"The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright.
Quite frankly I agree with N.T. Wright.
Assertions that people rise from the dead.)
And you have something better to offer?
No amount of correct testimony (Pontius Pilate was governor) mixed in with falsehood is sufficient to give the testimony of ancient documents, only admitted under the exception to hearsay rules that is given to ancient documents, credence.
Thank goodness the experts don't share your OPINION.
If the ancient documents are a mixture of falsehood and fact, the fact that the documents are ancient makes it difficult to determine which is which. So after the gospels show the marks of forgery and the inability of the author to restrict his testimony to fact, the whole document can be safety relegated to the category of pious fraud- and rejected from being admitted as evidence.
"If" is a conditional word, and clearly exhibits a lack of certainty. Imagine, someone questioning the existence of two of the greatest minds the world has ever seen. I'm referring to Luke and Paul.
So tell me how a star can hover in one place, not on a pole.
If you explain that report, I will be surprised.
Ok, explain how a Jesus could be born 4BC during the reign of Herod the Great and during the census of Quirinius at 6AD.
And of course, the eclipse during the full moon.