st or 2nd century.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 10:56:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.

I would say that your post is very interesting and the question well asked. It makes sense to me that all copies of sch a book would have been destroyed, as the church destroyed many texts that contradicted it's position. I would say that if Q did exist, it is very probable that it was condemned as heretical and left out of the bible. If true, it would seem that both Mathew and Luke saw the texts as important enough to copy, yet only partially.

I have a question. Why is it that the earliest bible we have today is only around 1000 years old. It would seem that since the church was so profoundly powerful for all those centuries, they would have kept an original version in safe keeping. I would like for someone to shed some light on this.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 11:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church."

And what if it didn't?
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 11:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 10:56:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.

I would say that your post is very interesting and the question well asked. It makes sense to me that all copies of sch a book would have been destroyed, as the church destroyed many texts that contradicted it's position. I would say that if Q did exist, it is very probable that it was condemned as heretical and left out of the bible. If true, it would seem that both Mathew and Luke saw the texts as important enough to copy, yet only partially.

I have a question. Why is it that the earliest bible we have today is only around 1000 years old. It would seem that since the church was so profoundly powerful for all those centuries, they would have kept an original version in safe keeping. I would like for someone to shed some light on this.

The question you should be asking is how is it that we have such well preserved documents that old in the first place? It is very rare to find documents that are intact over 1000 years but the fact that we have not one but several well preserved copies should be the interesting part.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 11:08:31 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 10:56:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.

I would say that your post is very interesting and the question well asked. It makes sense to me that all copies of sch a book would have been destroyed, as the church destroyed many texts that contradicted it's position. I would say that if Q did exist, it is very probable that it was condemned as heretical and left out of the bible. If true, it would seem that both Mathew and Luke saw the texts as important enough to copy, yet only partially.

I have a question. Why is it that the earliest bible we have today is only around 1000 years old. It would seem that since the church was so profoundly powerful for all those centuries, they would have kept an original version in safe keeping. I would like for someone to shed some light on this.

The question you should be asking is how is it that we have such well preserved documents that old in the first place? It is very rare to find documents that are intact over 1000 years but the fact that we have not one but several well preserved copies should be the interesting part.

Well, for instance, we have the dead sea scrolls.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2011 11:32:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I'm pretty sure the "oldest" one we have was a copy of a copy of an etc. Monks did a lot of copying those days. Thank you dark ages.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 12:37:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 11:31:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2011 11:08:31 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 10:56:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.

I would say that your post is very interesting and the question well asked. It makes sense to me that all copies of sch a book would have been destroyed, as the church destroyed many texts that contradicted it's position. I would say that if Q did exist, it is very probable that it was condemned as heretical and left out of the bible. If true, it would seem that both Mathew and Luke saw the texts as important enough to copy, yet only partially.

I have a question. Why is it that the earliest bible we have today is only around 1000 years old. It would seem that since the church was so profoundly powerful for all those centuries, they would have kept an original version in safe keeping. I would like for someone to shed some light on this.

The question you should be asking is how is it that we have such well preserved documents that old in the first place? It is very rare to find documents that are intact over 1000 years but the fact that we have not one but several well preserved copies should be the interesting part.

Well, for instance, we have the dead sea scrolls.

Exactly. However, most documents of similar age have not been preserved as well.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 12:47:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church.

I doubt it. I think we would have a far different Bible if the Church exercised this type of conspiracy. They could have just wrote it to say whatever they wanted and covered it up. There wouldn't be a trace of so called contradictions or errors.

I would assume they would have written in all sort of stuff in a way that could be questioned or mis interpreted. Like the brothers issue, wouldn't it be logical for the Church to edit any if that out and add He had none? And they could have thrown in Marys eternal virginity. It would have been convient anyway.

I believe everything is happening according to plan.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 1:46:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 12:37:10 AM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 11:31:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/19/2011 11:08:31 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 8/19/2011 10:56:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:59:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

It is simple: Matthew and Luke share a lot of similarities and dublets, not all of which are in Mark. Historians have long proposed that Matthew and Luke were using 2 different sources. One being Mark the second being Quelle (now simply called Q) which is german for source. It is supposedly a early book of Jesus' sayings. Now one of the key arguments against this book is that we don't have an actual copy. I am suggesting that this source could have been heretical. It would solve the problem, being there are many gospels,acts, and epistles that have either just been discovered, we only have a scrap of, or just people referring to the source in other writings that were destroyed because they contained heretical views of Jesus. You are aware in the 1st and 2nd centuries Christianity was not as uniform as it is now. There were Christians who thought Jesus was completely god. Yet others who didn't think he was divine at all but instead a human prophet. Yet there were others who thought Jesus was 100% god and 100% human, but the god part left him before he was crucified. Things you as a current christian think of as obvious were in wide dispute. For instance were there 1, 2,12, 30 gods were all views taken on and later destroyed. Was the resurrection crucial to save us, not all christians nor all christian documents circulated in this time agreed it was. Did the true God create the world or was that a lower inferior god? Another question you as a modern post canonized Christianity think is obvious, was not so obvious in the first few centuries. Was this the same god as the one of the Old testament or a completely new god? Many wanted the old testament thrown out. As these non-orthodox ideas were thrown out, the sources for these views were destroyed. From the Gospel of Peter, to The Acts of Thecla, to The Secret Book of John we have many different views and many destroyed books that we have had a hard time uncovering. If Q had any of these views, it begins to make sense why we don't have a copy.

I would say that your post is very interesting and the question well asked. It makes sense to me that all copies of sch a book would have been destroyed, as the church destroyed many texts that contradicted it's position. I would say that if Q did exist, it is very probable that it was condemned as heretical and left out of the bible. If true, it would seem that both Mathew and Luke saw the texts as important enough to copy, yet only partially.

I have a question. Why is it that the earliest bible we have today is only around 1000 years old. It would seem that since the church was so profoundly powerful for all those centuries, they would have kept an original version in safe keeping. I would like for someone to shed some light on this.

The question you should be asking is how is it that we have such well preserved documents that old in the first place? It is very rare to find documents that are intact over 1000 years but the fact that we have not one but several well preserved copies should be the interesting part.

Well, for instance, we have the dead sea scrolls.

Exactly. However, most documents of similar age have not been preserved as well.

That's exactly what I mean. I find this odd. Obviously the original biblical scrolls could have been saved, if not just because of their value as the originals. It mkes me wonder where these stories really originated from and how accurate it all is. For instance, many Sumerian stories bare a similar resembelence to the biblical stories. Also, the biblical holidays were adopted and changed from already existing annd practiced pagan ones. Also, we know that the church destroyed many many texts throughout the centuries it was in power. It makes you wonder what they were so afraid of. Why were they destroying an books and all people that even slightly opposed their position. It makes you wonder about alot of things and how corrupt church poliics really were. One must remember that the church pretty much ran the politics of the era. It's a testament that the era of history known as the Dark Ages was ran by the church. They had their day, the church ruled for a very long time. All that seems to have come out of it was death, darkness, and destruction. It shows what would happen when the bible takes over as the authority over people. We have already seen it, and it is called the Dark Ages. Funny how when the church started losing power, things started to turn around for the better.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:22:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

I thought this might be quite an interesting thread... but no Izbo came back and pissed all over it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:28:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:22:26 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/19/2011 9:01:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/18/2011 9:24:44 PM, izbo10 wrote:
This question occurred to me while discussing the bible. Q or Quelle is according to many historians a lost source for Matthew and Luke. This topic is not whether this is true or not. The question here has to do with one of the problems with the theory. People when questioning its existence often bring up that there is no copy of this, how could it be. I propose this, what if the source that Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels contained some heretical ideas about Jesus and was destroyed by the church. After all we do know from history there were many views on Jesus from he was all man to he was all god. Did he have a brother. Many of these views were very well hidden by the church and pretty much wiped out of existence. In the last century or so we are only now discovering heretical gospels that were all but completely wiped out. Some we only know about through other authors referencing them. So, if Q was a heretical writing it would stand to reason it is very likely we would not have much if any hint of it. Thoughts?


You know what, I will actually admit that I have no idea, nor understand what izbo is talking about. But somehow,...I have a feeling that he doesn't either...

I thought this might be quite an interesting thread... but no Izbo came back and pissed all over it.

I don't find anything irrational about Izbo's argument, could you point out this "piss" that you speak of?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."