Qanon is evidence that we cannot trust any writings about Jesus or other religions

[edhopper]

We see in real time that millions of people, even in our modern society, can believe completely absurd and easily debunked stories about people and events.
Why should the writings of a few people in a much less transparent time about a man they never met be seen as having any accuracy. Especially when the purpose of the writing was propaganda, not history?
Just because a few historical figures and places are laced in the books doesn't make them any more true than what Qanon believe about Trump or Clinton.
The case for the veracity of the Bible or the Koran and so forth, is so weak as to be dismissed.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. Q-Anoners are NOT Christians then.

That explains things more clearly . For the teachings of Jesus Christ contradicts what these lunatics, and I mean no offense to those suffering from mental health issues, believe.

[edhopper]

5. It was an anology of the two

The Gospels could easily be as much a fantasy as what Qanon followers believe.

[Voltaire2]

30. According to you.

But there are something like 4000 different christian denominations, all with different interpretations of ‘Christ’s teachings’.

[The Magistrate]

2. There Is Something To That, Sir

Christianity originally preached the imminent return of the Christ, and when this did not occur, a great deal of weasel and wriggle was required to square the extant texts and the actual outcome.

The continuing failure of 'the storm' to materialize is pressing on Quazies in the same manner, and they are not handling it much better, or too much differently, than the earliest Christians.

[krispos42]

12. Weren't many of the writings about Jesus done a century after his death?

I seem to recall a minimum of 130 years.

That would be like talking to a great-grandkid about what his great-grandpa did in the Spanish-American War.

[edhopper]

13. The Gospels

were written between 70 AD (Mark) and 110 AD (John) decades after the reported death of Yeshua (Jesus).
Though the earliest copy we have of the Gospels is from 300 AD.

There is speculation that the Gospels did take things from an earlier document that we no longer have a record of.

[The Magistrate]

25. A Lot Is In Paul's Epistles, Sir

Those (at least those considered authentic) are from the first generation. Paul's quarrel with the original disciples was over how far converts had to go into Jewish practices, not on the imminent return. This was expected, and is behind a lot of Paul's strictures on behavior among converts.

[uriel1972]

59. Paul never met the physical Jesus,

had a 'Blinding Vision' of him, on route to persecute the followers of this apparent Messiah. The followers he met may not have been as receptive as he hoped.

[The Magistrate]

60. True, Sir

But that does not effect the antiquity of his writing, nor the degree to which his expressions of the imminence of Christ's return reflect the early Christian teachings on the subject. The differences between Paul's views and that of the original disciples centered on the application Mosaic law to Gentile converts, and on Paul's attempt to apply some elements of the arcane speculations known as 'the lore of Creation' to the figure of Jesus.

[uriel1972]

61. All true...

Just emphasising the fact that first hand evidence for the existence of said messiah is sorely lacking. The Testimonium Flavium looks shaky too.

[The Magistrate]

62. I see No Pressing Reason, Sir, To Doubt The Historicity Of The Man

By compare to acknowledging someone did exist and founded the sect, the efforts to argue even the putative founder is fictional fail Occam's Razor.

[uriel1972]

63. By the same reasoning....

There is no reason to doubt the existence of Arthur, King of the Britons. Without any corroborating evidence, all we can say is that someone started another cult celebrating a God-Man, named Yeshu. As in a new 'Joshua' to be Messiah.

[The Magistrate]

64. Or Comrade Ogilvey, For That Matter, Sir

Part of the problem is that no Jew, then or now, would have proclaimed himself a 'God-Man'. That is not what Messiah meant or means. Whatever the origins of Christianity, it grew out of Judaism, as practiced in the period between the Maccabees and the razing of the Temple. The idea someone just made the whole thing up, and with such success, does not ring true. Someone does win the lottery, of course, but the odds are always against it. An inspirational figure, whose devoted followers couldn't let go of the dream, is more plausible. It is the survival of the institution which is the best argument for the historicity of its putative founder.

[uriel1972]

65. I disagree with your assumptions...

To my mind its initial popularity was due to Paul. Then with its co-option by Constantine and the forceful introduction of it as the State Religion set it up for longevity.

As for the 'making it up' all the parts were already floating about the Mediterranean at that time. The story of the humbly born son of god, the miracles and teaching, and the eventual cruxifiction were common myth tropes of that time and space.

The church fathers had to blame Satan for inventing all these individual stories. The rationale being that it was to confuse people so they wouldn't believe the 'true' story.

If a historical Yeshu existed we have no way of knowing who he was or what he did.

[The Magistrate]

66. Paul In His Own Time, Sir, Was An Outlier

He became the mainstream only after the razing of the Temple, and the destruction of the original congregation based on personal acquaintance with the executed leader.

Paul preached to Gentiles, and to take him at his word, by the end of his career most of 'his' converts in Asia Minor, his chief field of evangelism, had turned from him, either in disappointment of hopes the end would soon come, or persuasion that some elements of Mosaic law, whether circumcision or dietary restrictions, were necessary to full fellowship with the original Jewish congregation.

After the siege of Jerusalem, however, what remained of Paul's converts in the west presented the only functioning bodies of believers, and further, these needed to disassociate themselves from Judaism, which was under heavy proscription as a rebel's creed. Since what writings of Paul that survived clearly established separation from distinctive Jewish practices, and into the bargain urged cooperation with Imperial authorities in all matters civil, if not religious, they were useful in enabling this particular Messianic cult to survive, albeit pulled up from its Jewish roots.

A dying and rising god, paired with a goddess, was certainly an established feature of religious life in the early Roman empire. Two were particularly popular, Isis and Osiris, and Cybele and Adonis. They have nothing in common with any feature of Jewish culture or belief, and this, remember, is certainly the milieu in which Christianity did arise. Certainly no one holding forth as the Messiah, the righteous redeemer of the Law, could possibly be taken seriously by any Jewish crowd if he taught anything readily recognizable as derived from these polytheistic pagan beliefs.

While nothing can be certainly known about the actions and teachings of the man in question, and none of the gospels can be treated as a reliable source, a great deal is known about the ideas and prophecies which made up Messianic belief in general, and there is no doubt the Jewish people early in the first century were gripped by Messianic expectations. Indeed, some of the people proclaiming themselves to be Messiah in that period are better testified to than this one, as they managed to garner a mention in Roman records. Belief in an imminent judgement, and a reign of righteousness due to commence soon, in which the wicked were to be punished and the faithful exalted, features prominently in Messianic belief. It would have featured in any Messianic preaching in some form.

The idea of a vast settling of accounts would have held great attraction in the Roman world, a world of slavery and exploitation, of cruelty and great disparities of station even among the free. The idea this apocalyptic settling would come soon, that you might well live to see it and enjoy its fruits, would have been a powerful recruiting pitch.

[Croney]

3. I think that analogy makes sense.

[Doc Sportello]

4. True, especially one line

"Just because a few historical figures and places are laced in the books doesn't make them any more true than what Qanon believe about Trump or Clinton."

Whenever some archaeological find comes out that ties a place or event to a religious story, it is taken as lending credence to that religious story. Of course, when it comes to the Bible, the fact that no concurrent account from a very literate society has ever been found is ignored.

To the post's point, Qanon does the same with real-life events - such as for example a cicada landing on Biden (yes they are promoting this) - as proof of whatever BS moves the grift forward. As George Carlin said, "It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya."

[edhopper]

6. Yes

Today we call those stories, Historical Fiction. Emphasis on the Fiction.

[Mariana]

19. Yes.

Evidence that some of the mundane events recorded in the Bible stories may have taken place provide exactly zero support for the belief that the supernatural events described therein occurred.

[edhopper]

20. And that many of the events

did not take place makes it even more suspect.

[TigressDem]

7. Oh look. Another reason to hate religion linked to crazy Qanon. On the religion board.

Thanks.

From all the people who listen to the words and deeds of Jesus and turn the other cheek against oppression.

Thank you for being such warm and caring Democrats in thinking about people who want to have their own freedom of religion on ONE BOARD and proclaiming everything THEY believe as rubbish. Thanks.

From all the people who support your freedom FROM religion and stand beside you in your fight against people who would oppress you.

Actually, even though Qanon waives the Bible as a way to whitewash their behavior, they have much more in common with the godless masses, than true Christians minding their own business and taking their own inventory of behavior instead of blaming everyone else for their problems.

Because IF the case for the Bible is diminished, so is all archeology and science that depends on figuring things out from the past or unknown.


STOP ALREADY.

Quit BASHING your allies, or you will make them disappear and you will be facing the crazy all by yourself.

[Mariana]

9. Edhopper didn't bash anyone.

You, on the other hand, bashed unbelievers, when you said this:

Actually, even though Qanon waives the Bible as a way to whitewash their behavior, they have much more in common with the godless masses, than true Christians minding their own business and taking their own inventory of behavior instead of blaming everyone else for their problems.

Don't be a hypocrite.

For the record, here is the Statement of Purpose for the Religion Group:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

There are several Groups for religious discussion on DU that are "safe havens" in which criticism of religion, questions about the veracity of religious texts and traditions, and the like are strictly prohibited. This is not one of them.

[edhopper]

14. Thanks

Did Tigress actually use the term godless masses? OMG (used with all irony intended)

[Mariana]

18. Yes indeed. Godless masses.

Never mind that the majority of Christian voters cast their ballots for Trump, while the "godless masses" and other non-Christians voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidates in 2016 and 2020.

And never mind that the QAnon nonsense has been spread widely in Christian churches, and often is preached directly from the pulpit. In some churches support for Trump and belief in the QAnon crap have essentially become tenets of their Christian faith.

[edhopper]

10. It's an open religion forum

Are you saying we can't question the historicity of Jesus or the Bible because other DUers will be offended.
Sorry I won't curtail my

And this sentence:
"Because IF the case for the Bible is diminished, so is all archeology and science that depends on figuring things out from the past or unknown. "

It such utter hogwash I can't even begin to dissect it.

[TigressDem]

15. Well, if science is your religion, post there instead.

You are not "Questioning" the historicity of Jesus or the Bible, you are bashing it.

You are not presenting anything in a scientifically valid method of analysis for the furthering of understanding.

You are linking all who believe and everything they believe to Qanon and their insanity. It's like an ape throwing shit, intellectually.

If you want, when I have time, I will go through some basic tennents of science using the scientific method that with the addition of your new premise, make them flimsy. I am after all one of those rare creatures, a Christian with a brain.

I don't have time because I have to go to one of those horrible Christian rituals, a funeral, to support a family member who has lost two very close to her, one last night.

AND archeologically speaking, this is also the hallmark of evolution. To care about someone beside yourself.

You might try it sometime. See what it feels like.

[edhopper]

21. Wow

a lot of bullshit, condescension, anger and insult to read through.

And a complete misreading of my OP.

[Mariana]

26. Wow indeed. This is not how Jesus instructed his followers to behave

when they feel their beliefs have been disrespected. In Matthew 5 : 11-12, Jesus is supposed to have said:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.

He did not say to fly into a rage, issue personal insults, express bigotry toward unbelievers, and make threats.

It's a lot easier to take a Christian seriously when that Christian actually obeys the teachings of his or her supposed Lord and Savior.

[edhopper]

27. And I did not say anything about modern Christians

I only pointed out that if Q nonsense can be believed and repeated by so many people, the idea that people writing about Jesus in the 1st Century supports the veracity of the Gospels doesn't make any of it true.

[Mariana]

16. Not only that

But the poster ordered you to stop questioning it here, and threatened consequences if you don't obey.

STOP ALREADY.

Quit BASHING your allies, or you will make them disappear and you will be facing the crazy all by yourself.

Does that mean the poster intends to go out and vote Republican out of spite, or what?

[Pantagruel]

8. Religion has a long and ugly history

When you add up all the good and evil done in the name of religion, I suspect we'd have been better off without it.

[TigressDem]

28. I hear you about horrible things that have been done in the name of religion or "God"

HOWEVER, both Christian and Eastern teachings as well as Native Beliefs are about finding a way to be a better person at the heart of the teachings.

The number of times people have looked to their faith to find strength to do the right this is not easily calculated, but it needs to count for something here on DU. All I want as a Christian is to be cut a little slack by people I am standing in the trenches with trying to make the world a better place. I don't run around questioning WHY anyone else is standing up for JUSTICE here. I'm just glad people here ARE looking to do the right thing for our country and each other. When someone slaps me in the face with Qanon just because I'm a Christian, it really sucks.


MAYBE it boils down to "What Good Has The Church Done?" It is a long list.

Just the Roman Catholic Church, with all it's failings (The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Borgias, the fight over abortion) has HELPED bring about things WE take for granted by being a HUGE support in various areas.



Do you believe in/support:

Helping the poor, widows, orphans?

Trying to help people reform when they have made awful mistakes?

The early Roman Catholic Church brought these ideas to their time period.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/what-has-catholic-church-ever-done-for-us-4199150-Aug2018/


Do you believe in/support:

Hospitals treating everyone, not just the rich?

Universities dedicated to higher learning?

The Church supported these institutions and thought science could help us better understand God.

Obviously there have been disagreements about that along the way, but there has also been mutual support on both sides too.

Do you believe in/support:

The fundamental equality of all human beings and the sanctity of life?

The Church many on this board love to hate actually worked to end infanticide (usually directed against baby girls), a father’s power of life and death over his family, gladiatorial “shows”, and the disfigurement of criminals.

The Church has fought against slavery. In the US BEFORE it was the US, the influence of the Church in St Augustine, Florida helped many escape from slavery.

Was it a perfect solution? No. BUT it was forward thinking for that time period.

https://theconversation.com/what-catholic-church-records-tell-us-about-americas-earliest-black-history-109709


Do you believe in/support:

Women's rights?


The Church’s teaching in relation to marriage, adultery, polygamy, male responsibility, and the dignity of wives, girls, widows, celibates and orphans massively improved the standing of women in society, while virtually nowhere else in the ancient world could communities of women self-govern as they did within the Church.


https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/what-has-catholic-church-ever-done-for-us-4199150-Aug2018/


Do you believe in/support:

Rights of the disabled?

The Church fought against the Eugenics Movement which sought to sterilize people who might breed “undesirable” traits, such as pauperism, mental disability, dwarfism, promiscuity, and criminality.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/


Do you believe in/support:

Due Process? The law in general?

The first integrated legal system in the world appeared with the Church’s canon law of the 12th century. Its development introduced to the world the idea of human rights; formalized and insisted upon due process; decreed consent as necessary for marriage; required criminal intent as a component of criminal responsibility; and popularized the ideas of equity and justice as central to law and authority. Canon law’s affirmation of property rights and the logic of contract laid crucial foundations for market economics which has helped raise livings standards generation on generation.

International law originated with Church theology and advocacy in the 16th century and its first contribution was to insist on the natural rights of native populations in the “new world”

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1720&context=tcl


Do you believe in/support:

Human Dignity?

In the 20th century the Church provided one of the few forces of resistance within societies overtaken by the atheistic regimes of Russian Communism and German National Socialism.

Both attempted to destroy the Church, creating tens of thousands of martyrs in the process. It was the Church that popularized the idea of “human dignity” as a response to these murderous totalitarianisms.

It is the root of why they are against abortion and suicide. We still need separation of Church and State, but there ARE points WE CAN agree upon.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Catholic_social_teaching.htm

[guillaumeb]

32. Well argued, and currently unanswered by anyone here.

Please feel free to read my observation farther down the thread.

[TigressDem]

38. Give them time.

I've talked to people from many backgrounds. Atheists, Pagans, Druids, Wiccans, many brands of Christians, from Catholic to Baptists to Lutherns (who have like a hundred varieties themselves) to Methodists. Hinduists and Buddahists and Unitarians.

People are people. They can be pissy, but they can get over it too.

Sometimes the people I've argued with the most here (and I was a big poster long ago and had lengthy discussions because I don't back down much, my count and history got purged when I was away for a long time) those people finally said, "Well, if most Christians were like you I wouldn't have a problem with them."

It was bad enough feeling we had to apologize to the World for *ush Jr. At least he came to Biden's inauguration and said something that made sense. First time I ever agreed with the man. "If we'd just treat others the way we want to be treated, the world would be a better place." Or something similar. I know where he got it from.

But just because the KKK and their ilk in Qanon wrap themselves up in religion, doesn't mean all Christians are like that or everything about Christianity is wrong by association.

[edhopper]

40. Not really the topic of my OP

but feel free to post all the apologetics you feel you need to.
Perhaps a separate thread on how beneficial religion has been would be more to your liking.

[TigressDem]

41. I was replying to post #8

I simply am presenting a balanced view of the church as I understand it to be a complex subject and not simply one thing or another. Religion is an even more diverse subject.

The ONLY reason your post bothered me SO much is that you paint with a broad stroke and smear the crap from Qanon all over everyone and everything associated with religion. It seems angry and simplistic and not really thought out.

I get it. I have vented her myself. Sometimes the crazy out there just gets to a sane an rational person.

Don't know exactly what to do in support of a better working relationship here, but am pushing back because I AM both a STRONG DEM and a committed Christian. I DON'T SEE any conflict with that because I live my faith to see that MY behavior is respectable. I don't use it to judge others.

I will call people out for specific behaviors, but that is an opportunity to make adjustments, not me telling someone else they are bad or wrong. I don't like being judged either.

I will speak my truth and acknowledge the truth of others. What I like a lot about DU is that MOST people deal in FACTS instead of smear, snark and innuendo.

[CousinIT]

11. I don't. n/t

[3Hotdogs]

17. This post is bullshit ! Ya wanna see people come back

From the dead?

Come to my workplace at 5 P.M.

[edhopper]

22. LOL

[rurallib]

23. Love your analogy. For years I have been using Superman and Batman comics

but no one really believes that stuff is real.

Sometimes I have used Ronald Reagan who seems more myth than reality.

But Qanon is taking reality and turning it into fiction that a large number of supposedly thinking humans believe is reality. That seems to be almost an exact analogy. I shall use it. Thanks

[edhopper]

24. I use Davey Crockett

people believe the TV show and movie more than actual history.

[Voltaire2]

29. Filed under: no shit.

[edhopper]

34. I believe the phrase is

"No shit, Sherlock."

[guillaumeb]

31. The analogy is weak.

But you are free to make it.

Most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, with approximately 5% composed of energy and matter that we can see.

So any assertions that there is no proof of the existence of a Creator are based on what little we have observed about the 5% that is currently observable.

[edhopper]

33. Exactly zero to do

with the veracity of the writers of the Gospels or other stories in religious texts.

[guillaumeb]

51. It goes to the larger question about the existence of a deity.

And the fact that we can see and observe so little.

[edhopper]

54. But my post

was about whether the Gospels reflect actual history. Not about the existence of God.

[guillaumeb]

55. And the Gospels reflect a belief in a deity.

And the implicit bias of equating them with QAnon is evident. Observation and analysis is the scientific method.

As to actual history, there are many historical figures in the Bible, and many styles of writing.

[edhopper]

56. And Qanon

talk about many historical figures.
But is what the say the historical truth.
Does the portrayal of historical figures mean the writings are true?

[TigressDem]

36. That is an interesting take on it.

What I love is when people come into the Religion thread and think we are a bunch of brain dead zombies following what we don't understand because we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

I have my own problems with the Church even though I am a deeply committed Christian, so I understand when someone sees problems with the Church.

But to throw Qanon out there as "evidence" that nothing Christians believe about the Bible, Jesus or any religion is valid is the height of ego.

It's like racism. You put a whole bunch of people in one pot and judge them and ironically when a person makes a blanket statement like that, the odds are against it being true as there is almost always an exception or many to it.

[Mariana]

37. What exactly is your issue with this OP being posted in the Religion Group?

The Religion Group is the proper place for this kind of discussion.

[edhopper]

42. You really completely

missed the point of my OP.
You also don't seem to understand the purpose of this particular forum.

[TigressDem]

44. OK - Educate me.

What was your point?

What is the purpose of this particular forum?

[edhopper]

45. The unrestrained discussion of religion

it is neither pro religion or anti. But it is not a safe place for believers. There are other forums in the religion group for that.
It is for posting anything about any religion and no holds barred debate.
Here one can say anything about religion and not worry about offending others.

[TigressDem]

46. So this is a bash religion group? Hmmm. I did not get that from the stated purpose.

YOU HAVE SAID several times "that I have missed the point of your OP" BUT when I ask you point blank, OK what IS your point? You say it's the unrestrained discussion of religion. OK DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?


WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR OP? To discuss religion in an unrestrained manner is NOT a point, it is a method of discussion.

DID I ASK you to make me feel safe? NO.

BUT if you are going to post and whine that I don't understand your post, you should at least be able to state what your point IS.

THINK first, then type.


You replies explain nothing.

Which tells me either:

A) You don't know or
B) You don't respect others enough to answer in a straightforward manner

Maybe
C) Reasons of your own unfathomable to average person





Your latest replies

42. You really completely

missed the point of my OP.
You also don't seem to understand the purpose of this particular forum.


45. The unrestrained discussion of religion

View profile
it is neither pro religion or anti. But it is not a safe place for believers. There are other forums in the religion group for that.
It is for posting anything about any religion and no holds barred debate.
Here one can say anything about religion and not worry about offending others.

[Mariana]

48. Religion may be bashed in this Group.

However, Edhopper has not done so, in the OP or anywhere else in this thread.

Unbelievers may be bashed as well, as you have done in this thread.

[guillaumeb]

53. Generally religion is bashed here.

A look at the history of posts here confirms that. And that is using the scientific method by observing behavior, often over an extended period, and drawing conclusions.

[guillaumeb]

52. Exactly.

My view is that we must judge by actions, and judging by labels only is illogical.

[TigressDem]

35. Scientific Method and your Question/Hypothesis.

Starting with your ONLY question and your hypothesis.


Why should the writings of a few people in a much less transparent time about a man they never met be seen as having any accuracy. Especially when the purpose of the writing was propaganda, not history?



For the record, I don't even ask that YOU personally "trust" any writings about Jesus or other religions. I am not trying to "convince" you of the "veracity" of the Bible or Koran etc.

I am questioning WHY you are presenting your viewpoint as something fair and balanced on a board that is discussing Religion, when it appears to be an attack.

I am giving you a chance to defend your position as well. Maybe you did put a lot of thought into this and just haven't shown us your homework.


Here's an example following the seven steps of the scientific method:
(Although some people use more or less items)
Ask a question. ...
Perform research. ...
Establish a hypothesis. ...
Test the hypothesis by conducting an experiment. ...
Make an observation. ...
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion. ...
Present the findings.


I think IF you had stopped at...

Why should the writings of a few people in a much less transparent time about a man they never met be seen as having any accuracy.

(Which ironically IS an actual question, but you included prejudicial remarks; and THEN added a question mark which takes away from any sense of objectively asking a question you want answered versus attacking something you find objectionable.)

SO for this example, we will pare back to your question and assume that if your purpose was to have a civil discussion, you actually want an answer.

Question is presented. First part of the Scientific Method.

What research do you have that the years 30-110 AD are actually "less" transparent than the time we currently live in? That would be part 2 of the Scientific Method.

I am not sure I have a personal answer to that as I did not live back then, but as Thou Shalt Not Lie was a part of the Jewish culture it would depend on the motivation, I guess. All things being equal, why lie? Admitting to being a Christian could get you dead during that time. Seems to be a strong ANTI-motivation for speaking up at all. WHY put your life on the line for a lie? But maybe you have sources?

Point of clarification: How do you define that transparency?
https://existenceofgod.org/were-the-gospel-writers-honest-transparent/

Back to researching the hypothesis: What research do you have that NONE of the Gospels were written by people who ever met Jesus? There were a lot of big crowds and many followers.

The Gospel of Matthew I can concede, there is a lot of questions about whether the final Greek version could have been written by him. Some say tax collectors would be literate in Aramaic and Greek others say not. Some say there was an Hebrew version kept at the Library of Ceasarea that was transcribed. It could have been written earlier.

The Gospel of Mark is estimated to be written between 65AD and 70AD as agreed by most scholars and based on events referred to within said Gospel that could be connected to events of the time. This is still considered to be within the lifetime of eyewittnesses and in particular it is said Mark spoke to Peter prior to his death in 64-65AD but he also could have been recording some of Peter's preaching he or others had heard.

https://ianwscott.blog/2018/01/31/how-early-was-marks-gospel-written/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/age/roman.html
https://fabulousmasterpieces-blog.co.uk/who-were-the-12-apostles-disciples-at-the-last-supper/
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/when-was-the-gospel-of-matthew-written
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_the_Apostle


AND even if as you say those who penned the final writings had not MET Jesus persoanlly, as Luke admits. How does that invalidate the message which is recording what many people knew about the ministry and how the Apostles were creating it?

I mean, someone working on a history of Amazon might not know Jeff Bezos, but if they are working with people at the company who do and have access to previous material, why is their account suspect?

Paul's letters came out in 50AD and Mark's in 65AD - 70AD. Oral histories or traditions are often consulted by today's historians, so why rule them out completely? What is the evidence that all of this is irrational and untrue?

What specific evidence do you have that supports your hypothesis that:

Qanon is evidence that we cannot trust any writings about Jesus or other religions.

HOW is Qanon any type of evidence at all?

Direct evidence. ...
Circumstantial evidence. ...
Physical evidence. ...
Individual physical evidence. ...
Class physical evidence. ...
Forensic evidence. ...
Trace evidence. ...
Testimonial evidence.

HOW did you TEST that hypothesis?

What experiment or actual comparison did you run that PROVES your point?

Where is your analysis of the comparison between the two?

How does the exixtence of Qanon bring you to your conclusion?


IF you are too lazy to do the work, then it isn't really an honest question or supportable hypothesis.

Everybody makes mistakes.

I know I have.

I would hope though, that I learn to be more understanding and try to play nice on a board like DU.

Maybe that might work for you as well.

Just a thought.

[edhopper]

39. Perhaps you are unaware

about the books, articles and scholarship about that question the historocity of Jesus.
It would be worthwhile for you to read them to answer some of your questions.

[TigressDem]

43. I did my homework and provided links. Where are yours?

There are books about a lot of things. A title might help.

I know there are a lot of questions and discrepancies in the Bible. I've studied some history of the Bible and I have also as a person of faith learned many good things that help me make sense of day to day issues.

Jesus was a radical. He cared about those following him. If the details are not exact, I can live with that.

I am not an extreme evangelical who thinks every line written in the Bible is exactly as quoted from God to a person.

I am a free thinking person who still thinks Jesus taught some good lessons about being the kind of person who is assertive about what is right but not to the point of running over anyone else with it.

I don't always get it right. I try to the best of my ability to sincerely understand the people I interact with and listen to their point of view.

But dismissive, caustic remarks don't help much.

[TigressDem]

47. Oh wait! I finally understand.

Last edited Sat Jun 12, 2021, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Because I do not agree with your post, that means I don't understand it in your worldview.

Your point is SO VERY COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that it is beneath you to explain it.

NO AMOUNT of proof to the contrary or suggestion to not be so simplistic in your analogies penetrates your brain.


WOW it is so good that NO ONE can take offense here and we can say whatever we want about religion or lack of religious point of views.

No holds barred is FUN.

AGAIN.


I'd like to apologize, but I really don't know why. This isn't inaccurate, but doing to you what you say is permitted on this board doesn't feel right. LEAVING. Peace.

[Mariana]

49. "...doing to you what you say is permitted on this board doesn't feel right...

Actually, even though Qanon waives the Bible as a way to whitewash their behavior, they have much more in common with the godless masses, than true Christians minding their own business and taking their own inventory of behavior instead of blaming everyone else for their problems.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218324123#post7

You bashed unbelievers in this post. If it doesn't feel right to you, why did you do it?

WOW it is so good that NO ONE can take offense here and we can say whatever we want about religion or lack of religious point of views.

To review, here is the SOP of this Group:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

So, yes, you may say whatever you want about religion or lack of religious points of view. That's why your screed bashing unbelievers has not been removed, and you have not been banned for posting it here.

[edhopper]

50. And it's not just Q

if the majority of the GOP were to write the history of the Jan 6th Insurrection we would be told that it was not a riot but normal tourist, that Trump had nothing to do with it and that if there were rioters they were BLM and Antifi and not any of the groups who actually did it.
So, is there any basis to believe the writings of four men who were not part of the events, but have a clear agenda, writing decades and decades after the fact. Books that contradict each other and have various ahistorical passages.?

Should we consider any religious writings as a good source for historical facts? Is mentioning a few historic figures or places enough?

We see how even with clear reporting on what happened this year, those with an agenda, not only warp history to make it unrecognizable, but also believe this false history.

[Iggo]

57. Scientology is already better proof of that. (n/t)

[edhopper]

58. Yes and no

Scientology doesn't rewrite recent events into a distorted mirror of what it was. And the really loony parts aren't revealed to the flock until they pony up big bucks and years of indoctrination.