[Ivramire]

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.


I would guess that thay can be attributed to them, seeing as they bear their names and all (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) I didn't question whether he historically recorded events and locations that agree with what we actually know. It's the theological aspects that are in question, not his ability as a geographer.


I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.


To what source/evidence do you attribute this?

Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''


I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.




And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)


If he believed in it...he wouldn't think he'd be committing blasphemy at all...isn't that what the Jews essentially executed him for.

.