Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: BernardZ <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:31:15 +1000
In article <djpc43$l2k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> I'm not particularly convinced that he did. I just don't feel like
> the writers' age argument has anything to contribute to our
> understanding of the matter.
>
Well the further in time from the source, the more suspect the facts.
That is why eye witness and testimony soon after the event carry great
weight both to historians and courts.
--
The oil for food scandal shows that the UN valued Saddam's money more
then peace and/or humanitarian considerations.
Observations of Bernard - No 87
.
- References:
- Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: Iasion
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: Bobby D. Bryant
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: BernardZ
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: Bobby D. Bryant
- Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Prev by Date: Do we have non Eusebian evidence that there were Christian Churches prior to 312?
- Next by Date: Re: Do we have non Eusebian evidence that there were Christian Churches prior to 312?
- Previous by thread: Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Next by thread: Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|