Quote:
Originally Posted by veritas
Dead at uh oh not allowing the Bible to be considered a historical document but allowing one man who did not mention Jesus. Go read the Bible as history uh oh. All the people and kingdoms and other significant things have been proven true. So whoever wrote it obviously spoke true of historical events.
You are being pursposely obtuse and foolish.
|
hey buddy, keep up. lars said the only mentions of pilate was in the gospels and the pilate stone. i mentioned a jew from the direct period of jesus writing specifically about pilate, as well as the two historians outside of the gospels who made a passing mention of jesus.
thats 4 seperate instances outside the bible proving the existence of pontius pilate.
ive already looked into the bible for what it can lend to history, and still do from time to time, i just don't take THE FUCKING GOSPELS as serious historical literature. you can look at them and find truths, but they are covered in shit. so excuse me for not buying every word as truth. the bible is merely a reference to cross reference actual history with, when there is something that actually happened that occurs in the bible and outside of it it can be a useful tool to gain another perspective on a moment in history. using the bible solely for history purposes is like using law and order as a history of NYC. its retarded. just because the setting is the same and their may be a passing mention of an actual person, they spin their own narratives to create a compelling story.
its MALARKEY i say