Only adult in the room?

[Korah]

Hey, I'm not trying to insult the Forum or anyone here, but things are just crazy these days. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld fears to tread on college campuses for fear of getting blackballed on political correctness--nobody can tolerate humor any more. I'd like to suggest it's worse than that. No one can tolerate serious discussion any more. How about we reserve say, this one thread for no side-tracking on the one side to gay weddings nor knee-jerk rejection of supernaturalism and on the other side no assumption that appeal to the Bible (or Koran or religious Law) settles anything either.
How about someone suggests something for discussion and I decide if it's a subject challenging adult conversation. When that plays out (maybe really quickly, as people's sensibilities seem to get trampled upon really quickly) we can settle on some other subject for adult discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

They say that in Thermonuclear War the one to strike first wins (or at least "wins" until the second strike obliterates it too).
Hopefully that analogy won't hold as you have unilaterally trotted out in Christianity and Apologetics your preferred "Q" as the first topic to discuss.

Imagination is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

The order in which dominoes fall is of no concern to me.

Good fake by me, I guess, saying all along I wanted to start with the Passion Narrative that I would present as really best based on the S Source per Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Logically good place to start, but I'm out on a limb seeing John (for ch. 18 to 20 or 21, anyway) as preceding the Synoptics.

Faking may be employed by some as a preferred tactic " and seen by others as indication of weakness in position. I, personally, prefer to debate openly and honestly without tricks.

What has been "accomplished" by the fake that is being self-congratulated?

With that one I would have gotten crucified before I started, as Fundies whether Christians or atheists both insist the Synoptics came first. Even Teeple doesn't see it my way and I otherwise use him like he's God.

Is this admission that another of the claimed seven is also weak and indefensible?

But no harm to you (by inadvertently helping me) because trotting out Q embarrasses the Fundies no end with a slam dunk for atheism.

Embarrassing "Fundies" is not the objective of this thread.

Too bad that it turns out that critical scholars are currently in disarray, but cramming Q down Fundie throats is all that matters.

How is this related to the OP?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 41 by Zzyzx]
Oh, I dunno,
I'm not a sadist, bad guy type much,
But I do get a kick out of you taking me seriously, particularly if you think somebody pulled one over on you.
Nope, no fakery. I just pretended (after the fact) that having you attack me on Q was my pure-and-simple trap that I had planned for you all along.
Lighten up. The world's not ending tomorrow.
Of course maybe it is--paying any attention to Iran, Pakistan, Russia, India, China lately (though of course it's unthinkable that our own U. S. might blunder us into annihilation--or is it).
Nap time.

[Zzyzx]

.

But I do get a kick out of you taking me seriously, particularly if you think somebody pulled one over on you.
Nope, no fakery. I just pretended (after the fact) that having you attack me on Q was my pure-and-simple trap that I had planned for you all along.

It appears to me, and probably to others, as though the claim of "seven written eyewitness accounts" was made seriously, as though you thought you could defend the claim, but when it became obvious to one and all that wasn't going to happen an attempt is being made to pretend it was a joke or trick to disguise the failure.

Tangled webs?

Do you think your are being taken seriously as a scholar, an intellectual or a debater.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 43 by Zzyzx]
I'm just asking, mind you, not telling--
Am I supposed to take this post as actually suggesting that I am not trying to defend my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus in the four gospels?
Are you suggesting that I deceived you into making an OP in which you would blunder on to "my turf" in order to make a fool of you?
Even that I have no honest belief in any written eyewitnesses to Jesus?
Are you contending that in your thread on Q I have exposed myself as a fraud and that you have evidence that I posted something there that proves your point?
Humor me, I'm asking these questions like I'm Alice having stumbled into Wonderland and beginning to wonder whether I am awake or not.
Lead on, gallant prince.
(Whoops, wrong fairy tale.)
Is this some desperate ploy to turn around this debate that you've been crushed on?
EDITED TO ADD:
OK, I see a problem.
Your OP began:
"Someone here seems to have claimed that the "Q" document is a written eyewitness account related to Jesus and is a source for gospels."

Problem is that his was unnumbered and never was directly responded to by me. Instead I plowed in and conceded that only your #4 in your Post #3 needed any response from me, and I never addressed any of Post #1 directly. Meanwhile I employed cynicism, humor,and erudition to respond INDIRECTLY to that "Preamble" (which is the US Constitution is not considered part of the Constitution itself) and the rest of Post #1. This oversight by me may have been taken by you as my admission that I had claimed I could prove Q was one of my seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus, but that I had abandoned my own claim and mocked most everything about the Q I was supposed to be so fixated uoon. You assumed that I was contradicting myself either intentionally in sport or unintentionally in my deluded state of mental illness compounded by migraine headache? No, I never paid any attention to Post #1, just used it as a jumping-off point to skewer Academic Orthodoxy.

I now can understand your position and we don't need to deal with my perplexed questions above the "EDITED TO ADD" line. I stand ready to accept your (I was about to say "apology") acknowledgment that we have been talking past each other. No hard feelings on my part. (I hope you can forgive me for putting you through such distress.)

[Zzyzx]

.

Am I supposed to take this post as actually suggesting that I am not trying to defend my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus in the four gospels?

It seems as though the first of seven has been shown to be a hypothetical document by unknown writer who cannot be shown to have been an eyewitness.

A hypothetical document exists only in the minds and opinions of people.

Are you suggesting that I deceived you into making an OP in which you would blunder on to "my turf" in order to make a fool of you?

Heck no. I chose to open the "Q" thread to allow you the opportunity to rise to the occasion and defend it openly and honestly as a "written eyewitness account" " or fail to do so.

Even that I have no honest belief in any written eyewitnesses to Jesus?

I do not pretend to know anyone's "honest beliefs." That is their business, not mine. However, I expect those who debate with integrity to substantiate any claims they make in debate.

Are you contending that in your thread on Q I have exposed myself as a fraud and that you have evidence that I posted something there that proves your point?

I make no such contention. I correctly observe that it appears to me (and possibly others) as though the claim has been turned into some sort of trick or joke. If that is in error, feel free to demonstrate that "Q" is a "written eyewitness account" (even though its existence is not known to scholars and theologians " only theorized " and its writer, if any / whoever, cannot be identified or shown to have been an eyewitness).

Humor me, I'm asking these questions like I'm Alice having stumbled into Wonderland and beginning to wonder whether I am awake or not.

A more apt description might be "stumbled into a place where unsupported claims are challenged and where self-aggrandizement does not impress any but the gullible / nave."

Is this some desperate ploy to turn around this debate that you've been crushed on?

Kindly provide readers with the URL to a debate in which I have been "crushed" and identify the "crusher."

[Korah]

[Replying to post 45 by Zzyzx]
OK. Good thing I discovered your problem is my failure to respond (directly) to the OP. Please re-open my Post #44 and read below the "EDITED TO ADD".
Sorry for being the bull in the China shop again. Neither of us is crazy. (Oh, you're allowed to retain your opinion on THAT....)
Z, please also see my latest PM to you.