Quote:According to the stories in the Bible.
And you put your finger on the heart of the problem, LfC. People like Stevie insist that his holy horseshit was written by "eye-witnesses" in spite of the fact that the documents themselves make no such claim.
The idea that the names were attached in the late 2d century is anathema to Stevie. But even church tradition which led to the attribution of anonymous works to specific "apostles" fails as "Luke" was said to be a companion of "paul" who never met fucking jesus except in his dreams. "Matthew" derives from a tradition ascribed to Papias except we have no writings of Papias and only the word of that noted fabricator of horseshit, Eusebius, that it was so. "Mark" (Marcus? Odd name for a Jew) has so many traditions ascribed to him that even the fucking church can't sort it out and "John" is again based solely on xtian "tradition" ( tradition in this case being a euphemism for bullshit ) that he was one of the so-called "apostles" even though the author manages to get through the whole text without ever mentioning such a fact.
But that won't even slow Stevie down in his headlong quest to demonstrate that this bullshit is the real mccoy!
