You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.
My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.
It's obvious...
What do you mean?
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 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?
Originally Posted by Hraesvelg
Attributed by whom?
By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.
Originally Posted by Vasu
He probably sincerely believed in God himself.
And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)
Threaded Mode