Did Jesus Exist?

[alang1216]

It would be stranger still if all 4 Gospels repeated the same supposed eyewitness accounts in a "verbatim" manner. That would make it appear that there was some coaching going on.......all were reading from a script.

What? Are humans part of a "collective" mentality seeing everything as one, with everyone noticing "exactly" the same facts? Even in a court room you could have 5 witnesses to the same crime and each witness would present visible facts not noticed by the other 4 witnesses......or present some information that others assumed to be unimportant.

There is a important rule of law to remember. Adding extra information or substracting information from an eyewitness accout does not equal a fabrication, each person is an individual with different traits of observation that can be effected by eyesight, nerves, health.....etc., attention to detail, lack of attention to detail. There have been cases where even the color of clothing and hair were each testified as being different......but each person told that truth as they rememered. One had mistaken the color of hair as being read because all he noticed was the big red 1 on the baseball cap being worn......another stated the subject wore all blue......another black.......why? The subject was wearing a blue coat that he removed in order to run faster....etc.,

Example: Suppose you or someone else was repeating the events of how you and your wife witnessed a crime while shopping at the local mall. Your first question is the same one asked of your wife by the prosecutinig attorney. "Why were you at the mall on this day?" You answer, "I came along with the wife in order to purchase hunting supplies and a few cinnamon rolls..........there is this one little bakery that makes the very best pasteries.....". Your wife replies by telling the prosecutor about how this mall has great clothing stores.....

Both of you begin to tell your story about one certain event that occured at the same mall, on the same day......but each provided different details about as to why you and your wife were there on that particular day.......

Did you or your wife either........contradict the other's testimony?

The same is true of the Gospels........each told by someone with a different view point. In one account the author tells of there being 3 angels.....another remembers seeing only 2 angels at the grave of Jesus. Is this a contradiction? Of course not........there are many reasons as to why one mentions 3 another only 2......perhaps they arrived at slightly different times of day.....one angel has already gone and one witness had a glance at only 2 angels that were wittnessed existing the scence...etc., the first witness arrived much eariler than the latter witness and the actual scene changed in perception and reality.

This is just one example as to why some claim the Bible contracts itself. This is exactly the case between 2 different gospels accounts as to how many angels were seen at the grave of Jesus. 2 different numbers. But when you actually read of the 2 different accounts the passages actually document different time frames of each witnessed account.

I agree with what you wrote but not every Biblical contradiction is so easily dismissed. Good luck weaving the two birth narratives into one.

I think its wrong to read it as history and not what it is, theology.

 

[Clyde 154]

I agree with what you wrote but not every Biblical contradiction is so easily dismissed. Good luck weaving the two birth narratives into one.

I think its wrong to read it as history and not what it is, theology.

Not only are you supposed to read it as history..........but also as a record of "eyewitness" accounting, that is not for private interpretation (2 Peter 1:16-20). Because there is a truthful history presented does not indicate that everything recorded was approved by God.......the scriptures are a running history from the garden to Revelation that includes, the good, the bad and the ugly. It was written by at least 38 different authors......from different backgrounds, different social positions etc., there were Kings, Sheep Herders, Physicans, Tax Collectors, Carpenters, Tent Makers....etc., all inspired by to record what the Holy Spirit Inspired them to record (2 Tim. 3:16)

You should attempt to actually read the scriptures for yourself instead of parroting from a shopping list of supposed Contradictions presented by those like R. Dawkins...etc.,

Enlighten us, by Book, Chapter and Verse and demonstrate where the scriptures declare there were 2 births. 2 births of whom?

The only such comparison of Jesus' birth were there might be some confusion about the birth place of Jesus (Some say Bethlehem, some say that Jesus came out from Galilee)......is not a contradiction in the least.

This supposed contradiction came from the atheist R. Dawkins who points to the passage found in John 7:41-42 were he attempts to declare this passage is saying that Jesus was born in Galilee not Bethlehem.......and its not declaring anything colse to this personal translation.

Read the text....its "OTHERS" that are making the claim due to their ignorance because Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Galilee. "Others said, This is the Christ, but some said......Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, The Christ cometh from the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where was David?" -- John 7:41-42

Does this passage actually teach that Jesus was not born in the town of Bethlehem? Of course not......John was simply pointing out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus speak asked if the Christ would come from Bethelhem or Galilee........and some clearly did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the chapter proves this as to their ignorance concerning the birth place of the Christ and scripture.......they took Jesus to the Jewish leadership, who simply played upon the lie to defame Jesus as a fake prophet by ending their speech by saying, "Search the scriptures and see......no prophet comes out from Galilee". It was not John, John simply left a truthful record of what some where charging. Show me the passage where John makes the statement, Jesus was born in Galilee. It does not exist.

The majority of those in the crowd knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all the gosples teach Matthew 2:22-23, Mark 1:24, 10:47, Luke 2:39-40, 4:16, John 1:45-46, 7:27)..........the majority that were from Galilee knew that Jesus grew up among....them, Some did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Right after the passage of "Others said -- John 7:41"..........John 7 goes on to declare that it was the "Pharisees" that was attempting to dismiss Jesus as coming from Galilee declaring the people had been tricked by Jesus (John 7:45-52)

No where in scripture does any author of the Gospels declare that Jesus was born in Galilee? Again..........show us the Book, Chpater and Verse were the author of any of the Gospels declares such.

This is much akeen to some claiming there are 2 creation accounts that contradict the other.

 

[alang1216]

You should attempt to actually read the scriptures for yourself instead of parroting from a shopping list of supposed Contradictions presented by those like R. Dawkins...etc.,

You have no clue as to my familiarity with scripture so you making assumptions is silly. I have read the Bible, OT and NT, and more than that, I've read what scholars have written. I haven't read any Dawkins though. I'm not a Christian but I consider myself pretty knowledge, more so than many of the Christians I know.

Enlighten us, by Book, Chapter and Verse and demonstrate where the scriptures declare there were 2 births. 2 births of whom?

Not two births, two birth narratives. Matthew and Luke have very different versions of the Birth of Jesus.

The only such comparison of Jesus' birth were there might be some confusion about the birth place of Jesus (Some say Bethlehem, some say that Jesus came out from Galilee)......is not a contradiction in the least.

This supposed contradiction came from the atheist R. Dawkins who points to the passage found in John 7:41-42 were he attempts to declare this passage is saying that Jesus was born in Galilee not Bethlehem.......and its not declaring anything colse to this personal translation.

Read the text....its "OTHERS" that are making the claim due to their ignorance because Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Galilee. "Others said, This is the Christ, but some said......Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, The Christ cometh from the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where was David?" -- John 7:41-42

Does this passage actually teach that Jesus was not born in the town of Bethlehem? Of course not......John was simply pointing out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus speak asked if the Christ would come from Bethelhem or Galilee........and some clearly did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the chapter proves this as to their ignorance concerning the birth place of the Christ and scripture.......they took Jesus to the Jewish leadership, who simply played upon the lie to defame Jesus as a fake prophet by ending their speech by saying, "Search the scriptures and see......no prophet comes out from Galilee". It was not John, John simply left a truthful record of what some where charging. Show me the passage where John makes the statement, Jesus was born in Galilee. It does not exist.

The majority of those in the crowd knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all the gosples teach Matthew 2:22-23, Mark 1:24, 10:47, Luke 2:39-40, 4:16, John 1:45-46, 7:27)..........the majority that were from Galilee knew that Jesus grew up among....them, Some did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Right after the passage of "Others said -- John 7:41"..........John 7 goes on to declare that it was the "Pharisees" that was attempting to dismiss Jesus as coming from Galilee declaring the people had been tricked by Jesus (John 7:45-52)

No where in scripture does any author of the Gospels declare that Jesus was born in Galilee? Again..........show us the Book, Chpater and Verse were the author of any of the Gospels declares such.

This is much akeen to some claiming there are 2 creation accounts that contradict the other.

Jesus was almost certainly born and raised in Nazareth and that was well know to his followers. When the early Christians wanted to show Jews that Jesus was their messiah they invented stories that showed how he fulfilled Jewish prophetic scripture. One prophesy was that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, David's hometown. One of the invented stories is that the Romans ordered a census and everyone had to report to their family birthplace. There is no record of any census nor is there any rational reason to make people travel to be counted. Sorry but the story is not historical, it is theological.

 

[watchingfromafar]

So from your copy-and-paste exercise,

The difference between you and me is the fact that I can read, you on the other hand just regurgitate what your handlers tell you to do.

you see now that Judea did not revolt against Rome when Jesus was crucified.

Actually, that is just what the links show.

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Jesus was almost certainly born and raised in Nazareth and that was well know to his followers. When the early Christians wanted to show Jews that Jesus was their messiah they invented stories that showed how he fulfilled Jewish prophetic scripture.

You have stated that you are not a Christian, and I do not believe you are a Muslim, which leaves Jewish. And one who is the inventor here. In my view, you have a coat of many colours.
The truth will set you free
-

 

[Clyde 154]

You have no clue as to my familiarity with scripture so you making assumptions is silly. I have read the Bible, OT and NT, and more than that, I've read what scholars have written. I haven't read any Dawkins though. I'm not a Christian but I consider myself pretty knowledge, more so than many of the Christians I know.


Not two births, two birth narratives. Matthew and Luke have very different versions of the Birth of Jesus.


Jesus was almost certainly born and raised in Nazareth and that was well know to his followers. When the early Christians wanted to show Jews that Jesus was their messiah they invented stories that showed how he fulfilled Jewish prophetic scripture. One prophesy was that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, David's hometown. One of the invented stories is that the Romans ordered a census and everyone had to report to their family birthplace. There is no record of any census nor is there any rational reason to make people travel to be counted. Sorry but the story is not historical, it is theological.

You are yet to point out the Contradictions by Book, Chapter and Verse........you simply keep "parroting" internet garrbage. If you are speaking of the 2 different acecestral lines of Jesus you will note that it is even mentioned that the line is presented as coming from the Husband of Mary......and the other coming from Mary's line .........from her father. That is the difference......2 lines one from Joseph (the legal line) and one from Marry's side of the family......her father......the line in Matthew begins with Joseph........the Husband of Mary, (Matthew 1:16), its based upon Jewish law and tradition. Read the lines it becomes clear that Joseph starts with first dead male in Marry's line, by naming the grandfather of Jesus Heli in one account. Can Joseph have 2 different fathers? One line lists Jacob as the father of Joseph, the other lists Jesus' grandfather Heli........in reality Heli is the father of Mary.......Jewish tadition as used must be of male heirs......Joseph uses himself as the nearest living male relative in both lines....one from Mary the Other from the legal line of Joseph where an adopted father is legally seen the same as a natural father.

Matthew's line goes through Joseph. Luke's line goes through Mary. Its not rocket science. Luke uses the Jewish style of only naming the males in the ancestral line.

Matthew and Luke..........begin by presenting the lingeage of Christ as it existed "leaglly" under Jewish law. One line coming from the legal father of Jesus and the other coming from Mary's nearest male relative......her father. Of course you will have two different lines of descent from 2 different people.........geeze.

One line deals with the LEGAL LINE. Under Jewish law accepted an adopted Son....he is considered the same as a natural son.....the other line deals with the physical line of Jesus. One line goes through the Son of David, Sol, the other through another son of David, Nathan. Both prove Jesus to be a direct Son of David, one legally........the other naturally. There are no contradictions.

If you are a Jew.......you most certainly are not a practicing Orthodox Jew........you are simply attempting to discredit the N.T. canon through internet gossip.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I haven't read any Dawkins though. I'm not a Christian but I consider myself pretty knowledge, [sic] more so than many of the Christians I know.

I had to click on the Uncover Stupid Remark link from Clyde 154's response to alang1216 to see how ignorant it would be. As expected, he did not disappoint.

alang1216 is "pretty knowledge" ! ! ! ! ! Isn't that just swell? So is the Unabomber "pretty knowledge", along with atheists everywhere.

"I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt!" - Sir Lionel Luckhoo, listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most successful attorney in history

 

[alang1216]

I had to click on the Uncover Stupid Remark link from Clyde 154's response to alang1216 to see how ignorant it would be. As expected, he did not disappoint.

alang1216 is "pretty knowledge" ! ! ! ! ! Isn't that just swell? So is the Unabomber "pretty knowledge", along with atheists everywhere.

"I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt!" - Sir Lionel Luckhoo, listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most successful attorney in history

So you get your theology from a lawyer and your history from theologians? Got it, I guess I'm not that smart.

 

[alang1216]

You are yet to point out the Contradictions by Book, Chapter and Verse........you simply keep "parroting" internet garrbage. If you are speaking of the 2 different acecestral lines of Jesus you will note that it is even mentioned that the line is presented as coming from the Husband of Mary......and the other coming from Mary's line .........from her father. That is the difference......2 lines one from Joseph (the legal line) and one from Marry's side of the family......her father......the line in Matthew begins with Joseph........the Husband of Mary, (Matthew 1:16), its based upon Jewish law and tradition. Read the lines it becomes clear that Joseph starts with first dead male in Marry's line, by naming the grandfather of Jesus Heli in one account. Can Joseph have 2 different fathers? One line lists Jacob as the father of Joseph, the other lists Jesus' grandfather Heli........in reality Heli is the father of Mary.......Jewish tadition as used must be of male heirs......Joseph uses himself as the nearest living male relative in both lines....one from Mary the Other from the legal line of Joseph where an adopted father is legally seen the same as a natural father.

Matthew's line goes through Joseph. Luke's line goes through Mary. Its not rocket science. Luke uses the Jewish style of only naming the males in the ancestral line.

Matthew and Luke..........begin by presenting the lingeage of Christ as it existed "leaglly" under Jewish law. One line coming from the legal father of Jesus and the other coming from Mary's nearest male relative......her father. Of course you will have two different lines of descent from 2 different people.........geeze.

One line deals with the LEGAL LINE. Under Jewish law accepted an adopted Son....he is considered the same as a natural son.....the other line deals with the physical line of Jesus. One line goes through the Son of David, Sol, the other through another son of David, Nathan. Both prove Jesus to be a direct Son of David, one legally........the other naturally. There are no contradictions.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by a birth narrative so let's move on. You want Chapter and Verse? Ok, this if Matthew Chapter 1:

22 Now all this [u]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [v]the prophet would be fulfilled:​

23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”​

The interesting thing here is that the prophecy spoke of a young girl, not a virgin. When the Bible was translated into Greek the word used could refer to either a young girl or a virgin. Since the writers of Matthew and Luke spoke Greek they wrongly inferred the prophesy was about a virgin birth and that is what they wove into their story. Theology not history.

If you are a Jew.......you most certainly are not a practicing Orthodox Jew........you are simply attempting to discredit the N.T. canon through internet gossip.

Discredit it? No. I wish to fully appreciate it and the only way to do that is to understand it.

 

[Clyde 154]

You don't seem to understand what I mean by a birth narrative so let's move on. You want Chapter and Verse? Ok, this if Matthew Chapter 1:

22 Now all this [u]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [v]the prophet would be fulfilled:​

23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”​

The interesting thing here is that the prophecy spoke of a young girl, not a virgin. When the Bible was translated into Greek the word used could refer to either a young girl or a virgin. Since the writers of Matthew and Luke spoke Greek they wrongly inferred the prophesy was about a virgin birth and that is what they wove into their story. Theology not history.


Discredit it? No. I wish to fully appreciate it and the only way to do that is to understand it.

Let's talk truth: You refuse to accept the Canon of the Holy Scriptures because it proves whatever faith you are promoting to be a false doctrine when compared to the canon of the Holy Bible. There is no other excuse even if its human secularism that you are promoting, but I suspect that you are attempting to defend one of the many false cults that have written their own scriptures/bible centuries after the final passages of the Holy Scriptures were written. Mormons, Islam, Catholicism, Jehovah Witnesses.......etc.,

You don't accept The Holy Bible because you claim its corrupted because it declares things.......THAT YOU CAN'T SEEM TO PRODUCE BY BOOK, CHAPTER AND VERSE. You are yet to present any specific passage of scripture and prove (objective) beyond doubt that its false........Subjective bigoted rhetorical opinions.......in any langauge are not facts in evidence. Thus far you have made 2 accesions that Have been proven false by simply presenting the actual content of the Holy Word of God.

Yeah.........and you are mistransling your native tounge into English, in fact the majority of Muslims (those that profess to be Muslims) cannot read the Koran in its native tongue.....so, All coverts to Islam who cannot read from the orginal languge must be reading corrupted script making their supposed faith NULL AND VOID because its been translated from its original text in a language other than Arabic....right? If not why not?

Is English your native tongue? If not, how do I know that your translations are not corrupted? There is no possible way for you to convey the supposed truth you are attempting to teach me. Why? I am not in the least fimiliar with the Arabic tongue....to deliver truth, if you are of the Muslim faith........you must convey your truth in the original Arabic.....? If not Why Not?

What about all the Muslims in Pakistan who can only read and speak "URDU"? "PUNJABI"? "ENGLISH"? The vast majority of Pakistan's people do not speak Arabic........and if they are trained to memorize passages and prayers without the knowledge of what they are actually speaking.......What kind of Religion is that? Yet over 96% of that population claim to be MUSLIM. Strange indeed. It appears that words that make the official Doctrine of Christianity "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" -- Rom. 17:10 Don't matter because you claim your tranlsations are the only valid translations on earth. Yet here you are.........communicating, and I understand you. Strange indeed, I understand you, and you do write in English....but again, you have presented no evidence to support anything you are declaring is true as based upon the Actual Content of the Holy Scripture.

FYI: If the passage you think was mistranslated and translated into YOUNG GIRL instead of Virign......why would other passages that use the same message declare Christ's birth as a Virign Birth? Such as? Mary, speaking and declaring, "How can this be since I do not know a man"? -- Matthew 1:26 Or? "The Holy Spirit Came upon her (Mary)........" -- Luke 1:35.....the content and subject matter is addressing the conception of the Messiah.

There is no way to confuse the Context, Content and Subject Matter and change Virign into YOUNG GRIL.......especially when Mary is confessing , "How can this be (her pregnacy)........I do not know a man"?

You can replace any ONE WORD you wish and read it with the correct context subject matter, and content of the surrounding text.........the other words self define that one word. If that one word does not fit, such as replacing Auto with Wheel Barrow (both have wheels).....then you read the text and it declares I was passed on the interstate by a Wheel Barrow.......Really? Another point? If Mary was a practicing JEW, devout.........and she was a young girl (often this is used to mean a female who has never known a man......just as Mary stated) it would be a sin to "know a man" while she was still considered a YOUNG GIRL..........yet the scriptures declare that the Holy Spirit Came upon Mary, Question? Would the HOLY SPIRIT come upon a corrupted female, or would another vessel for the Messiah simply be chosen?

Example of using "young girl......or unmarried young girt" as translated from the Original Hebrew word "Almah"........in Isaiah 7:14, the word Almah is translated not only to be a young, unmarried girl..........its means Virgin, Unmarried......or "Maiden" when translated into English through the Greek Language.

But as Jesus declared, "Why choke on a gnat and then attempt to swallow a camel"? When you read the context subject matter were this word is used........its clear the intent of translation was to mean VIRIGN........".....I know no man......"

 

[alang1216]

Let's talk truth: You refuse to accept the Canon of the Holy Scriptures because it proves whatever faith you are promoting to be a false doctrine when compared to the canon of the Holy Bible. There is no other excuse even if its human secularism that you are promoting, but I suspect that you are attempting to defend one of the many false cults that have written their own scriptures/bible centuries after the final passages of the Holy Scriptures were written. Mormons, Islam, Catholicism, Jehovah Witnesses.......etc.,

It is much simpler than that. I don't accept the Canon of the Holy Scriptures because, as an atheist, I don't believe in God. There may have been a Creator but He would be in way related to the God of the Bible.

You don't accept The Holy Bible because you claim its corrupted because it declares things.......THAT YOU CAN'T SEEM TO PRODUCE BY BOOK, CHAPTER AND VERSE. You are yet to present any specific passage of scripture and prove (objective) beyond doubt that its false........Subjective bigoted rhetorical opinions.......in any langauge are not facts in evidence. Thus far you have made 2 accesions that Have been proven false by simply presenting the actual content of the Holy Word of God.

I don't accept the Holy Bible as the word of God because, it is obvious to me the Bible is the work of man. As mankind has changed from the Bronze age to today, so has our view of God.

Yeah.........and you are mistransling your native tounge into English, in fact the majority of Muslims (those that profess to be Muslims) cannot read the Koran in its native tongue.....so, All coverts to Islam who cannot read from the orginal languge must be reading corrupted script making their supposed faith NULL AND VOID because its been translated from its original text in a language other than Arabic....right? If not why not?

Is English your native tongue? If not, how do I know that your translations are not corrupted? There is no possible way for you to convey the supposed truth you are attempting to teach me. Why? I am not in the least fimiliar with the Arabic tongue....to deliver truth, if you are of the Muslim faith........you must convey your truth in the original Arabic.....? If not Why Not?

What about all the Muslims in Pakistan who can only read and speak "URDU"? "PUNJABI"? "ENGLISH"? The vast majority of Pakistan's people do not speak Arabic........and if they are trained to memorize passages and prayers without the knowledge of what they are actually speaking.......What kind of Religion is that? Yet over 96% of that population claim to be MUSLIM. Strange indeed. It appears that words that make the official Doctrine of Christianity "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" -- Rom. 17:10 Don't matter because you claim your tranlsations are the only valid translations on earth. Yet here you are.........communicating, and I understand you. Strange indeed, I understand you, and you do write in English....but again, you have presented no evidence to support anything you are declaring is true as based upon the Actual Content of the Holy Scripture.

I'm not a Muslim. I was born and raised here in the USA.

FYI: If the passage you think was mistranslated and translated into YOUNG GIRL instead of Virign......why would other passages that use the same message declare Christ's birth as a Virign Birth? Such as? Mary, speaking and declaring, "How can this be since I do not know a man"? -- Matthew 1:26 Or? "The Holy Spirit Came upon her (Mary)........" -- Luke 1:35.....the content and subject matter is addressing the conception of the Messiah.

There is no way to confuse the Context, Content and Subject Matter and change Virign into YOUNG GRIL.......especially when Mary is confessing , "How can this be (her pregnacy)........I do not know a man"?

The answer seems obvious, all the stories of a virgin birth were based on the same Greek text.

You can replace any ONE WORD you wish and read it with the correct context subject matter, and content of the surrounding text.........the other words self define that one word. If that one word does not fit, such as replacing Auto with Wheel Barrow (both have wheels).....then you read the text and it declares I was passed on the interstate by a Wheel Barrow.......Really? Another point? If Mary was a practicing JEW, devout.........and she was a young girl (often this is used to mean a female who has never known a man......just as Mary stated) it would be a sin to "know a man" while she was still considered a YOUNG GIRL..........yet the scriptures declare that the Holy Spirit Came upon Mary, Question? Would the HOLY SPIRIT come upon a corrupted female, or would another vessel for the Messiah simply be chosen?

Jesus was said to associate with sinners.

Example of using "young girl......or unmarried young girt" as translated from the Original Hebrew word "Almah"........in Isaiah 7:14, the word Almah is translated not only to be a young, unmarried girl..........its means Virgin, Unmarried......or "Maiden" when translated into English through the Greek Language.

But as Jesus declared, "Why choke on a gnat and then attempt to swallow a camel"? When you read the context subject matter were this word is used........its clear the intent of translation was to mean VIRIGN........".....I know no man......"

If Almah doesn't mean virgin and the Gospels are the word of God, did God make a mistake or is it more likely that the men who wrote the Gospels made a mistake? I think the whole thing is just an interesting side note, it is people who believe the Gospels are direct from God who choke on gnats.

 

[norwegen]

The difference between you and me is the fact that I can read, you on the other hand just regurgitate what your handlers tell you to do.

Virtually everything I post is original.

Actually, that is just what the links show.

No, it isn't. Did you read and understand your link before you copied and pasted it?

Jesus' crucifixion: cir. AD 30
First Jewish rebellion: AD 67 - 70 (or beginning in AD 66 if counting the skirmish at Beth-Horon)

 

[boedicca]

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy: Yes.