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

[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.