If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:

Early Christian Writings

Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

---

---

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

If you think that historians demand/expect  to personally cross-examine witnesses from 2000 years ago; then you are more delusional than I thought.  This would also mean that you discount most of history.   I notice that when you are trying to make a case against Christianity, that you hold different standards though.  Why is that?

Also Dr. Ford was cross examined (although I think they handled her with kid gloves) by the senate; so was Judge Kavenaugh.

You can't be fucking serious.  I get it.   You want one more fascist on the supreme court but let's not pretend the so-called FBI investigation was anything other than a joke to placate that useless sack of shit, Flake.

I suggest you read some real history - not your bible bullshit.  You will see that historians are always looking for ways to confirm or deny ancient sources.  Let's see how stupid you really are.

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he said that 2 million Persians invaded Greece?

Do you "believe" your bible when it claims that 185,000 Assyrians were sent to attack a town the size of "Jerusalem?"

Do you "believe" Caesar when he claims the Gauls sent a quarter of a million reinforcements to rescue Vercingetorix at Alesia?

Do you "believe" Herodotus when he claims that Babylon had 100 gates?

Do you "believe" Plutarch when he writes a biography of "Romulus?"

And so on.

I'm sure of the list you will insist upon only #2 because it comes from your stupid, fucking, bible.  But 8th century Jerusalem was a shitty little town of something under 10,000 people.  Those Assyrians would have died of thirst in that dreary desert shithole long before any plague could get them.

---

If you want to discuss history and your reasons (either for your clams or in regards to OP) and feel you can do so like a civil adult... feel free. But these 20 questions routines never seem to go anywhere and are tiring. It's up to you, to make your point, not me. Unless your point is that testimony is not evidence; which I think you already lost by referencing Kavenaugh.