Actually, what you said was (emphasis mine):
This throws your reading comprehension argument out the window. By you standard, no one alive today can write competently about, for example, the French Revolution, because no one alive today was alive then. And to address your ad hoc amended argument (translation: 'Oh fuck, how do I get my foot out of my mouth THIS time??') It doesn't help your case by - as an afterthought - sticking in the bit about 'or talked to someone alive during that time' - no one alive today can possibly talk to an 18th century Frenchman.
The authors of the Gospel narratives were clearly NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - virtually all historians agree on this point. The attributions of Gospel authorship are traditional, not factual.
Boru
Quote:Another point that can be made, a point that will likely be carried over to part 3 but is worth mentioning here...is the fact that whoever wrote the Gospels must have been living during the time, and in that region. How do we know this? Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.
This throws your reading comprehension argument out the window. By you standard, no one alive today can write competently about, for example, the French Revolution, because no one alive today was alive then. And to address your ad hoc amended argument (translation: 'Oh fuck, how do I get my foot out of my mouth THIS time??') It doesn't help your case by - as an afterthought - sticking in the bit about 'or talked to someone alive during that time' - no one alive today can possibly talk to an 18th century Frenchman.
The authors of the Gospel narratives were clearly NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - virtually all historians agree on this point. The attributions of Gospel authorship are traditional, not factual.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
