Preserved Topic: Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs) (Page 7 of 9)

quote:

---

How can you say for certain that your view, among the myriad of other Christian views, is the most accurate?

Also, for someone evaluating the Scriptures (and the Bible) from a non-belief stand-point, the message is unimportant. And the clear lack of vital information inbetween, is I think a very interesting point in itself - it seems that this is done intentionally.

---

yes indeed, and for a very good reason

2Th 2:11 - 12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

i'm not saying this is the case for you. i happen to think you are closer to the truth than most believers.

something that plagued me for years about the bible was: what is the millenium all about? why would christ return, bind satan, set up his kingdom on earth, and then wait 1000 years before the judgement? and set satan free again (for a season) to boot??

rightly dividing the word of god can be hazardous to your belief system. even when i found a teacher who could answer this, and many other seemingly unanswerable questions i had about the bible, it's still only head knowledge. and that doesn't count for much in the kingdom of god, because: it is within your heart.

in answer to the millenium question: it is for the benefit of those who never had a chance in the first place.

I never practiced any formal religion growing up (aside from my own spiritual thinking). And I never really had any reason to disprove religion because of science (I am not a scientist).

When it came to discussing issues such as these with Christian friends (and even some family), I never felt as though I was being heard. To ME, responses were flighty and irrational to say the LEAST. But mind you, I was not taught to communicate in this "language." If I did not learn a "language" of religion, how on earth can I be expected to comprehend it?!

And when I'd exert ideas of spirituality that I maintained in my own mind with those that were on the opposite end, I was again not "heard."

When both groups begin to realize that some say toMAYto and some say toMAHto, there will be no debates. You cannot "teach" someone to adopt a pattern of thinking that goes beyond what they perceive the world as.

I pray that both groups recognize their differences, and have the wisdom to avoid trying to shove their "language" down another's throat. I for one am sick of it. If there can be no common "language" for discussing these issues, then discuss it with someone you CAN communicate WITH.

If everyone can learn to love each other despite how they perceive the world, this world would be a BETTER PLACE...

Thumper, your terminology is funny Because you've never practiced a religious system, but you say that you "pray that both groups recognize their differences." Just funny to me.

You know it's amazing how this topic has degenerated from it's intention. Anyone ever feel like it's too hard to keep up with a topic on these forums?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

in answer to the millenium question: it is for the benefit of those who never had a chance in the first place.

---

Whoa! LOL! outcydr, like I've said before, we really need to talk. Try this one of for size... there will be no 1000 year earthly kingdom.

quote:

---

If there can be no common "language" for discussing these issues, then discuss it with someone you CAN communicate WITH.

---

That is what we try to do here, Thumper. This is a voluntary forum and people are free to speak their minds. I consider the free exchange of ideas in this place to be an extremely valuable and productive thing and I wouldn't change that for anything. Sometimes things get a bit heated but that's ok because we're all human and we are not robots devoid of passion.

quote:

---

You know it's amazing how this topic has degenerated from it's intention. Anyone ever feel like it's too hard to keep up with a topic on these forums?

---

Degenerated? Hardly! This thread is one of the better ones I've experienced. The wandering off topic is actually a requirement around here and it has worked this way for as long as I've been a member. All I can say about that is... deal with it

WS, my statement addressed the historical reliability of the New Testament documents. You say that is a HUGE debate in the Xian community of believers? How so? Doesn't it seem strange that Xians who base their faith on these words would find them unreliable? Can you please explain what you're talking about a little more for me because maybe I'm missing the point once again.

And as far as how do I know my view is the most accurate... again what view are you referring to? I have lots of views about the faith and some are mostly my speculation and some are very solid. For example, the actual motivations of Judas are very speculative because we have so little information but me saying that the apostle Paul was the author of most of the epistles is pretty hard to refute.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Thumper - are you speaking in general, or are your comments directed toward this conversation?

If you are referring to this conversation, you must have skipped a great deal, because there is (as there usually is around here) a pretty good conversation between christians and non....and the 'language" doesn't have much to do with it.

There are obviously some very fundamental differences in the way we are going to regard the subject...and some of those will never be overcome. But they can certainly be discussed...

Sanzen - degenerated?? It turned from a sharing of a ridiculous website into a 240+ post discussion of a vareiity of issues, and that's degeneration...?

quote:

---

Whoa! LOL! outcydr, like I've said before, we really need to talk. Try this one of for size... there will be no 1000 year earthly kingdom.

---

LOL! right back at you. duh!
are we not speaking of the same bible? the one that ends with the revelation (unveiling) of jesus christ?
the one that states that the redeemed will live and reign with him a thousand years and at the end of the thousand years satan will be loosed to gather the nations against him,gog and magog?
or was that armeggedon?
which is which, and who is who?
should i study more, or should you? (yust yoking)

Yep

The differing views of the end times have been debated for centuries, and if you consider all the interpretations of John's Revelation over that time, you will find me agreeing with much of the "amillennial" position.

Basically, I don't believe that all of John's visions were predicting literal future events. I believe when the day of judgement comes all of the dead shall rise and there will be a final accounting and that will be that, the faithful go with God and the unfaithful will be put away from his presence.

I believe the book of Revelation was written to a church that was enduring *intense* persecution. We know that this was happening at the time of its writing and I think it was written as a book of victory over the madness that was going on at the time. The Christians of Asia Minor probably wondered how God could allow such persecution of them and John was encouraging them to stay firm to thier calling in the face of this terrible oppression. The message I take away from Revelation is that Jesus Christ is victorious and his faithful will also share in that glory come what may.

Does this make me a heretic in your view? I certainly don't think you are one for believing in a literal millenial kingdom. The only reason I put it that way is because I've met some Xians who once they learn about my views think I can't be much of a Xian because of them But I assure you my faith is strong, and I really do believe this is the truth about the same bible you and I are reading.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

ok, then bugs. i can understand where you're coming from because i've been there. but there is so much more. revelation wasn't written to "a" church, but to seven churches. i'm sure you know the spiritual significance of seven. (you have studied bible numerics?) did you note that five of the seven had some fault against them? can you figure out what it was about the two that set them apart? they know and teach who and what the synagogue of satan is and how they profess to be of our brother judah, but are not. they are imposters. do you get what i'm saying here?
i really hope so, and i hope your faith is truly strong because they will soon enough not only call you heretic, but possibly put you in prison or, god forbid, an ASYLUM.

Shoot, I didn't mean to say that it was written to *one* church, my bad. Yes, the seven churches are to whom the words are addressed. I'm afraid I'm not sure of all the significance you are clearly pointing to. Any chance you have some links you can help me out with or get me up to speed on as it relates to your view of this book? If you prefer taking it to email that would be totally cool with me as well.

And if indeed the time is near for us to go through a time of trial, I can only say that I have always wondered whether that would happen in my lifetime and have done my best to prepare. I look forward to more info if you have it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs:

quote:

---

The wandering off topic is actually a requirement around here and it has worked this way for as long as I've been a member.

---

so, it's been happening ever since YOU joined, hey?

I'm not so sure whether or not this is a coincidence.


reitsma

Is this a good time for me to break out in an evil laugh? Muhahahahahahaha

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs, I base some of my findings on this

quote:

---

It is generally accepted by scholars that both Matthew and Luke drew upon the Gospel of Mark. In addition, they also had one other common source, which has since been lost. This source focused on the teachings of Jesus. It is referred to the "Q Source," a name stemming from the German word for source, Quelle. Both Matthew and Luke also have unique source material. Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are referred to as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic means "to see together." The Gospel of John contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be rather different in its emphasis from the first three gospels.

Among the early Church fathers, there was controversy about the authorship of Hebrews, since it is the only anonymous epistle. Tertullian suggested that the author was Barnabas, but the prevailing view was that it was written by Paul and translated by Luke. Origen in the midst of this controversy proclaimed that "God only knows" who the author really was.

---

from this New Testament

Q Source? I would like to have that. Who wrote it? I am not doubting that which was wrote is wrong, or somehow false in that respect in regards to the gospels - I am doubting the source that most was written from here. There is no way to prove its accuracy, or truth. In fact, unless it is buried somewhere in the Vatican (which wouldn't surprise me), or discovered sometime in the future, we may never have a chance to examine this document. This then throws the Gospels into question, Bugs (for me, anyway). The reason is because I (and no-one else, it seems) cannot then see this original Source, and see what might have been left out! The information may be accurate, but even with accurate information, one can tell untruths, by leaving vital information out. Remember, I used to work in the information gathering business, I know how such things work.

These are the current competing views on the Gospels, that I could find, Bugs. Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses. I find them to be truly fascinating...just fascinating.

Here is an interesting in-depth look into truth, fallibility, etc concerning the Bible IRRANCY:
Is the Bible free of error? All points of view.

But my main point was how the New Testaments message is perceived among the different Christian Faiths. Also, there seems to be great disagreement in the case of Judas. None doubt that Judas existed - but as to what Judas was, what he did, what role he played, etc, there seems to be conflict as to these.

Strange is, that every "source" that comes from someone that Believes in the Bible, doesn't even mention the "Q Source". They don't mention it! Instead, they go on about how accurate the New Testament is. The only real sources mentioning the "Q Source" (that I could find) are non-beliving, or impartial views, sad to say.

You didn't mention it either. Neither did Jade. In fact, with all the different debates, discussions, etc that we have had here at the Asylum, I have never seen it mentioned once! I find that strange.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-07-2004 11:43)

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-07-2004 11:47)

Just thought I'd pop in and say that this is one loooong thread you guys have here. Does anyone know what the record is?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!

Heh. It is sort of long, isn't it? Reminds me almost of the Air Asylum threads *sigh*

I don't know what the record for longest thread is *shrugs*

On with the thread!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

It's much easier to hav elong threads now that we have them paginated.

If you add up the multiple threads from the past when they had to be closed and "round 2" started, I'm sure we're nowhere near the record.

As for the 1,000 year kingdom deal.....

uh..........

(^that's the extent of my contribution on the subject )

DL-44, that's precisely the reaction I give when people start discussing the basketball championship games. The differences of view about the end times is most certainly a topic deserving of its own thread.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Not only is is a very long thread, but I think we've covered the topic from just about every conceivable angle!

(I actually like the thread to be on one page, I can tell where the latest reply is! Sometimes I get messed up with the individual pages. Perhaps its something I'll get used to in the future...)

I think that the main problem with the Q source is that it is, at best, hypothetical. And if it does actually exist (which is probable, but unprovable), it could have been either oral or written. If it is the latter, it may show up eventually. Considering the Dead Sea Scrolls were only recently discovered (1947), there are undoubtedly more little treasures yet to be uncovered in the deserts of the Middle East and Northern Africa. You may yet get your answers, WS. Maybe even in your lifetime.

Dragonlady

Incidently, have any of you read The Templar Revelations? It's one of several books dealing with the messiahship of Jesus. It claims, among other things, that not only did Jesus not die on the cross, but that he married Mary Magdalen, and had children, the direct descendants of which and their identities are being closely guarded by a secret society (offices in New York City) called the The Priory of Sion. This society was once part of the Templars, but suffered a schism in . . . 1400? Among the supposed Leaders of this organization were such persons as Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, and Jacques Cocteau. The DaVinci Code touches on this theory . . .

Dragonlady

Q source? Priory of Sion?

you guys are kidding, right?

Someone was reading Da Vinci Code and started taking what is written in there as fact.

The Q source is, however, not simply a hypothetical it has been mathematically tested and is accepted as fact by a huge number of biblical scolars. I am not even sure if there is anyone out there saying "there is no Q."

The Priory of Sion, while a fun idea, carries much less weight than the actual claim of Jesu dying on the cross. Everyone like a nice Conspiracy Theory and the Priory of Sion is just that. Here is a little link, I can't vouch for the source, if you want more reputable just do a little googling yourself Da Vinci Con

WS.

I just love that you are digging into biblical studies. This is all so interesting reading. And am learning so much stuff. Thanks everybody.

Speaking of the book of Revelation. From what I have studied, it was written for all churches referring to past, present and the future. Its an unveiling for all to see. To me, its a very beautiiful book. Each church represents a sinfulness, but its really speaking of the evil that takes man away from God. Like the seven deadly sins. The number seven in bibilical teaching refers to fullness. The number seven is referred throughout the bible. I will get into what each chruch represents in my view if anybody wants to know. To me, when John is getting a glimpse of heaven, it is relating to the earhtly trials and tribulations of what happens everyday of the week, 24/7 and how God will reward us. To me its not a scary book of doom to scare people into belief. I don't believe that is God's aim.

WM, if you are referring to me as taking the DaVinci Code for fact, I don't. I am well aware that it is fiction. However, the Templar Revelations is interesting reading, and does back up its hypotheses pretty effectively. I think if you read it with an open mind you'd be surprised. However, there are portions of the book where it falls over itself trying not to contradict its own conclusions, but it is interesting just the same.

But, as I have said before, I am not a Christian, although I find the subject of the messiahship of Jesus very compelling. As a result I also am a little more open minded than some of you, but I do admire your convictions! I remember I felt that way, once upon a time.

Dragonlady

She says to the staunch atheist.

Sorry, WarMage. You had me fooled! I'm only a heretic!

Dragonlady

Outcydr,

quote:

---

Q source? Priory of Sion?

you guys are kidding, right?

---

Do you mean that you do not believe that there was/is a Q Source? If so, why? Could you please explain your reasons a bit more clearly? If you actually checked the sources I used in my post, you will see that they are very well credited. All circumstantial and research evidence points to the existence of a "Q Source". So no, I was not kidding, and neither is anyone else who studies/has studied the New Testament and mentions a "Q Source".

I must confess, that I know nothing about the Priory of Sion.

@ Jade

quote:

---

I just love that you are digging into biblical studies.

---

Ummm...what? You do know that I used to be a Christian, right? So no, I am not "digging" into biblical studies. I was merely supplying the information that Bugs was asking for (answering his query). If you have had a chance to actually examine the Official Debate on Does God exist? that we had here, you would also know more about where I stand, and why.

I spend literally years after the first Gulf War tearing myself apart, and asking critical questions, questions that I hadn't dared ask before.
After being brutally honest with myself (and coming to terms with what I had done, and who I was), it was at that time, that I started actually researching my Beliefs. Since I was in College at the time, I had good access to information, and the luxury of time to do this.

My findings and conclusions led me to refute my Belief, and I am no longer a Christian. Instead, I have spend more time, researching and dwelving into my ancestor's Beliefs.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-08-2004 09:18)

quote:

---

She says to the staunch atheist.

---

Hehe....she says to the room full of staunch atheists

^Lol!!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Luke 1:1- 2
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

No, i don't believe there is any one particular "lost" Q document.

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/index.htm

quote:

---

In summary: Q remains popular because the alternatives are either unfamiliar (Farrer), unacceptable (Griesbach) or unpalatable (Goulder). Q, on the other hand, keeps good company (Markan Priority) and enjoys the luxury of being taken for granted by a majority that has not, as Luke would have said, investigated the matter carefully from the beginning.

---

Already examined that, as part of my research, before you posted it. Unfortunately for the Author, the "Q Source" is required to meet certain requirements for types of verification, to prove that the New Testament is indeed factual. So, if you indeed do do away with the "Q Source", then you open that can of worms - that the New Testament may not be factual. This is discussed here Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses

You sure you want to go there?

Though the Author does have a good point to make "investigate the matter carefully from the beginning." Anyone serious about factual truth does such. Unfortunately, the Author falls short of disproving that the "Q Source" existed or not. As such, this is not helpful then in actually establishing the origins of the New Testament. Also, it is not certain if the "Q Source" was a document (could have been many) or oral tradition, word of mouth. We do know, that there had to be a way, to translate Jesus' sayings from the Aramaic to Greek, however. How this was accomplished, is not currently known. One would tend to think that it may have first have been recorded in Aramaic, and then translated to Greek. It is very hard to credit that it was translated from the verbal Aramaic to Greek in the head of the person(s) writing without a transcript first in Aramaic. I think Master Suho is an expert in the way of translations - he could probably say more here.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I have never heard of this "q source", but it seems from what research I've been able to do so far to be causing a very inordinate amount of controversy.

If I am understanding things correctly, all the theory says is that there is a source unknown to us that was used by both matthew and luke....?

I can't understand how such a thing could cause controversy of any kind....

quote:

---

You sure you want to go there?

---

nope

quote:

---

. . .it is not certain. . .

---

a bit like proving God exists, eh?

quote:

---

If I am understanding things correctly, all the theory says is that there is a source unknown to us that was used by both matthew and luke....?

I can't understand how such a thing could cause controversy of any kind

---

The "Q Source" is this unknown source that may have influenced both Matthew and Luke. There are certain descrepancies in their versions that seem to be coming from a third, unknown source. Many believe, that this source is wither a written or oral recording of the sayings of Jesus (because he personally didn't seem to leave anything written that we know of).

The problems start arising, in that
a) If there is no "Q Source", then the Gospel versions are different from one another. This makes them fallable.
b) If there is a "Q Source", then without knowing of what it consists of, we cannot be certain of what might have been left out of the New Testament. This also makes the Gospel fallable.

Discovery of the "Q Source" would of course clear up this issue.

Thus, examining this core of the Christian Faith is what makes it controversal. It strikes at the heart of what makes the New Testament what it is believed to be. To propose, and suggest such (and question such), as the "Q Source" theory does, has resulted in real controversy among the Faithful.

For those outside of the Faith, there is mostly just surprise at the controversy. This is mostly because for those who do not believe, there is no emotional attachment to the New Testament.

@ outcydr -

quote:

---

a bit like proving God exists, eh?

---

Well, yes, in a fashion. However, we are talking about two different things here, I think. I believe it is within the realm of possibility to actually establish the authenticity and accuracy of the New Testament. Proving God exists (or not) is really something else.

We do know, that the New testament was and has been changed. This we know. Certain parts left out, certain parts added, according to certain beliefs. The question of the "Q Source", however, strikes right at the heart of the New Testament - the Gospels.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I'd like to examine this controversy a bit. Let's assume this Q source exist[s|ed]. The controversy than becomes, as WS adequately pointed out, a matter of 'what was left out?'

That's the big controversy?
How, in the eyes of Christians, is that any different than the compilation of the entire canon?

On no less than 5 seperate occassions, people -- church officials -- met to include or disclude (or edit!) commonly discussed/studied sets of writtings from the official, church sponsored "Word of God".

So, outcydr specifically, but anybody really, I ask, "What's the big deal?"
Why is Q any different than Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve, Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter or any of the other writings which were once considered important but are not distributed in the Bible today?

(Edited by mobrul on 06-09-2004 15:15)

Because it affects the Gospels, which are supposed to be the direct witnessing of Jesus through the Apostles. That's like the Big Bang effecting Genesis in the Bible, sort of. If it was proven that the Big Bang really did create the Universe, and happened through a natural process, this would put Genesis in doubt.

The same with the "Q Source" in regards to the New Testament.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

yeah but.....

Anyway you look at it, the gospels are quite fallable. Many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread, if i recall correctly.

As mobrul said, and as I've said many times in the past, there are countless writings that at various times have been held in various lights by the church, and have been added, removed, changed, etc...

That in and of itself leaves everything so absurdly untrustworthy that something like this 'q source' seems insiginificant.

It affects the gospels? What about the gospels that aren't in the bible?

Either way you look at it, something out there effected the gospels - call it what you will.

Also, in terms of the big bang vs. genesis - I don't think it be problematic. Unless you are a die hard fundamentalist who takes everything absolutely literal, it's easy enough to work the big bang into the story of god creating the universe.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-09-2004 17:46)

quote:

---

Anyway you look at it, the gospels are quite fallable. Many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread, if i recall correctly.

As mobrul said, and as I've said many times in the past, there are countless writings that at various times have been held in various lights by the church, and have been added, removed, changed, etc...

That in and of itself leaves everything so absurdly untrustworthy that something like this 'q source' seems insiginificant.

It affects the gospels? What about the gospels that aren't in the bible?

Either way you look at it, something out there effected the gospels - call it what you will.

---

DL, I agree.

quote:

---

Also, in terms of the big bang vs. genesis - I don't think it be problematic. Unless you are a die hard fundamentalist who takes everything absolutely literal, it's easy enough to work the big bang into the story of god creating the universe.

---

You will notice I said was caused naturally. Such as Guthrie's Grand Guess was proved, for example. That would preclude the "Hand of God" in play, thus it would affect Genesis.

Of course, one could believe in God without the Bible or the New Testament, for that matter.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

yeah, but proving it happened "naturally" is akin to prove that god did it.

You can come up with any scientific explanation possible, and it may well be the real deal, but it in no way precludes the hand of god.

That's the trouble with god. No matter what happens, you can say god did it. No matter how implausible it sound, you can always say "god's will is beyond our understanding".

It's an easy out, but one that cannot be "proven" wrong in most cases.

[First let me note that I understand, WS, you're presenting the side of the argument you would not normally take...
Having said that, let's continue.]

You say it matters more that there could be something missing from the Q source (the gospel, an eyewitness to the events in question, etc), than something else in the Bible.

There are two issues here:
1) If the Q author (we'll call him/her Qa) was not an eyewitness, then that brings into question the credibility of the gospels Mathew and Luke as eyewitness accounts. (because, at that point, they would be reporting heresay)

2) It is more important to have 'ALL' the information for the Jesus story than other Biblical stories.

Let's take #1. Nobody ever said Qa was NOT an eyewitness. For all we know, Qa was Jesus himself. Q could have been a compilation of notebooks kept by the 12 apostles, Mary, and the rest of the clan as they traveled. Qa could have been Luke, Mathew, or even both of them. Qa could have been anybody, and no part of the Q theory (as I understand it) insists Qa wasn't among the followers.

On objection #1...I see no objection. If Q turned out to be Jesus' diary, would there be objections?
"We can no longer believe Luke...he plagerized from Jesus' speech notebook!"
I find it hard to believe any right-minded Christian would ever utter such a thing.

Now, on to #2.
The Bible is what it is because it is believed to be 100% the word of god. While I don't think if is necessary to believe the Bible, literally, in its entirety, to be a Christian, I do think you have to believe the general directions of EVERY SINGLE Biblical story for significance.

Jesus is said to be the Son of God. He was neither the first nor the last to make such a claim. (Thinking) Christians believe what they do not simply because he said so, but because they believe:
a) he fulfilled a number of prophesies (from God!)
b) he fulfilled a pattern of covenants (with God!)
c) he fulfilled Jewish law and tradition (from God!) of death for sin

Take out any of those pieces, and Jesus was just a guy who said he was god to the wrong people...like I said, not the first, and not the last.

Every single story of the Old Testament points to one of those three things, and many point to more than one. They are in the Bible to provide meaning to the Gospels -- to provide a base on which the gospel story is built. Without them, the gospels are meaningless.

So...
I can not possibly imagine a thinking Christian saying any of the Old Testament stories are meaningless, or even secondary, to the gospel.

quote:

---

[It] is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock. But he who hears, and doesn?t do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.

---

If this problem with Q and the gospels exists, it must also exist for every other story, every other book...the entire religion then stands on shaky ground.

imho
i think the q source has grown from honest questions as to the origins of the gospels into something else. it has gone from hypothesis to the reconstructed gospel of q. some would insist it is more likely the gospel of thomas. and the list goes on. there are probably a lot of old documents and letters concerning the life and sayings of christ we will never know of.

Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books [there is] no end; . . .

and so it goes


steering back toward the original topic a bit:
i just found this site so i'm still perusing it myself
it might be a bit dated, and a lot to read if you're not really interested, but it seems to cover a lot of what i believe (or NOT as if you cared)
of course, i reserve the right to change my opinion at any moment

and yes, i just might be as crazy as you