The Q Gospel.

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by Prophet

I repeat. Discrediting someone without actually addressing their argument is called an ad hominem.

No not exactly. Discrediting a person who knows nothing about the subject at hand because they know nothing about the subject is not an ad hominem. I mean would you take the opinion of a plumber on nuclear physics over a physicist even though the plumber knows nothing of physics?

[Prophet]

Another insult towards my knowledge. Very interesting response.

[Prophet]

Originally Posted by CynthiaCypher

No not exactly. Discrediting a person who knows nothing about the subject at hand because they know nothing about the subject is not an ad hominem. I mean would you take the opinion of a plumber on nuclear physics over a physicist even though the plumber knows nothing of physics?

So the appropriate way to deal with the plumber is to insult and dismiss him? Very interesting.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Prophet

So the appropriate way to deal with the plumber is to insult and dismiss him? Very interesting.

Absolutely not. I don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a vocabulary. I just listen politely and if they are interested, point them in a good direction.

Now if they feel insulted by that, well, they shouldn't have brought it up.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Prophet

Another insult towards my knowledge. Very interesting response.

There's nothing to insult.

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by Prophet

So the appropriate way to deal with the plumber is to insult and dismiss him? Very interesting.

Yes, not to insult him but to dismiss his ungrouded opinion when he talks about a subject he has no knowledge of and then try to correct him and educate him. Like people have done with you.

People have tried to show you what Q is, you ignored them. People have tried to show you what the Council of Nicaea was about, you ignore them.

[Prophet]

People have only told me that I'm wrong, and the staffer here was nice enough to give me a link to a wikipedia page I read a long time ago.

Thus far no evidence has been presented against a theoretical document Q being forcibly destroyed. What is the apparent contradiction I am missing besides your preconceptions of what Q was?

[Prophet]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

There's nothing to insult.

Your true colors are shining through.

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by Prophet

People have only told me that I'm wrong, and the staffer here was nice enough to give me a link to a wikipedia page I read a long time ago.

Thus far no evidence has been presented against a theoretical document Q being forcibly destroyed. What is the apparent contradiction I am missing besides your preconceptions of what Q was?

Because there is no evidence that it was destroyed yet alone in a big RCC bonfire. We don't even know if Q was an oral or written document'

I am of the opinion we have all of Q in written form in Matt, Luke and Thomas

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Prophet

People have only told me that I'm wrong, and the staffer here was nice enough to give me a link to a wikipedia page I read a long time ago.

O dear.

Thus far no evidence has been presented against a theoretical document Q being forcibly destroyed. What is the apparent contradiction I am missing besides your preconceptions of what Q was?

The apparent contradiction is that your evidence has nothing to do with your conclusion. You can say that a green alien blob ate Q, and no one could disprove it -- mainly because you just made it up.


"Q" is a symbol of a source that MAY HAVE EXISTED.

"Q" is a symbol of a source that MAY HAVE EXISTED.

"Q" is a symbol of a source that MAY HAVE EXISTED.

"Q" is a symbol of a source that MAY HAVE EXISTED.

To go on and make up completely implausible histories of a document is as useless as it is silly. The only difference between your reasoning and green aliens is that we know that Romans and Christians existed. That's it. There's other connection.