Mazty on 11 April 2013
| chriscox1121 said: schnip |
Let's cut to the chase as I'm fed up of playing the fucking professor here.
As a rational human being who has hopefully been taught the scientific method, are you telling me that a book that consists of stories that were written around ~40 years after the events (and that's the first source, Mark, whereas the others were later so I'm being charitable here) from oral sources whilst being merged with other famous works at the time is a good, fair and accurate portrayal of the life and works of Jesus?
If so explain what a bad source of information is and how the above is not that.
