NewStats: 3,261,660 , 8,174,686 topics. Date: Friday, 30 May 2025 at 01:39 AM 6w3k2g

Lucifyre:


🤣 My gosh! Your comments literally made me lol! When i said confident and ignorant it sounded demeaning but just look. Seriously how do you guys do it, how can you be so confident yapping about something u've obviously got no clue about, its fascinating. I could bet #50k u've never read any of the sources you cited and an additional #10k u've literally never read any peice of scholarship if not you wouldn't commit this kind of embarrassing blunder. At least i cited what ive read and put the thought process in my words.

So this doesn't fully turn to just ad hominems let me school/educate you. To begin, don't you see you couldn't literally refute a single thing i said, which are all basically facts in scholarship, not one. Not with words and thought processes of your own, not even with the chat gpt you resorted to, to find your sources and buttress your point, that you hadn't even read and ended up quoting out of context as you do your bible. You just had to ignorantly conflate textual integrity with historical validity and inerrancy.

If you had managed to read even just the context of your sources you would have seen that virtually all of em were taking about textual attestation, integrity and preservation in relation to the the original manuscripts not historical accuracy or inerrancy or original authorship. In other words as a document if its been faithfully copied and transmitted, that what we have are close to the original manuscripts overall meta(quantity & quality) even though no 2 manuscripts are same.

They're simply saying its a well preserved textual artifact like the Iliad, not that its contents are historical or true. Just the title of some of the books from the scholars your quotes are from should have clued you in but nope, chat gpt, indoctrination and close mindedness nor let you see road. 🤣 Titles like Bruce's "New Testament : Its transmission, corruption and restoration" or Daniel Wallace's "Revisisting the corruption of the new testament" or Bart's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why", should have clued you in.

Now for the nail in the coffin of the ignorant😁, at least you were the one that cited them and yes they are reliable scholars. Let me show i too can use a gpt, luckily im not ignorant to coflate textual integrity with historical accuracy and inerrancy. Here's what the same scholars have to say about the latter from the same books( see attached image).

P.S Is this the daze you want to daze me😄. Instead of dazing me educate urself abeg. Scholarship is not your bible study group where you do mental gymnastics to bend the data to fit a dogma, its always data over dogma.

Once again I'm not interested in your whack unintelligible opinion.
And I think U need a lesson on textual reliability and attestation.

Let's ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity and reliability of the gospel.

We can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.
Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger in the text of the New Testament.


"There are some 8,000 changes in the manuscripts, but most are minor and of no consequence to the meaning. Less than one percent of the variants are significant, and none affect any cardinal doctrine."

A.T Robertson in Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.


"Even the most skeptical of scholars agree that the New Testament preserves the teachings and basic historical events surrounding Jesus with a high degree of accuracy."
Craig L. Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
Pls read above at least twice.

"The sheer number of manuscripts and the early dates of many of them make the New Testament the most reliable and best-preserved text of all ancient writings."
Philip W Comfort in The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament.

"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
Sir Frederic Kenyon in The Bible and Archaeology.

These are the scholars who questioned the reliability of the gospel in the 20th and 21st century.
After thorough and extensive research they all came down to only one conclusion - the integrity and reliability of the New Testament is intact.

If U are relying on academic to safe U from the eternal damnation awaiting U, they will deny U.
because they boldly told U that the conclusion of their works is that the new testament is reliable.

Lucifyre:


🤣 My gosh! Your comments literally made me lol! When i said confident and ignorant it sounded demeaning but just look. Seriously how do you guys do it, how can you be so confident yapping about something u've obviously got no clue about, its fascinating. I could bet #50k u've never read any of the sources you cited and an additional #10k u've literally never read any peice of scholarship if not you wouldn't commit this kind of embarrassing blunder. At least i cited what ive read and put the thought process in my words.

So this doesn't fully turn to just ad hominems let me school/educate you. To begin, don't you see you couldn't literally refute a single thing i said, which are all basically facts in scholarship, not one. Not with words and thought processes of your own, not even with the chat gpt you resorted to, to find your sources and buttress your point, that you hadn't even read and ended up quoting out of context as you do your bible. You just had to ignorantly conflate textual integrity with historical validity and inerrancy.

If you had managed to read even just the context of your sources you would have seen that virtually all of em were taking about textual attestation, integrity and preservation in relation to the the original manuscripts not historical accuracy or inerrancy or original authorship. In other words as a document if its been faithfully copied and transmitted, that what we have are close to the original manuscripts overall meta(quantity & quality) even though no 2 manuscripts are same.

They're simply saying its a well preserved textual artifact like the Iliad, not that its contents are historical or true. Just the title of some of the books from the scholars your quotes are from should have clued you in but nope, chat gpt, indoctrination and close mindedness nor let you see road. 🤣 Titles like Bruce's "New Testament : Its transmission, corruption and restoration" or Daniel Wallace's "Revisisting the corruption of the new testament" or Bart's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why", should have clued you in.

Now for the nail in the coffin of the ignorant😁, at least you were the one that cited them and yes they are reliable scholars. Let me show i too can use a gpt, luckily im not ignorant to coflate textual integrity with historical accuracy and inerrancy. Here's what the same scholars have to say about the latter from the same books( see attached image).

P.S Is this the daze you want to daze me😄. Instead of dazing me educate urself abeg. Scholarship is not your bible study group where you do mental gymnastics to bend the data to fit a dogma, its always data over dogma.

Now that we have confirmed that the gospel reliability and preservation, the issue of textual corruption has been debunked.

Now let's go to the historical accuracy of the gospels.
What did academic scholars have to say not some beer parlour gist from someone who has never written any academic work in his life.

"The Gospel writers intended to write history, and they did so very responsibly, reliably, and with an overwhelming amount of corroboration from external sources. The Gospel s align closely with what we know from archaeology and other historical sources of first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture."
Craig Bloomberg. (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 254)

"The Gospels are biographies of a very unusual sort, but they are biographies nonetheless, rooted in a historical reality that must be acknowledged. The idea that the Gospels were written to distort or fabricate history is uned by any evidence; they are better understood as historically grounded s."

N.T Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 619)

"The Gospels were written by those who knew the eyewitnesses, often directly based on their testimonies, making them an invaluable historical resource for understanding Jesus."
"The evidence strongly suggests that the Gospels are trustworthy records of what was ed and believed by the earliest Christians."
Richard Bauckam (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 93)

"A careful, critical reading of the Gospels reveals a wealth of historically credible material about Jesus, even if not every detail can be corroborated. Despite theological interpretations, the Gospels remain our best and most reliable sources for reconstructing the life of Jesus."
John P. meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 1, p. 27)

"The Gospels demonstrate a strong commitment to preserving historical details, particularly regarding the geography and culture of first-century Palestine. While theological purposes are evident, the Gospels align closely with known historical facts, offering reliable insights into the life of Jesus."
Simon Gathercole (The Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 42)

"The Gospels, taken as historical documents, provide us with a remarkably coherent and consistent portrait of Jesus and the events surrounding his life."
William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith, p. 299)

"The Gospels provide an abundance of historically verifiable data about Jesus, especially regarding his crucifixion and resurrection. The s in the Gospels, especially when compared with external sources, strongly affirm the historical core of the Christian message."
Gary R. Habermas (The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, p. 158)

"The Gospels are not myths or legends but records firmly anchored in the historical realities of first-century Judea. Their depiction of events and people fits perfectly within what we know of the time period from other sources."
Paul Barnett (Jesus and the Logic of History, p. 105)

SIRTee15:


If U are relying on academic to safe U from the eternal damnation awaiting U, they will deny U.
because they boldly told U that the conclusion of their works is that the new testament is reliable.

Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Lucifyre:

Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Your choice Cho Cho Cho won't safe U.
This is what Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger has to say on the gospel. These are the 2 greatest NT scholars of modern times.

They critically examined and scrutinised the NT and came up with the following conclusion.

We can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.

Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger in the text of the New Testament.
Your argument is broken and has no legs to stand on
Give it up.


Trust me, it's better for U if I quote scholars. because if I take U up on your silly claims- there will be only one outcome.... I will chew U and spit U out.

U won't be the first ignorant atheist to challenge me here, check my previous threads- their burial grounds plenty.

If U want to them, let's go one on one with authorship evidence of the gospel or the dating of the gospel.

Lucifyre:

Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ok o, now let's bring back Bruce Metzger.

"The essential message of the Gospels concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus has been transmitted to us with a high degree of fidelity."

(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)


"The variations among the manuscripts of the New Testament are trivial in most cases and do not jeopardize the essential integrity of the Gospels' message."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

"The Gospels, though written with theological intent, are rooted in the memories of eyewitnesses and oral traditions that were faithfully preserved."
(The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance)

"The Gospels reflect the cultural and historical milieu of first-century Palestine with remarkable accuracy, corroborated by archaeological findings and external sources."
(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)

"The textual evidence for the New Testament is so much greater than that for any other ancient work of literature that the burden of proof is shifted to the critic to prove why we should not consider the New Testament reliable."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

Lucifyre:



Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's bring back F.F Bruce and what he has to say about historical authenticity of the gospel.
"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The Gospel writers were not inventing stories but recording events and teachings of Jesus as they were ed by those who witnessed them. Their purpose was not fiction, but proclamation."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament books were written at a time when the memory of the events they record was still fresh, and many witnesses were still alive to or dispute the s."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament writers knew the facts, and we have overwhelming evidence of their reliability. Archaeological findings continue to confirm the geographical, cultural, and historical details described in the New Testament."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The historical trustworthiness of the New Testament is unsured by any other ancient writings. The Gospels present a credible picture of the life and teachings of Jesus."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

Lucifyre:



Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's bring back one of the scholars this joker said he trust and are reliable...
Daniel B Wallace

"While there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts, the vast majority are inconsequential, and not one of them affects a core Christian doctrine or the essential historical truths about Jesus."
(Can We Still Trust the Bible?, Lecture, 2011)

"The Gospels are rooted in early eyewitness testimony, which was ed down and preserved with remarkable care in the early Christian communities."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

"We have more than 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of which date very close to the original writings. This allows us to reconstruct the Gospels with a high degree of confidence in their historical accuracy."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not merely theological documents; they are also deeply historical, presenting a consistent and coherent picture of Jesus' life and teachings that aligns with what we know from archaeology and external sources."
(The Gospel According to Bart: A Review of Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', Article, 2006)


"Skepticism toward the Gospels often comes not from evidence against them but from presuppositions about what they should or should not say. When judged by the standards of ancient historiography, they hold up remarkably well."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels, when read in their historical and cultural context, demonstrate an impressive level of historical accuracy, particularly in their depiction of first-century Palestine."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

Lucifyre:



Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and Gentlemen, can we please stand up as we bring back one for the five bible scholars this joker assumed will his beer parlour moronic gists.

A.T Robinson.


"One of the most notable features of the New Testament is that it was written within a generation of the events it records. This proximity makes the Gospels historically reliable, as eyewitnesses were still alive to or refute their s."
(Redating the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not imaginative creations but documents grounded in the testimony of those who personally witnessed the events they describe or had access to those who did."
Redating the New Testament


"The resurrection narratives in the Gospels, far from being late additions, represent some of the earliest and most central traditions of the Christian community. Their consistency across sources s their historical credibility."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 178)

"The skepticism with which some scholars approach the Gospels often owes more to presuppositions than to the actual evidence. When judged on their own , the Gospels stand up well as historical sources."
(Redating the New Testament.

Lucifyre:



Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

See your life in the mud ..potopoto.
Your own reliable bible scholars denied you and spit on your face.

I warned u in the beginning, but like fly wey no dey hear word, U kept having mouth diarrhea.
Now see the gargantuan evidence against U.

I think we done with scholars here.

If U desire to be buried, I will gladly oblige U that request.
Let's go one and one on any of your claim about the bible. One topic at a time.

On only one condition- U must reply to all my response until I stop my rebuttal.

I'm saying this because my previous experience with atheists is that once their argument crumbles and they become stuck, they run away and abandon the debate.

SIRTee15:

I'm saying this because my previous experience with atheists is that once their argument crumbles and they become stuck, they run away and abandon the debate.

No offense but you're truly beyond dumb.🤣 I literally said on historical accuracy not once not even twice, the m0ron still being purposefully obtuse brings quotes on textual intergrity and attestation of manuscripts again, like how dense can you be, after i already spelled it out for your smooth brain 2ce. It's no surprise time after time again, you only use your own words when trying to dodge and side step claims, and instead keep on regurgitating AI generated prompts without even an idea of what you quoted, leading to you making a fool of urself. To be fair with your downside up vocab(pun intended), iq and grammar its understandable why you avoid arguing your points in your own words and rely on copy paste of what you haven't even read. (60k still up for grabs, he'd ignore this)

The images attached for the 3rd time which you've constantly chosen to ignore and side step like my other points shows what the scholars your AI quoted, had to say about the historical accuracy of your book of contradictions. And i also like how you ignored the request for Authorship, Inerrancy, Contradictions and Dating of the texts which I've raised from my very first comment. You haven't even cleared or addressed even just one of my claims instead ended up contradicting urself and you want to go "one on one" on claims. U sure these ur smooth brain cells working properly bro?!😁

Besides how is this a debate? Since when does a debate resort to not arguing your points or countering and instead saying see what this said, see what that said all the while copy pasting AI prompts, worse still out of context barely understanding the . Is that what they call a debate in your theist school of m0rons. It would even be better talking to the Ai directly cause you're just there like an inanimate object to copy paste. How did he say it again "Let us ask the scholars for their conclusion.." Da fak.! You can't even use simple vocab or form a simple argument or quote in context even with AI, yet you want to chew and spit, chew and spit what?! Your smooth brain?! Or are you one of the zombies from the gospel of matthew?! No surprise the so called athiests ironically took the advice of 2 Timothy 2:23.😄 Besides im not even an atheist.

I doubt there's a theist on this platform that comes within 20 iq points of average, yall's iq are rubbing the sand on ground level. That's the same way your fellow bro in delusion(fxmasterz) claimed to have debated and defeated AI, then went ahead to copy same AI and then of its arguments as his. At least he was even better as he at least copied and prompted detailed arguments instead of "see what this one said", "see what that one said", "let us ask this" like a toddler only capable of few words. Are u a toddler?! Cause once again i wonder how you manage in your career cause this is pathetic. So address/debunk the historical accuracy as stated by the scholars you cited as in the attached images, not like a toddler as you've been doing but an adult or side step and make a fool of yourself again and stfu. Tick Tock smooth brained chewer and spitter😏

Lucifyre:

Are U blind and dumb or sometthing.

I brought what your 5 reliable scholars has to say about HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPEL, U deliberately ignored, talking nonsense.

NOW AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOUR FAVOURITE SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPEL.

Did U actually read the quotes I brought or too lazy to read....

I will bring them again, U won't hide behind one finger today....

Now read and digest.

A.T Robinson.


"One of the most notable features of the New Testament is that it was written within a generation of the events it records. This proximity makes the Gospels historically reliable, as eyewitnesses were still alive to or refute their s."
(Redating the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not imaginative creations but documents grounded in the testimony of those who personally witnessed the events they describe or had access to those who did."
Redating the New Testament


"The resurrection narratives in the Gospels, far from being late additions, represent some of the earliest and most central traditions of the Christian community. Their consistency across sources s their historical credibility."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 178)

"The skepticism with which some scholars approach the Gospels often owes more to presuppositions than to the actual evidence. When judged on their own , the Gospels stand up well as historical sources."
(Redating the New Testament.

Daniel B Wallace

"While there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts, the vast majority are inconsequential, and not one of them affects a core Christian doctrine or the essential historical truths about Jesus."
(Can We Still Trust the Bible?, Lecture, 2011)

"The Gospels are rooted in early eyewitness testimony, which was ed down and preserved with remarkable care in the early Christian communities."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

"We have more than 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of which date very close to the original writings. This allows us to reconstruct the Gospels with a high degree of confidence in their historical accuracy."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not merely theological documents; they are also deeply historical, presenting a consistent and coherent picture of Jesus' life and teachings that aligns with what we know from archaeology and external sources."
(The Gospel According to Bart: A Review of Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', Article, 2006)


"Skepticism toward the Gospels often comes not from evidence against them but from presuppositions about what they should or should not say. When judged by the standards of ancient historiography, they hold up remarkably well."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels, when read in their historical and cultural context, demonstrate an impressive level of historical accuracy, particularly in their depiction of first-century Palestine."

F.F Bruce

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The Gospel writers were not inventing stories but recording events and teachings of Jesus as they were ed by those who witnessed them. Their purpose was not fiction, but proclamation."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament books were written at a time when the memory of the events they record was still fresh, and many witnesses were still alive to or dispute the s."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament writers knew the facts, and we have overwhelming evidence of their reliability. Archaeological findings continue to confirm the geographical, cultural, and historical details described in the New Testament."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The historical trustworthiness of the New Testament is unsured by any other ancient writings. The Gospels present a credible picture of the life and teachings of Jesus." smiley
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

Bruce Metzger.

"The essential message of the Gospels concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus has been transmitted to us with a high degree of fidelity."

(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)


"The variations among the manuscripts of the New Testament are trivial in most cases and do not jeopardize the essential integrity of the Gospels' message."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

"The Gospels, though written with theological intent, are rooted in the memories of eyewitnesses and oral traditions that were faithfully preserved."
(The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance)

"The Gospels reflect the cultural and historical milieu of first-century Palestine with remarkable accuracy, corroborated by archaeological findings and external sources."
(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)

"The textual evidence for the New Testament is so much greater than that for any other ancient work of literature that the burden of proof is shifted to the critic to prove why we should not consider the New Testament reliable."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

Lucifyre:

NOW LET'S SEE WHAT SECULAR LIBERAL SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT EARLY DATING OF THE GOSPEL.

NOTE- THESE ARE NON THEOLOGIANS.








1. John A.T. Robinson

"One is forced to ask why, if the Gospels were written after 70 CE, there is no explicit mention of the destruction of the Temple as a fulfilled prophecy."

2. William F. Albright
Background: An archaeologist and biblical scholar who approached the Bible from a historical and archaeological perspective rather than a theological one.
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 CE, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, p. 136)


3. J. Warner Wallace
Background: A former cold-case detective and secular investigator of Christian claims who approached the New Testament with forensic techniques.

"The lack of reference to the destruction of the Temple in the Gospels or Acts strongly suggests they were written before this significant event." (Cold-Case Christianity, p. 204)

4. Carsten Peter Thiede
Background: A papyrologist and historian known for his work on early Christian manuscripts.

Quote: "The Magdalen Papyrus suggests that the Gospel of Matthew could have been written within a generation of the events it describes." (The Jesus Papyrus, p. 92)

5. Colin Hemer
Background: A historian and scholar focused on the historical reliability of the New Testament.

"The historical detail and abrupt ending of Acts strongly imply it was written before the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem." (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 375)

6. Martin Hengel
Background: A German historian who took a critical but fair approach to New Testament studies.

Hengel proposed that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written before the end of the first century, with Mark possibly as early as 50 CE.

"The Synoptic Gospels must be dated much earlier than many modern scholars suggest, as they reflect a pre-70 CE perspective." (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 124)


Now U will see how the clown will once again avoid all these evidence and continue his meaningless and pointless verbosity.

Lucifyre:

Now we will debate your 4 claims one after the other. I do hope you have sufficient knowledge.

Dating of the gospel
Authorship of the gospel
Inerrancy of the gospel
And finally contradiction in the gospel.

1. Adam committed the sin but innocent Jesus was killed.
2. Satan lured Adam to commit the Sin but he wasn't killed.
3. It seems there is cruelty and injustice.
4. God is the most merciful, a just King and He forgive sins. God loves to forgive his bondmen.
5. Jesus being sacrifice is very irrational and negated all God sublime attributes

Conclusion: The story of sacrifice is false.God is consistently kind and just always.

Auki:
1. Adam committed the sin but innocent Jesus was killed.
2. Satan lured Adam to commit the Sin but he wasn't killed.
3. It seems there is cruelty and injustice.
4. God is the most merciful, a just King and He forgive sins. God loves to forgive his bondmen.
5. Jesus being sacrifice is very irrational and negated all God sublime attributes

Conclusion: The story of sacrifice is false.God is consistently kind and just always.

Hahahahaha.

SIRTee15:


Now we will debate your 4 claims one after the other. I do hope you have sufficient knowledge.

Dating of the gospel
Authorship of the gospel
Inerrancy of the gospel
And finally contradiction in the gospel.

Remove AI's dick from your mouth a little bros, so you could breathe a bit, damn! even your partner would not deepthroath me the way u fellate AI rigorously to the point of abuse. It's pathetic, once again still unable to critique or form a counter from your smoothbrain cells, it's understandable cause maybe if you use your last 2 braincells fighting for 3rd place to form an argument to defend ur point, ud combust😂.

To then have the effrontery to call this crap a debate. Anyways its my fault, my friggining naivety, i should have known asap i was talking to a mute ignorant dunce. So if this was actually a live debate, could you imagine how it'd look. When i make an argument and you want to respond, you'd call the pls bring my phone, then type in a prompt and then start showing to the audience, see what this one said...😄 omg you're daft.

This is one of the dumbest convos ever, like flat earth shit. Basic beginner academic stuff, that's what your block head can't get. Anyways like i said i was naive, i should have fully  come down to your level of a mute copy pasting inanimate AI dick guzzler. In order to do just that as can be seen from the screenshots😁, i copied your comment verbatim and pasted it directly into the AI you so much fellate and it responded aptly. Read it, let it educate you and show you ur iq's barely in double digits, maybe your head would miraculously assimilate. Let it screw the nuance(do you know what nuance even means, AI c0cksucker 😁) and context into your skull. The fact you take a regurgitated quote out of context and then highlight sentences you think means what it doesnt in the actual context without even having read zilch, doesn't change its original meaning, so learn.

Scholarship has a framework and is not your bible study where 2 or 3 similar illiterates are gathered and Yhwh the narcissist is in their midst. It's why no 2 xtains can agree on the interpretation of the bible cause you guys don't read and the little you read, you turn upside down. Lastly so you stop embarrassing yourself, only an illiterate uses AI to quote sources especially knowing its flawed, malleable, unconfrontational on certain issues and has been known to make up non existent shit. It's a tool, not the tool.

Don't know why you theists take it as the all, and end up showing yourself fools, your fellow theist i already mentioned did exactly that and looked just as smart as you do now. To cite sources properly see the link below, in my convo with a theist here on the existence of the historical Jesus. https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/8237532/too-many-problems-belief-jesuss/2#132613348 E even try you, probably has one more braincells than you, at least he argued his points by himselfmute citing sources to buttress(albeit incorrectly😄). Try dey read abeg, how did you say it again "academicAI won't safe you, its denied you". Confident Ignoramus, when you see my name next time you would think 2ce.

Lucifyre:

See this chronic masturbator and porn addict.
Porn addiction has destroyed his brain he sees the visuals everywhere.

I thought U will bring evidence where your dear scholars denied the historical evidence of the gospel instead he's giving me chatgpt's opinion of their works.

I brought their quote, embarrassed by what.hes reading, he accused chatgpt of forgery!!!
What a slowpoke.

I told U right from the beginning of this argument what I wanted and I made it clear.

I want evidence from the reputable scholars, what did they have to say about the gospel?

I'm not interested in your beer parlour gist.

SEE AS YOUR DEAR BIBLE SCHOLARS THOROUGHLY EMBARRASSED U.

gohf:
The difference between death by sacrifice and death by Judgement is that one is willing and the other is due to rebellion.

Jesus willingly took our place; for because of our sins we are destined to die and eternal death. While Satan is already condemned to die an eternal death for bringing sin into the world and God didn't send his Son to give a human life, he sent him with eternal life, a life not matter how much you subtract from it for our sakes, it will still be eternal and he would rise.


So God didn't condemn Jesus as he did Satan but glorified him for his role in His plan for our salvation.

He willingly took your place as how?
If Jesus and his father are the masters of the universe and nothing can happen without their knowledge and approval, then what place is he taking when he can just snap his fingers and return everything back to normal? What's the need for all the unnecessary theatrics?

And what sacrifice did he make? You mean the 3 days sleep he had? 😂

kingxsamz:


He willingly took your place as how?
If Jesus and his father are the masters of the universe and nothing can happen without their knowledge and approval, then what place is he taking when he can just snap his fingers and return everything back to normal? What's the need for all the unnecessary theatrics?

And what sacrifice did he make? You mean the 3 days sleep he had? 😂

first off let me introduce you to the one true God YHVH who sent the son of man who isn't the master of the universe as you presumed but a man who righteously obeyed and submitted to God. A man sent to redeem us from the curse of sin and death that we received from Adam whom God made from the dust of the earth, who fell because he disbelieved God and disobeyed; eating the fruit of his ways.

And so because death is at work in Adam, all who come from Adam are bound to die, except we are born again and come from a different lineage and receive eternal life.


It would be theatrics if God was lying but God is not a man that He should lie nor the son of man that He should change. What does God gain from lying to those He created? Why make humans intelligent just to deceive them?

There is a purpose to creation.

Jesus according to God's word spoken after they sinned, that "the seed of the woman will crush your head", and that seed is Jesus born of Mary who died to defeat death and rose on the third day.

To defeat death who has a hold upon us, for because of our sins we are bound to death and eternal separation from life.

But because of God's mercy, God's word and power separates us that came from Adam that no one should perish for the sins of others. So the blood of Jesus speaks on our behalf that the death required for our sins have been paid both ours and that we inherit from Adam.


So God out of his mercy prevents all from perish with Adam who brought death upon us by choosing death instead of life, by giving us an option again through Jesus that if we believe instead of disbelieving like Adam did, we will receive life by being born again, and receive the Holy Spirit which is a taste of the eternal life that is promised to come.

And because God does not lie, His word will come to . Indeed Adam's sin God foresaw it, and that's why the savior Christ existed from the beginning before Adam was formed. For God subjected creation to bondage with the hope and eager expectations for the revealing of the sons of God which is the purpose of this creation, before the new heavens and earth come.

A Father who wants his children to be truly free and choose eternal life for us to understand the value and purpose of life. All these is God teaching and raising his children who he predestinated for glory.

gohf:
first off let me introduce you to the one true God YHVH who sent the son of man who isn't the master of the universe you presume but a man who righteously obeyed and submitted to God. A man sent to redeem us from the curse of sin and death we received from Adam whom God made from the dust of the earth, who fell because he disbelieved God and disobeyed, eating the fruit of his ways.

And so because death is at work in Adam, all who come from Adam are bound to die except we are born again and come from a different lineage and receive eternal life.


It would be theatrics if God was lying but God is not a man that He should lie nor the son of man that He should change, but does He gain from lying to those He created? Why make you intelligent just to deceive you?

Jesus according to God's word when they sinned, the seed of the woman will crush your head, and that seed is Jesus born of Mary who died to defeat death and rose on the third day.

To defeat death who has a hold upon us, for because of our sins we are bound to death and eternal separation from life.

But because of God's mercy, God's word and power separates us that came from Adam that no one should perish for the sins of others. So the blood of Jesus speaks on our behalf that the death required for our sins have been paid both ours and that we were inherent from Adam.


So God out of his mercy prevent all from perish with Adam who brought death upon us, by choosing death instead of life but Jesus if we once again believe instead of disbelieving, we will receive life by being born again, receiving the Holy Spirit which is a taste of the eternal life that is promised to come.

And because God does not lie, His word will come to . And indeed Adam's sin God saw, and that's why the savior existed before adam was formed. For God subjected creation to bondage with the hope and eager expectations for the revealing of the sons of God which is the purpose of this creation, before the new heavens and earth come.

A Father who wants his children to be truly free and choose eternal life must also understand the value and purpose of life. All these is God teaching and raising his children who he predestinated for glory.

Too many words that mean nothing. The character and decision making of the so called god shows it has very poor thinking skills.
All he had to do was snap his fingers and everything goes back to normal. But no, let me wait thousands of years and then send my son to dle for three days so I can fix a problem I allowed to happen in the first place. And the funny thing is, nothing was fixed.
Even Tinibooo would have done better with such powers.

kingxsamz:


He willingly took your place as how?
If Jesus and his father are the masters of the universe and nothing can happen without their knowledge and approval, then what place is he taking when he can just snap his fingers and return everything back to normal? What's the need for all the unnecessary theatrics?

And what sacrifice did he make? You mean the 3 days sleep he had? 😂

For you to even ask these question proves how mad and cut off from life you must be and one must wonder if you are an "imbe"

Have you not experienced these things in your life.

Na so Curse hol you finish?

Who has not experienced where someone else pays for your T.fare or toll gate or bill in ShopRite?

Or like many mothers say when police want to arrest their sons "abeg take me instead of my pikin"?

Make the person wey you ask answer you, maybe hin go fit correct your Madness.

kingxsamz:


Too many words that mean nothing. The character and decision making of the so called god shows it has very poor thinking skills.
All he had to do was snap his fingers and everything goes back to normal. But no, let me wait thousands of years and then send my son to dle for three days so I can fix a problem I allowed to happen in the first place. And the funny thing is, nothing was fixed.
Even Tinibooo would have done better with such powers.

That means nothing to you, because you are not patient enough to understand it. By the way I edited it after posting maybe you should read it again if you actually what to understand.

If you can't even understand what me I am writing how can you even say or judge that being you don't believe in, as poor thinking skills.

Have you spoken to him before?
What is your basis for such statement?
Are you wise by make such an assumption with no evidence nor understanding of him.

You don't even know Him but you assume how He thinks, what does that show of your level o reasoning?

You assume God made mistake for Him to snap His fingers and start again, now if He did you wont exist. It's because of your poor understanding of God's mercy that you think He can't. But He will, once He has the number of children He wants, that finger you want Him to snap He will snap it and you will awake in a world normal either for sinners or for the saved.

God has been patient, enduring the wickedness of men so that the harvest is full and the then the rest will be burnt.

Dtruthspeaker:


For you to even ask these question proves how mad and cut off from life you must be and one must wonder if you are an "imbe"

Have you not experienced these things in your life.

Na so Curse hol you finish?

Who has not experienced where someone else pays for your T.fare or toll gate or bill in ShopRite?

Or like many mothers say when police want to arrest their sons "abeg take me instead of my pikin"?

Make the person wey you ask answer you, maybe hin go fit correct your Madness.

Mad man don come again.

gohf:

That means nothing to you, because you are not patient enough to understand it. By the way I edited it after posting maybe you should read it again if you actually what to understand.

If you can't even understand what me I am writing how can you even say or judge that being you don't believe in, as poor thinking skills.

Have you spoken to him before?
What is your basis for such statement?
Are you wise by make such an assumption with no evidence nor understanding of him.

You don't even know Him but you assume how He thinks, what does that show of your level o reasoning?

You assume God made mistake for Him to snap His fingers and start again, now if He did you wont exist. It's because of your poor understanding of God's mercy that you think He can't. But He will, once He has the number of children He wants, that finger you want Him to snap He will snap it and you will awake in a world normal either for sinners or for the saved.

God has been patient, enduring the wickedness of men so that the harvest is full and the then the rest will be burnt.

The god is not wise sha.
Now he's struggling to win souls when all he had to do was keep that serpent away from the garden. To even show you how unwise the god is, he decided to protect the garden from outsiders only after Adam and Eve had been tempted by the serpent.
Like I said, even Tinibooo would have made better decisions, and Tinibooo himself is a very duII president.

kingxsamz:


The god is not wise sha.
Now he's struggling to win souls when all he had to do was keep that serpent away from the garden. To even show you how unwise the god is, he decided to protect the garden from outsiders only after Adam and Eve had been tempted by the serpent.
Like I said, even Tinibooo would have made better decisions, and Tinibooo himself is a very duII president.

struggling to win 😏 didn't he flood the earth and spare just 8 humans that's the kind of finger snapping you wanted. Problem is, would you even survive it?


Protect it from Adam, whom he kicked out. Don't know who you think he should have protected it from before.

Well tinibooo is your Lord, maybe his better decisions will save you someday 👍

gohf:
struggling to win 😏 didn't he flood the earth and spare just 8 humans that's the kind of finger snapping you wanted. Problem is, would you even survive it?


Protect it from Adam, whom he kicked out. Don't know who you think he should have protected it from before.

Well tinibooo is your Lord, maybe his better decisions will save you someday 👍

More reason why the god is not smart. He has the power to do anything but can't do it without destruction and the loss of lives. Okay, so after flooding the earth, did the issue which caused him to send flood disappear?

He protected the garden from Adam but did not do the same to the serpent. A god that isn't smart.

Steep:
even if the devil is killed human beings will remain corrupted. When you lie, fornicate, kill, get drunk, worship idols, commit adultery, steal etc it is you doing it not the devil, killing the devil will not absolve you of your sin, the question is what can absolve you and cleanse you?

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and confess their sins and forsake their evil ways, I WILL HEAR FROM HEAVEN,I will FORGIVE THEIR SINS and heal their land..

This is what a real God will do.
Not order a human sacrifice...after saying "thou shall not kill"...

Jesus makes no sense. Human sacrifice belongs to the realm of Lucifer.

Steep:
Jesus did indeed died proven historically.

By who??

Uptownerd:

You are stúpid and useless. Your brain is less than -1%.

Dtruthspeaker..that is not me....

Everybody keep echoing the same thing. Maybe it is time to see a psychiatrist...

Bros..leave him alone, he is our resident lunatic.

kingxsamz:


More reason why the god is not smart. He has the power to do anything but can't do it without destruction and the loss of lives. Okay, so after flooding the earth, did the issue which caused him to send flood disappear?

He protected the garden from Adam but did not do the same to the serpent. A god that isn't smart.

he didn't want man to live past 120years I can say God did just that to our environment because then they lived on average 900yrs and now well 90years is already a blessing

sonmvayina:


Dtruthspeaker..that is not me....

Everybody keep echoing the same thing. Maybe it is time to see a psychiatrist...

Bros..leave him alone, he is our resident lunatic.

Already did. 👍🙌

SIRTee15:




I have to say about the gospel?

I'm not interested in your beer parlour gist.

SEE AS YOUR DEAR BIBLE SCHOLARS THOROUGHLY EMBARRASSED U.

🤣🤣🤣 Now your very own AI has shown you've been citing nonsense and you obviously haven't got a clue as the myopic retard you are, to the extent you started psychologically projecting your hidden habits on me, what made your mind go there if not experience lol! Funny thing is if we were both to reveal our looks, judging by attractiveness the projection would be all the more obvious.

Moving on, now we've demonstrated you're an illiterate, let me now demonstrate why calling you a fool would be a compliment. Right from my first comment with claims, I've cited sources showing the very thing you asked which you always conveniently didn't see, ignored, talk less of addressing em, some were even from scholars you cited which is hilarious. Some were books which contained this info but that was too much for an illiterate, you needed AI regurgitation. No matter, let me once again come down to your myopic, toddler, inanimate object, AI slobbing level & style. Same Ai you so love that demonsrated you a core illiterate.

* Bart D. Ehrman

In Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), Ehrman critiques the historical reliability of the Gospels:

“The Gospel writers were not trying to write objective, disionate history. They were trying to convince their readers of the truth of their interpretations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. As a result, they sometimes changed historical data to make them fit their theological agendas.”

In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman highlights discrepancies:

“There are numerous places where the s of the Gospels differ significantly from one another in ways that cannot be reconciled historically or theologically. This undermines the idea that they are objective reports of events.” 😁

* John Dominic Crossan

In The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant:

“The Gospel writers were less concerned with documenting historical facts and more focused on creating a narrative that fit their theological agendas. As such, the Gospels cannot be read as straightforward history.”

“The historical Jesus is buried beneath layers of mythmaking and theological interpretation, which makes the Gospels unreliable as historical documents in many respects.”

In The Birth of Christianity:

“The Gospel stories are not direct transcripts of historical events. They are theological proclamations written decades later, blending historical memory with imaginative storytelling. Some of the most iconic elements of the Gospels, such as the nativity stories, are best understood as theological constructs rather than literal history.”😁

* Maurice Casey

In Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s of His Life and Teaching:

“The Gospels were written decades after the events they describe, by authors who were neither eyewitnesses nor capable of preserving accurate traditions without modification. They reflect the theological biases of early Christian communities rather than reliable historical records.” 😁

* Gerd Lüdemann

In The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry:

“The resurrection narratives in the Gospels are not historical s but theological reflections. They were shaped by the needs of the early Christian communities and cannot be considered accurate representations of what actually occurred.”

“The discrepancies and contradictions within the Gospel s reveal their nature as products of imaginative oral tradition and theological adaptation, rather than factual historical reporting.”

* E.P. Sanders

In The Historical Figure of Jesus:

“The Gospels disagree on numerous points, large and small, and it is often difficult to determine what actually happened.”

“The Gospels were written to present a theological narrative, not to provide an objective history. This theological focus often results in embellishments and inconsistencies.” 😁

* Dale C. Allison Jr.

In The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus:

“The Gospels are more interested in theology than in history. They are proclamations of faith, written to convert or edify, not disionate chronicles of events.”

“The evangelists shaped the tradition they inherited to fit their theological agendas and the needs of their communities. This shaping sometimes involved embellishing or altering historical facts.” 😁

Now for the last but not the least confirming your stupidity, even inside bibles, you have confirmation of these basic facts in scholarship as can be seen in the images from the intros in the New Oxford Annotated Bible
and the Oxford Bible Commentary. See yourself, calling you a fool would indeed be a compliment. Now go sit in a corner and educate urseld before coming online to spout dross confidently. Olodo! 🤣🤣🤣