Originally Posted by Jikanu
|
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian
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.
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?
By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.
And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)
|
but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?