Deathscyth Hell

What do y'all think of it.

Vorkosigan

I don't know. I always thought the Q Continuum was a bit of a deus ex machina that Brannon Braga et al had invented to solve the impossible problems Picard & Co found themselves in. I never thought Q was that interesting a character. Omnipotence is so boring, and so unbelievable.

Anyway, why do you want to discuss ST:NG in this forum?

Michael

Deathscyth Hell

no, Q is the Idea that the Synoptic Gospels are all taken from an earlier source, that they weren't written of the top of the head, but had something to go by. Im not talking about star trek

Toto

DH

Can I give you some advice? You are new here, and you seem sincere. But you can't just barge in and put your feet up on the furniture without us wondering what your game is.

If you want to start a topic, it's best to do some research so you have something to say. If you look toward the top right corner of this web page, you will see "search". If you click on that, you will be able to search this site for other topics on your issue, so you can see what has already been said.

For instance, if you search for 'Q' in the title, and glance through the titles, you will find this previous topic on Q as well as a few others.

Read through them and then see if you want to add something to what has been said.

edited to add: and recognize sarcasm when you see it.

[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Toto ]

Vorkosigan

I suggest you take Toto's advice. We have discussed Q many times. Have you read any of the books on Q?

The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton Mack

Q and the History of Early Christianity by Christopher Tuckett -- a rather more scholarly work than Mack's.

Mark Goodacre's Contra-Q website is also an excellent resource.

It helps when starting a thread to take a position. That gives people something to respond to, and helps propel the thread forward.

BTW, Q is perhaps better defined as the hypothesis that Luke and Matthew used both GosMark and another source, named Q, in the composition of their respective works.

Since you asked, I am a Q adherent, respectful of counterarguments, but basically believing the evidence fits Q better.

Michael

[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

GunnerJ

::Grumbles:: Nobody wondered what my game was...

Bill

James Deardorff wrote an essay entitled The Little Known Literary Battles Between the Gospel Writers in which he develops a line of arguments that both preserves "Q" as a hypothesis and also diminishes it's importance by upholding the tradition of the priority of Matthew. If nothing else, it makes for an interesting read to understand what the many issues are surrounding the question of the priority of the synoptic Gospels.

== Bill

Justus

Actually it was questions about "Q" the Gnostic Gospels, writtings on the history of the (accepted ?) Gospels and so called heritical writtings which were never answered satisfactorily that led me here.

In my experience there is a willful disregard of the reality behind the modern bible .... the simplistic "Divinely Inspired" word of God attitude is a comforting illusion..... and regradless of Nomad and others NO-Denomination deals in honesty with the issue ....

What is your opinion on the theory and how does it effect your beliefs.

Actually interested in your response (not looking for an agruement)

Justus

Thank You I found this article of great interest as it layed out the "Human" influence on the Gospels ... OK probable

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...it's an interesting article, but not nearly long enough or detailed enough. I think, however that there are good reasons to place Mark first that Deardorff elides.

Michael