|
Gospel Dating & Reliability
|
 (10-13-2023, 09:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(10-13-2023, 08:39 PM)Thethingaboutitis Wrote: To me, all this thread is about is to knock 20 years off the dating of the gospel of Mark. Maybe. But the OP says it all for me. There's no reason to try to backdate the gospel of Mark unless you have an ulterior motive. 
It is not ulterior at all. It is a desperate attempt to backdate his bullshit to the first century. Xhristards have been trying to do that for centuries and they almost always get caught in the lie.
One of the more recent attempts. https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog...first.html Quote:In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned. Act in haste - repent at leisure.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The assumption that Paul’s death is not mentioned in Acts so therefore dates early is bunk. No one knew what happened to Paul or where he went. There’s mention of him heading to Spain. These Rs mention of him being killed in Rome…all are later guesses.
When a person disappears there’s not much more you can say about him. We have no idea what really happened to Paul and dating Acts based on “well, he must have died” just led to silly stories of him being martyred. For all we really know, he became an atheist and just slunk away..  (10-13-2023, 10:24 PM)pattylt Wrote: The assumption that Paul’s death is not mentioned in Acts so therefore dates early is bunk. No one knew what happened to Paul or where he went. There’s mention of him heading to Spain. These Rs mention of him being killed in Rome…all are later guesses. Or the record of his death and later speech were produced, but deemed unimportant to the broader Christian world and not integrated in the Canon of scriptures thus not copied and preserved. The Canon of scriptures that now constitute the OT and NT are only the tip of the iceberg of Christian literature. Most texts became apocryphal and were actively destroyed by the early Christian Church, much like those who preached them too, to silence potential opposition and avoid "heresy". During that time, the Church also falsified and forged documents to better support it's authority and legitimacy too. 
I just don't get that SII constantly tries to get a bunch of non believers to validate aspects of his belief.
Kind of sounds like the definition of insanity.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
 (10-14-2023, 01:52 AM)brewerb Wrote: Kind of sounds like the definition of insanity. No, insanity is doing the exact same thing repeatedly expecting a different outcome each time. Let's see, is SteveII doing that? (Reviews posts from SteveII). Well, whaddaya know. What's interesting it's a little hard to see WHAT it is he's doing, but not hard at all to see that whatever it is, it's the same. 
 (10-13-2023, 08:25 PM)airportkid Wrote:(10-13-2023, 06:38 AM)Aractus Wrote: But it's not history. You're right but a lot of internet conversations about how the Bible and the New Testament was written, the archaeology that proves the Bible is fiction has chipped away at the Abramahic religions and I think about that when I'm furiously typing. 
10-14-2023, 09:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2023, 09:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability
The Jews were not expecting a "messiah" to suffer for them. Their god had specifically ruled out anyone else suffering for them, and their sins. Suffering for sin is NOT what Jesus preached, and these facts preclude Acts, or any other scripture that claims that to be written FAR FAR later, after the direct influence of Jewish people was the driving force. The role of a messiah was NEVER to obtain forgiveness of any sin. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he needed to do to get into heaven, Jesus said "keep the commandments". ... not I'ma gonna be dyin' for yous.
2:36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”t 2:38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,* every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This was written FAR FAR later than even the Second Century. "The belief began to emerge in the 3rd century, but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Influenced by Augustine, the councils of Carthage (411–418 AD) and Orange brought theological speculation about original sin into the official lexicon of the Church. It certainly didn't happen with any "Luke" in the First Century. The Jews ALREADY had the means to get forgiveness of sin. They offered sacrifices in the temple. Forgiveness by someone else was invalidated in Jewish culture. In Exodus 30: 32-35 their God said it was not acceptable Moses asks the god to punish him for the sins of he people. God said no. Each sinner has to take that on himself. There is not one shred of evidence of preternatural perfection, or of a fall. Christianity and it's gospels are nothing but a lame attempt to continue an apocalyptic cult, which it's own scriptures invalidate and which HAD to have happened (be written) LONG after the First Century, when the end-times never happened, which both Paul and Jesus said were about to happen. Luke's Christology has Jesus equal with Yahweh. That is a "stoning to death" crime in Israel. "Luke's Christology is carefully designed. Luke portrays the exalted Jesus as God's co-equal by the kinds of things he does and says from heaven. Through the Holy Spirit, the divine name and personal manifestations, Jesus behaves toward people in Luke-Acts as does Yahweh in the Old Testament." It never happened until long after the gentiles were in charge of the church. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3340571
Test
(10-13-2023, 08:23 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: None of them are first hand eyewitnesses. What if they were? Several of them. At an event that actually took place. Would their collective accounts be enough to form a conclusion --- (A) About the bare details of what happened? (B) About the full understanding of causes and effects of all relevant factors? Answer to (A). Unlikely. Answer to (B). Impossible. Why is A unlikely, instead of "surely"? Several factors: 1. Human memory is fallible. Not just fallible, but manipulable. I won't post them here but there are countless demonstrations in science that show human memory is not trustworthy, nor comprehensive. 2. Our cognitive faculty superimposes interpretation on everything we experience. It happens subconsciously and is automatic. We do it without recognizing we're doing it. Any 2 of us directly witnessing an event will provide differing accounts due to our differing interpretations of various aspects of the event. One of us will skew the account slightly because the air was cold and felt chilled. The other, being less sensitive to temperature, will skew the account because members of the opposite sex in the event were paid more attention to. Etc. ad infinitum. 3. Sensory processing is not identical between people. We don't see, hear, feel, taste or smell exactly the same way others do, or are affected by the sensory inputs. That distorts and colors the recounting of the event. 4. Our senses are weak. We can't discern rapid events. We can't hear frequencies outside a narrow range. Etc. ad infinitum. Forensics will always supersede eyewitness accounts, even if 50 people give roughly the same account. Forensics is as close to impartial as we can get. Why is (B) impossible? Because to achieve it requires knowledge of all relevant factors of causes and effects. Today this approaches being possible because our bank of knowledge is vast, but more crucially, due to computers, the entire bank of knowledge is retrievable and corrolatable. But not 500 years ago. Things witnessed 500 years ago, if related with interpretation, can't impart true interpretation because the knowledge just isn't there, not even as a concept. Hence when Jasper McSillyputty in Fallatians 14:22 says a paralyzed man miraculously walked a mile unassisted, in an account given 700 years ago, what we know for a cast iron certainty is that while something like the bare event may have happened, the full understanding of its causes and effects was beyond reach. Quote:Jesus said "keep the commandments". ... not I'ma gonna be dyin' for yous. But, most likely Buck, this jesus guy, if he even existed, never said anything like that. The only place you find such blather is in the fucking gospels which numerous people have correctly pointed out are nothing but the purported claims of writers who were recording stories told to them by people who weren't present when they were allegedly said in the first place. Believe NOTHING that is written in the Holy Horseshit. It was not even propaganda. They were statements of belief by small groups of so-called xtians most of which were shitcanned by the eventual winners. And the eventual winners were the biggest liars. And Stevie is their descendant.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
(10-14-2023, 09:29 PM)airportkid Wrote:(10-13-2023, 08:23 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: None of them are first hand eyewitnesses. True. But these claims aren't validated, they're just repeated. Repeating something does not make it true. What Christians need is unbiased evidence from outside of the Bible to substantiate the claims, and there are none to be found. The only place one finds miracles are in holy books around the world or in stories told over and over again by people who want to believe the stories to begin with. A little off topic but sorta not. Last night I just happened to watch a Netflix documentary called "Misha and the Wolves". A Jewish woman claimed she left her adopted family at 7 years old in the midst of WWII in Belgium and went trapsing across Europe looking for her parents who had been taken by the Nazis. She was taken care of by wolves, she stabbed and killed a German soldier who had raped a women, she went back and lived with the wolves again. All she had with her was a compass and the clothes on her back. The French made a movie based on her book and it was a big hit. She toured Europe telling her story. People ate the story up. No one questioned her at the time. It turned out to be a made up fantasy. She wasn't Jewish at all and none of the events she described happened to her. But people really wanted to believe it. This is how religions start. People really, really, really want to believe that there is another fantasy life waiting for them after they die. https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2008/08/1...airy-tale/
The following 6 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
• airportkid, Minimalist, Bucky Ball, Inkubus, pattylt, Thethingaboutitis
10-14-2023, 10:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2023, 10:25 PM by Dancefortwo.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability
double post
10-14-2023, 10:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2023, 10:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability (10-14-2023, 10:10 PM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Jesus said "keep the commandments". ... not I'ma gonna be dyin' for yous. Agree, but it proves that even their own gospels do not suppport he "died for sin". It was unnecessary. It was never a part of Jewish culture, (and still is not). They made up the "fall", much much later, and the role of a messiah was never to die for sin. ““Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16 is Gods law for the nation of Israel. It forbids punishing anyone for their fathers sin. "By his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24 is forbidden in Jewish culture, and they were all Jews at that point. It's simply bullshit. The actual question of the messiahship was brought up in Acts, when the disciples (were said to have) asked "Wilt Thou O lord, at this time restore the kingdoms to Israel" ? The writers of Acts understood this did not happen, and it was a scandal.
Test
10-14-2023, 11:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2023, 11:28 PM by polymath257.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability (10-12-2023, 08:10 PM)SteveII Wrote: I would like to start a thread on NT Gospel Dating & Reliability. It is a popular derailment in other threads and I thought an organized discussion would be useful. OK, let's see you abide by your own rules. Your attributions are traditional. What *facts* support that *theory*? What reasons can you give to support these assertions? Next, what facts do you have to support your claims as to the purpose of each gospel? Please remember that there were many early beliefs concerning Jesus and Christ and how they were related (See Bart Ehrman on 'How Jesus Became God' for a discussion. Quote: Or, alternatively, that Luke was written quite a bit later than that and simply didn't include certain stories. Why would he mention Nero, for example? Why, if his main story was about the life of Jesus, would he mention the death of James? Please support the assertions that these would be expected to be included in the story that was actually being told. Next, deal with the fact that Mark was written in Greek and not in any language used by anyone who knew Jesus (unless you include Pilate). So that points to a much later date as well as a writer that was not from the area. That implies that the audience was not what was claimed above. Quote:Matthew has 90% of the content from Mark but is 40% longer than Mark. It is more that it shows order of writing. If A uses the writings of B, then A is later than B. But then the question is when the different traditions originated and how they changed over time. So, given that the earliest versions of Mark do not have the resurrection, it is clear that some parts were rewritten later and material was added. That leads to the question of how reliable the overall story really is. This is only accentuated by the fact that the author is anonymous and only much later said to be Mark. It also brings into further question who the audience was and what the purpose of the text was at the time it was written. Quote:Why do people want to date them later? No, that isn't the reasoning *at all*. The reasoning is that we can see the development of the legend, going from the letters of Paul (who never met Jesus while alive), through the gospel of Mark, which was clearly later, and then into the other gospels with John clearly much later when the legend had been expanded greatly. Furthermore, access to the temple records was clearly NOT available given the competing descriptions of Jesus' ancestry. That puts the writing after the destruction of the temple. Of course, this could also be because the authors were nowhere close to Jerusalem and were not from that culture. John clearly shows the influence of Platonic thought, although that could have been derived from Philo. In any case, it shows the development of the story into one where Jesus was always divine, as opposed to divine from death or divine from baptism. Certain letters of Paul don't have Jesus as divine until after death. There is a separate tradition that it happened at his baptism by John. Later, he was divine from birth. Finally, in the gospel of John, we was divine from the beginning of the world. That is *clearly* the growth of a legend and is a strong argument against *any* of the gospels being reliable in detail.
10-15-2023, 12:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2023, 01:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability
The introduction to John is word for word, coped from Philo of Alexandria. He was a Gnostic. In Mark, Jesus achieves divinity, in Matthew and Luke he gives up divinity and retakes it later, in John as a Gnostic divinity he retains divinity and temporarily takes on a human nature.
The question really is, what about the 200 other gospels early Christians wrote and accepted ? I like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In it the apostles ask Jesus to make her into a man, so she can "fully participate" in the divine mysteries. Cough cough.
Test
 (10-13-2023, 08:06 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Jesus was never a Christian (assuming for discussion that he ever quite existed in reality). He was Jewish when he was born and Jewish when he died. His followers created a new religion about him over generations and centuries. Even those books written by his followers (and there is some doubt about that) can't even agree about what he said. I believe that's what I said. He was a Jew, and more specifically a Nazarite. His direct followers did not create a new religion. Paul remained Jewish as did the Jerusalem apostles, and when they converted Gentiles to the Jewish movements in Jerusalem they had to convert to Judaism but Paul and his “wing” of the movement told them they didn't have to convert to Judaism. But yes absolutely by the 4th generation or so it had become its own religion and that's where the seeds of antisemitism come from as well. Quote:My personal view is that Ken Dark is an idiot much like those "alien experts" you see all the time on cable channels. Lots of claims, no real facts. Well he wrote not just one, but two academic books on it - he's the leading expert like it or not until someone else builds upon the work. Quote:The Trojan/Greek war was around 1200 BC. Homer wrote about it in around 800 BC (give or take a century on both). What are the odds that a pre-records society would know much about what really happened a few centuries later accurately? The Bible is a lot like that. Oral tradition changes with each generation. Well no the “oral tradition” itself doesn't change that much in the the first century or so after Jesus dies, it's just that people have a REALLY bad idea about what “oral tradition” means. This is because they've listened to the Evangelicals and Apologists who tell you that oral tradition meant passing on teachings of Jesus word-for-word and stories of Jesus. No. Oral tradition means religious practice. So unless that storytelling is devotional or spiritual, it's not a tradition/repeated practice. They were defining themselves through rites, sacraments, and other spiritual/religious activities (e.g. prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc) - they were not defining themselves by creed and dogma in the first century. They were sharing the sacrament of the Eucharist, they were praying together, they were Baptising each other, they were appointing new leaders, the new leaders were coming up with new teachings, and so-on. How much of any of that actually goes back to Jesus is anyone's guess, the Eucharist I think was started with Paul, Baptism may have been started with John the Baptist and had nothing to do with the Jesus movement until John's followers converted to Christ followers sometime in the 40's or 50's and brining the sacrament of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins with them (note it's not a Jewish sacrament). The Passion tradition or traditions were most likely some kind of devotional tradition/s that sought to understand the death of Christ spiritually: 1 Cor 15:3-8: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” Sounds a lot like a confession of faith does it not? Evangelicals have long called this a creed, but it's not a creed as there were no Christian creeds in the first century - it's a straightforward example of what the so-called “oral tradition” looks like when it's written down in a letter. Note that it looks nothing at all like Mark 14-16:8 which is what happens when you start with the above, or perhaps a different Passion tradition like Acts 13:27-31 (or both), and then convert it into prose. There's a zillion ways to turn the above tradition into a story. But in the New Testament there's only one version and that's Mark's version, so that kind of rules out there being strong oral tradition of a narrative kind. Quote:"So in summary, the gospels are expressing the spiritual truth of their authors. That isn't being “made up”. But, it's not history." Indeed it isn't. And that's the problem you can't overcome. It is all made up by later people... They didn't invent that Jesus came from Nazareth or that he was crucified under the Romans.  (10-12-2023, 08:10 PM)SteveII Wrote: I would like to start a thread on NT Gospel Dating & Reliability. It is a popular derailment in other threads and I thought an organized discussion would be useful. I think most of us would not like you to. 
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte Quote:They didn't invent that Jesus came from Nazareth or that he was crucified under the Romans. What is your basis for that? All, and I mean ALL, of this horseshit comes from one source: the so-called gospel of mark. A book replete with miracle stories and numerus obvious errors. Why do you think that those two items are factual in a book which is otherwise total horseshit? There is a concept in law which deals with the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and basically means the discrediting of any evidence which comes from a tainted source. And nothing is more tainted that these fucking gospels.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
10-15-2023, 04:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2023, 06:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability Quote:They didn't invent that Jesus came from Nazareth or that he was crucified under the Romans. The Romans had a standing order in the provinces that trouble-makers were summarily executed. No trial. "Crucified under the Romans" is misleading, (even granting that any of this bs is true at all). IF it happened, the Jesus presented in the NT was a trouble-maker, and would have known the political situation. He went to the temple (in their own story) and threatened the economic stability of the temple-economy which was the entire basis of the economy of Jerusalem and that society. The LAW required that unclean Roman money be changed to Hebrew money to use in temple practices. So if the story has any validity at all, he basically offed himself. He brought onto himself the punishment that was meted out to all trouble-makers such as himself in the provinces. With all the mistakes that we know are in the gospels, it's entirely possible that the word "Nazareth" is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite It's much more likely (apparently the authors implied they knew each other) that it's "Nazirite (or Nazarite)" such as John the Baptist who took a special vow before God and was subsequently consecrated to God for service. Numbers 6 details the requirements for being a Nazirite, which included abstaining from wine (verses 3–4), keeping one’s hair unshaved (verse 5), and staying away from dead bodies (verses 6–7). After the time of the vow was fulfilled, the Nazirite had to present sacrifices and cut his hair, offering this as a sacrifice as well. EVERY Jewish male recognized as a rabbi HAD to be married. There is nothing about him being married. Yet apparently he preaches in synagogues. The only way to see his unmarried status is to assume he was a Nazirite. There was only one exception to the marriage thing, and they all talked about it. No one says anything about an unknown UNMARRIED rabbi named "Jesus". In Peter's long speech to the Jewish leaders in Acts, the authors place in Peter's mouth theological concepts and material that took centuries longer to develop, ("post-diction"). Acts cannot be written before those concepts developed, and we know historically when that happened. It appears the Jews have no clue what Peter is even talking about, which is why Peter has to tell them "what they did". We know the EARLIEST possible date that general acceptance of "died for sins" could be. It's not 1st Century.
Test
Quote:Acts cannot be written before those concepts developed, and we know historically when that happened. All true, Buck, but we cannot dismiss the probability that these stories were written at one time and (heavily) edited later on to conform to what was then current church doctrine. For example, we know that the pericope for the woman taken in adultery was a much later addition to the gJohn.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
(10-15-2023, 06:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Acts cannot be written before those concepts developed, and we know historically when that happened. I'd be happy to amend my post to say that the earliest they were "finalized" was the latest known amendment to the approximate dates we know the concepts were circulating and agreed to by the communities.
Test
That's fine for the smarter people around here. Such nuances are lost on the religitards.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Just to keep these in order,
... I was going to add, that Jews only needed someone to die for their sins, if the temple sacrifices were ended, (temple destruction). Their sins were already taken care of before that. The role of a messiah was never to do anything about sins. Also we can watch as Christianity cooked itself up, in the proceedings of the councils which one of their colleges has so graciously provided to us. Thanks Fordham. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nicea1.txt
Test
(10-15-2023, 02:54 PM)Minimalist Wrote: What is your basis for that? All, and I mean ALL, of this horseshit comes from one source: the so-called gospel of mark. A book replete with miracle stories and numerus obvious errors. Why do you think that those two items are factual in a book which is otherwise total horseshit? Firstly I didn't call gMark “horseshit”, and secondly he didn't invent the movement. Some of his gospel itself is based on the letter of Paul, and besides that he's transformed religious customs and rites and practises of his day into prose. That means the other stuff exists underneath the narrative. It was Paul, not Mark, who made up the stuff about Jesus fulfilling Jewish Scripture prophecies. He did that by “reinterpreting” scripture, or the way that Jews would put it “misusing” and “misquoting” to an audience that didn't know any better. (10-15-2023, 04:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Romans had a standing order in the provinces that trouble-makers were summarily executed. No trial. "Crucified under the Romans" is misleading, (even granting that any of this bs is true at all). IF it happened, the Jesus presented in the NT was a trouble-maker, and would have known the political situation. I never said that Pilate would have been present if he was the one who ordered the execution, in fact I'd say he most likely ordered it from Caesarea IF he was the one that directly ordered it. Quote:He went to the temple (in their own story) and threatened the economic stability of the temple-economy which was the entire basis of the economy of Jerusalem and that society. The LAW required that unclean Roman money be changed to Hebrew money to use in temple practices. So if the story has any validity at all, he basically offed himself. He brought onto himself the punishment that was meted out to all trouble-makers such as himself in the provinces. To be clear, I don't think you can take ANYTHING Mark says about the Temple as historical fact. The Temple's destruction is a core theme and Mark may simply be embellishing further on that core theme in his gospel. Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem may have been all that was required for the Romans to decide he was a troublemaker and order an execution. Quote:With all the mistakes that we know are in the gospels, it's entirely possible that the word "Nazareth" is wrong. Jesus being a Nazirite would contradict Paul (1 Cor 11:14) and there's no way that Paul was THAT ignorant about Jesus as he knew two of his closest disciples one of which was his flesh-and-blood brother. Quote:In Peter's long speech to the Jewish leaders in Acts, the authors place in Peter's mouth theological concepts and material that took centuries longer to develop, ("post-diction"). I already said Luke-Acts is second century. And you're right about the theology which is why Luke-Acts comes chronologically after Matthew. The two source hypothesis operates under the delusion that Matthew and Luke are in ignorance of each other, yet from the changes that they make to Mark I think it should be fairly obvious that one got the idea from the other. In terms of Matthew, he doesn't seem to be altering Mark all that much other than imprinting his newer more modern theology into Mark. This is why Luke often prefers Mark over Matthew because he can recognise the original, and it could well be that he doesn't really like gMatthew very much as he might see it as defacing gMark or something along those lines emboldening him to “do it right”. Either way when we get to John we're talking mid-second century and John is based on all three Synoptics I think and possibly other non-Canonical gospels that he had on hand at the time as well.
10-16-2023, 02:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023, 02:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Gospel Dating & Reliability (10-16-2023, 06:06 AM)Aractus Wrote: I never said that Pilate would have been present if he was the one who ordered the execution, in fact I'd say he most likely ordered it from Caesarea IF he was the one that directly ordered it. Did I say ANYTHING about Pilate "being present" ? No. You forgot one thing. Justifying your assertions with evidence.
Test
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
