@dj2becker saidNo. Just fleshing it out. And you don't have to accept any of the "Let's say, for the sake of arguments..." if you don't want to.
Thought we had moved past the OP with all your new adaptations.
@dj2becker saidTake a look at the OP again.
So everything he wrote down he witnessed first hand or not?
@dj2becker saidI could name my account or my nom de plume after one of the Uzbeki man's supposed followers decades and decades ago, if that would help.
Your strawman is falling apart it seems.
@fmf saidInstead of doing your mental exercise your could just save us all time and prove that the gospel writers were not who they claimed to be and everything they wrote was a fabrication.
I could name my account or my nom de plume after one of the Uzbeki man's supposed followers decades and decades ago, if that would help.
@dj2becker saidI have no objection to you having whatever belief you want about the authorship of the the NT.
Instead of doing your mental exercise your could just save us all time and prove that the gospel writers were not who they claimed to be and everything they wrote was a fabrication.
@dj2becker saidHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...
The difference of course is that the Bible is one of the most reliable historical texts and your thought experiment isn’t.
@fmf saidThat was good 😉
Imagine if I sat down now – in 2019 – and wrote a biography and religious manifesto based on folktales about the supposed events and statements during the life of some sort of mystic or holy man who'd lived in, say, Uzbekistan in the late 1970s... four decades ago.
Imagine if this long-dead man from this backwater of the Soviet empire had not written a single word and nothing ...[text shortened]... f a historical account of an Uzbeki man not even well know in his own time assuming he even existed?