Who is hezekiah walker dating Sex chat free and quick
Josephus' cites are dismissed as mere forgeries (including the one with John the Baptist) merely because "scholars and Christian apologists alike" have regarded them as such, though we are given no names of such scholars, only two other Christ-mythers, two 19th-century writers, and a writer from the 18th century--much less are any critical evaluations of arguments offered.
Pliny is dismissed with the 19th-century claim that Pliny's letters are forgeries, a position held by no reputable scholar of Greco-Roman history today.
The real Jesus, I daresay, would qualify as a rabbi, a marginal Jew, and a number of other things that are hardly incompatible with one another.
Some of these biographies have true insights; others are of little worth.
Likewise on the subject of the canon (Links 5 and 6 below).
Luke is dated to 170 AD based first, on a quote borrowed uncritically from an author of no known qualification named Waite who claims that Jerome "admits" that Luke was written after the Gospel of Basilides, which was written in 125 AD.
I recommend Glenn Miller's essay (Link 4 below) on pseudox as a reply to charges of forgery in the church, and matters on authorship and dates of the gospels we have answered elsewhere.Merely trying to establish "guilt by association" doesn't do the job.We must demand a demonstrated, logical connection between some religious belief and some atrocity.All these prove is that authors need to say something new or radical to get published.All the rest proves is that everyone wants the authority of Jesus on their side.
No actual quote from Jerome is offered, so I'll just put this down as false and ask that the author produce an actual quote.