>>357989731>You don't know any Greek so what's the point in this argument?Why are you running away so soon? If γενομένου means "made or fabricated", explain Mark 6:2, which says "And when the sabbath day γενομένου, he began to teach in the synagogue" - was the Sabbath day fabricated on that day? Or, perhaps, you have no idea what you're talking about?
>Yeah, perhaps I didn't because it is LITERALLY a description of a revelationWrong, again. Scholars agree that the Corinthian Creed is something that Paul received from the Jerusalem Christian community, not something that was revealed to him - which is exactly what he says (he παρέλαβον the creed).
>the earliest surviving manuscript contains the words Chrestianos and ChristosI thought it didn't say "Chrestos"? Are you even following along in your own argument?
>Are you seriously one of these retards who thinks that Pilate only executed one personWhy avoid the question? It was simple - name a Messianic figure who was said to be executed during the reign of Tiberius under Pontius Pilate, as related by Tacitus.
>Balance of probability dictates that, by the time Tacitus was writing, his source of information is much more likely to be a Christian than some random unnamed RomanIt's more likely that Tacitus was associating with criminals during a persecution, that with Roman officials? Strange how probability works, in your opinion.
>>357990019Why bother discussing the 3rd century date at all if we have fragments from the first century, and consensus that 3/4 of the gospels are from then (eg. within lifetime of eyewitnesses)?
>So you say; how do you know that Luke didn't create those passages himself?Because there is no evidence for that.
>Oh wait, you don't know, you're just pulling stuff out of your rectumMy position is backed up by Luke's own testimony in Luke 1. What is yours based on? Where is the evidence that these statements are lies, and should be discarded?
