you are basing this on a "book" that was canonized years after which you are citing. If the canonized book was all original text, including books that are "missing" then you might have a point.
However, at the point of canonization, all texts have been proven to have been changed (by men). Texts were changed and letters were omitted based on what "men" wanted christianity to reflect. So your silence argument is rather ridiculous because a much later editing process inserted the "silence".
You still have not answered the quotes of jesus issue. If I quote someone I write verbatim what they said. I hope you agree that a tax collector and a couple of fisherman were not capable of recalling verbatim what jesus actually said. I will give you luke as a possibility as he supposedly was a physician. You can not tell me that the quotes of jesus are actual quotes. Why does your god allow his son/himself to be quoted when it was not actually what he said?
However, at the point of canonization, all texts have been proven to have been changed (by men). Texts were changed and letters were omitted based on what "men" wanted christianity to reflect. So your silence argument is rather ridiculous because a much later editing process inserted the "silence".
You still have not answered the quotes of jesus issue. If I quote someone I write verbatim what they said. I hope you agree that a tax collector and a couple of fisherman were not capable of recalling verbatim what jesus actually said. I will give you luke as a possibility as he supposedly was a physician. You can not tell me that the quotes of jesus are actual quotes. Why does your god allow his son/himself to be quoted when it was not actually what he said?
