(December 12, 2014 at 5:52 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 12, 2014 at 1:38 am)Jenny A Wrote: Because they weren't written by disciples? And they were written much to late to make any such claim. And it's that much too late part that makes them essentially worthless.
I will gladly answer this in part 3.
Everyone else has already answered for me.
But the big questions remain. Why second hand hearsay is acceptable written decades after the events is acceptable proof; why we would accept sources that contradict each fundamentally; why there are no first hand contemporary sources for such huge events. Got any real answers?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.