Didn't members of the Sanhedrin accuse Jesus of healing on the Sabbath? *snip*
What did any of that evasive drivel have to do with whether or not 71 members of the Supreme Court of Jerusalem would in any way fear a homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching among thousands of others whatever version of Judaism he wanted to preach or the fact that Isaiah could not have been describing Jesus?
Still waiting on your argument that hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay for thousands of years could possibly constitute evidence of anything other than someone once told someone else a story. I guess we all know you were full of shit on that one and never will address it. No big surprise.
You keep on asserting that it's all hearsay.
Because, that's what it is when you have someone telling you what someone else told them that they experienced.
When you can prove it, let me know.
Oh, gee, ok. Um. Well, that would be
right now....
Start by getting me the real names and ages and birth places of the authors of the Gospels.
The fact that we do not know the real names or ages/birth places of the authors of the Gospels
proves that it is hearsay by definition alone (hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate).
How else can you claim certainty that they weren't there at the time.
Name the (alleged) disciples of Jesus. Do you see a "Mark" in there anywhere? Better yet, let's just end this vapidness directly. Throw a dart! Here's one:
Mark 14:1: Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 2 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or the people may riot.”
Unless "Mark" (whoever that was) was a member of the Sanhedrin, how could he have possibly witnessed the Sanhedrin "scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him" in order to provide us with an actual
quote?
Matthew 14:1: At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Unless "Matthew" was one of Herod's attendants, he could not possibly have known what Herod actually said in order to quote him like that.
Matthew 14:6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 9 The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. 12 John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it.
Again, unless "Matthew" was a member of Herod's guests, he could not possibly have witnessed Herodias' dance or Herod's "oath" or what the daughter said in order to quote her verbatim as he does, or the head on a platter, etc.
How about Luke? This should be fun:
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
Cool! So it was Joseph, Mary
and Luke all going to Bethlehem together. Remarkable.
6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
WOW! GLuke is generally thought to be dated to around 100-110 CE and Jesus is generally thought to have been born in the year "0" (hence our calendar), so that would necessarily have to mean for the author of GLuke to have been an eyewitness to Jesus' birth--right there with him and Joseph and Mary--120 years old? And then he waited another
century before he wrote what he personally witnessed down? Amazing.
Want to keep going or do you now finally understand what
hearsay is? In this case, it is the author relating a story that
somebody else told them about, but that the author did not directly witness themselves.
And when you factor in that we don't know who the authors were or who told them the stories or how many times those stories were repeated over the years and embellished over the years
before these anonymous authors wrote them down AND the fact that these books have been copied hundreds of times over the centuries by additional unknown scribes AND the fact they have been changed in several different ways by later priests and Kings AND the fact that even as they stand there is no one coherent, contiguous storyline between the synoptics on exactly what happened in the passion narrative, then we have hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay...etc.
So, what's it going to be Lion? Are you going to double-down on a 120 year old Luke who was actually with Joseph and Mary at the manager in Bethlehem to personally witness Mary wrapping the newborn Jesus before placing him in a manger that all four of them evidently slept in together?
)?
But NOT Matthew? I thought Matthew was a disciple too, right? So if Matthew, the Disciple was there to witness Jesus walking beside the Sea of Galilee meeting--for the first time--Peter and Andrew, why didn't Jesus also see Matthew there?