Did Jesus Actually Exist? Let's Put This To Rest
Posted: Saturday, January 24, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Some time back, I had an exchange via letters to the editor of our local paper with an atheist. His assertion was that there was evidence that Jesus was a figment of someone's imagination and did not live at all. He used for that, what he called the near absence of His being mentioned by secular writers of the day. And specifically mentioned that Philo did not mention Him at all and that Josephus only had 2 short mentions of Him. He also said that many scholars think that those two statements were added by Christians later on.
But since the exchange took place, I have read some of the historical accounts of Jesus day and have found that there is no shortage of remarks by writers of that day concerning Him. There are a number of anti-Jesus writers who try to make similar claims against His existence but they invariably exaggerate. Edward Gibbon, author of the Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, makes a statement in volume 2 of that work that states:
"there was a silence of all writers, except the evangelists, on the darkness over the land at Christ's crucifixion, and that Pliny, who devoted a whole chapter to the enumeration of eclipses and strange things, does not mention it, and would surely have done so if it had been true."
This is exaggerated enough to simply be considered a lie. His reference to Pliny's writing was not a " whole chapter" but a simple eighteen word sentence which itself, was inaccurate: "eclipses are sometimes very long, like that after Caesar's death, when the sun was pale almost a year."
It is a truth that Pliny did not mention the darkness which ensued at the death of Jesus. But to pick out the few instances of writers which did not mention the darkness or that did not mention Jesus, is to infer that no one wrote about Him. Which, of course is totally untrue. Neither Philo, Josephus, nor Pliny were followers of Jesus and probably omitted anything that might encourage someone to be His follower, purposely. But we find a number who did mention the darkness, some of which were Christians, some who did not accept Him as the messiah. There was Celsus, a Roman who was an outspoken critic of Christianity,
Thallus, a Greek historian of the first century, whose writings (three books of history) no longer exist but a number of quotes from them exist by other writers, makes this statement: "on the whole world there pressed a fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me." (Africanus, in Syncellus)
Add to that, Phlegon, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and others, the claim of writers (contemporaries, or near contemporary to Jesus) not mentioning Him, is fallacious. Plus the fact that there are many other reasons that prove His existence. Although the atheistic deniers of Jesus life, discount the information of the writers of the New Testament, it is pure folly to do so. There exists more than 5,000 Greek manuscript copies of the eight or nine writers, which establish the New Testament writings.
All of these writers except Paul, were personal companions of Jesus. All of these men were of sound mind, intelligent and honest. Neither would have concocted such a story, and more especially all in collaboration. After Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, these men lived, worked, and wrote in various parts of the Roman empire's territory. Yet their writings are harmonious, a virtual impossibility unless inspired. And these men, except one (John), sacrificed their own life rather than denounce His name.
And another very strong testimonial to Jesus existence, is the Babylonian Jewish Talmud (compiled in the fifth century A.D.) which acknowledges His life and it's credibility is deeply enhanced since it is extremely hostile towards Jesus and even states that he was born out of wedlock by a Roman soldier who seduced His mother.
Try as they may, the atheist comes away with nothing short of childish fantasy in trying to refute the Holy Bible or the existence of it's main subject. But, there is coming a day when every knee shall bow before Him and every tongue shall acknowledge Him. Too late.
Do you have aspirations to write? Check the opportunities to be published with Searchwarp, free! Click the link below
Register now as a SearchWarp.com Author
Do you have aspirations to write? Check the opportunities to be published with Searchwarp, free! Click the link below
Register now as a SearchWarp.com Author
This Article has been viewed 379 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsAs always, Joel, I learned while reading your article. Thanks for posting it.Thank you Lorrie, for reading and commenting. I can always depend upon a pleasant comment from you, and I appreciate it.
Joel the question for the ages. For believers only faith for non believers, well I have already written to this a few artilce ago as to what God said, not I. Two ways to come, a "the book of life", 2- be truly born again. In any case only those who God has called will go, fact. Best regards.Thanks Robert, for the reading and comment. I appreciate your help anytime.
I agree that there are many who actively seek to erroneously discredit all the facts of history, and that Jesus did exist.Thank you Maggi, for your comment, and welcome to Searchwarp. It is a good website.
Hi Joel, very well put together. If only we had the faith of an atheist...I have been contemplating writing about this. Blessings to you!Thanks Teresa, for the comment. Yeah, some of them sure are strong believers. I've always said that there are very few who are thoroughly convinced of their argument. They become dogmatic simply over the fact that they haven't a leg to stand on. But they dare not relent, or they would be obligated to submit to a superior being.Small dogs react viciously and bark loudly simply because they know they are tiny and try to make up for it with action.
Joel,Oh what fun to read your article and the debate. Great stuff.I think you did a beautiful job in your research. Keep at it.Thanks for reading and the kind remarks Nancy
Joel,Your passion for this topic shows in your writing. Thanks for sharing this with us.Thank you Ronyae, for reading adn commenting. It means a lot to me.
Hi Joel, me again :-) I am amazed at those who say the do not believe, yet they spend so much time trying to disprove God and the Bible. It would seem to me that if they truly did not believe, they wouldn't waster their time. I recently has someone wonder why I put so much time and energy into the bible as if it were true, when I answered, they never got back to me. MY final point was that the very words in the bible convict the heart and that alone is proof it is real. Nevermind all the overwhelming proof. Secular and internal. Again great job!
Joel, I'm not sure I understand about this "young earth" that was brought out---created in seven days. I believe that the earth is very old. God's seven days, I don't believe coinsides with our 'feel' for seven days. Time is irrelavent in God's eyes and as humans, we are the ones who have to worry about this minute, the next, and tomorrow. I for one want to be ready for every second of every day. For even though we think of the 'end of time' being near, it may happen in the next minute or may not happen before the next millenium. Only God knows, and He isn't telling. I pray for anyone who still isn't sure what to believe. I want everyone to get into Heaven and I don't think it will be so very hard to do as long as we believe and live our lives the way God would want us to live them.Thanks for a great article. I'm still praying for Gregory--something tells me he is really, deep down, a very nice person. He's just lost right now.SandraSandra, go up a little I made a long response. Actually, I'll just repost it below.Hi Sandra, You don't have to sell me on Gregory, I also believe he is a nice fellow and is entitled to his beliefs. I just differ with him. And as to the young earth, the bible specifically states that and regardless of what time means to God, the evidence is stronger in favor of the accuracy of the biblical record.Scientists in the 1800's determined that the earth might be as much as 70 million years old. Then they determined that their idea of macroevolution would require much more time than that, so in the early part of the 1900's they decided that it might be as muich as a billion years old to be able to keep their hypothesis going. Later they found by radiometric measurements that it is 4.6 billion years old. And they have set their other measurements to match up with that. Actually they have no clue how old the earth is.Secondly, if God is almighty (and He is, if He created this universe, and He did) He is not subject to natural laws, He is supernatural which is absolutely obvious. Why would anyone anywhere believe such a being would have to take 4.6 billion years to create this universe to where it is now? He could, and did build it with certain radioactive materials with different phases of their strength and half lives. He could have set stars in the skies with their rays already in place. Our natural laws were not in place to require Him to do this and that. He created the universe and set our natural laws in place.Now let me show you why this earth could not be billions of years old.
Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.
Now there is much, much more that I could list but there is no reason to. If these things can be explained away, let them have at it.Ok, I found this information from tim-thompson dot com/young-earth so I'll disprove each point you made either using information from that site, other websites, or my head (common sense).Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.I dont know what this proves, but from common knowledge all the continets where one continent (pangea), thus you can find all those materials all over the world cause they were all together as Pangea. Actually, there were many intervals where the continents combined and splitted up.Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.The actually water makes it so that the sendiment isnt allow to settle as it does on land. This is common sense. Speaking of, how come you didn't mention sedimentation on land, where it's clear there are layers representing billlions and millions of years.The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.This is from the site I listed above:The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved. Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument.Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?Again from the website I sourced above:The argument is presented without a reference source. I looked in the Impact index, but could not find an Impact leaflet on comets either.It is correct that the shortest of short period comets, the ones with periods less than 10 years or so, will probably not last longer than 10,000 years, maybe even 5,000 years. But the lifetime of a typical comet is best measured in orbits, rather than years, since that's the unit of time that controls the ablation process - each time the comet swings close to the sun, it loses some stuff. Those ablation events happen once per orbit. A typical comet should last about 400 orbits.
But "short period" in comet jargon is less than 200 years, while greater than 200 is "long period". Comet Halley has an orbital period about 76 years. 400 times 76 is 30,000, and that's bad if 10,000 years is a hard limit on the age of a young solar system. So the argument is in trouble already.
But the big mistake is the statement "There are no known sources for replenishing comets." This is now known to be wrong, and it kills the entire argument at once. The long predicted Kuiper Belt has now been directly observed, and it serves quite well as a source for comets with anticipated lifetimes well in excess of the short lifetimes required to make the comet argument sing. The existence of the Kuiper Belt is by it self sufficient to put the short period comet argument out of the rest.
For much longer period comets, the putative source is the Oort cloud, which models place from 10,000 to 100,000 AU from the sun [1 AU = astronomical unit = the average earth-sun distance]. Although not directly seen, its presence is reasonably inferred from the known properties of comet orbits (see, for instance, Zheng et al., 1996 or Weissman, 1998). Furthermore, even if we can't see our own Oort cloud, we do see many similar features around other stars (Backman et al., 1997)Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?True, although some of the details are slightly in error. All of the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. The worst offender in that way is Neptune. The reason given is also correct, the planets indeed have not had time to cool off. However, the author of this argument naively fails to appreciate that it takes several billion years for masses of these sizes to cool off, and that there are significant sources of internal heat other than heavy isotope radioactive decay (such as internal viscous friction from helium settling out in the mostly hydrogen mantles). So the creationists are right on this one, but it still doesn't help. Is a more detailed response necessary?The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!We have had many people contact us concerning the recession rate of the moon. Hopefully this short article will help to clarify the details of lunar recession and why it supports a young age for our solar system.
The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year.
Gravity is the force that keeps our moon in orbit around the earth. In Figures 1 and 2 this is represented by line “B.” If not for the gravity of the earth and moon, the moon would simply float away from the earth into space.
A major point to remember about lunar recession is that it is not constant over long periods of time. The further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become.
In short, lunar recession is caused by tidal forces. Tidal forces are not the same thing as the gravity that keeps the moon orbiting around the earth. (However, they are caused by the moon’s gravity as will be shown.) The moon does more than just the rising and receding of tides along shorelines. When combined with the rotation of the earth and its gravity, these tidal forces are what cause the moon to recede away from the earth.
As we know, the moon causes tides; these are due to the fact that the moon’s gravitational force is stronger the closer you are to it. So, the moon’s gravity pulls more strongly on the side of Earth closest to the moon, and pulls less on the opposite side. This effectively “stretches” the Earth and produces two tidal bulges. The figure illustrates how the moon is actually pulling the oceans away from the earth toward itself (point 1) and causes the earth to bulge. At the same time there is a bulge produced on the opposite side of the earth (point 3) where the earth is being pulled away from the oceans.
Since the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulge stays slightly ahead of the moon. With the earth bulging, the moon is “pulled” by the point of gravity (point 1), produced by the bulge, since it is closer to it (line A) than the point of gravity (point 3) at the opposite side of the earth (line C). Since the moon is constantly being pulled it is constantly accelerating. Even though the earth’s gravity (point 2) is acting as a centripetal force (line B) to keep the moon in an orbital path (dark arrow), the acceleration of the moon caused by the tidal bulge at point 1 is increasing its angular momentum, therefore moving it outward (gray arrow).
Figure 1 shows what the past (theoretical) recession rate would have looked like. Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force (point 1, line A), increasing the angular momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the red arrows).
With the earth where it is today (Figure 2) tidal bulges are much smaller (than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force of point 1 smaller; thus the angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. This is explained in more detail In Dr. Lisle’s book Taking Back Astronomy.
The equations (also taken from Dr. Lisle’s book) involved in the recession rate of the moon are thus:
k = r6dr/dt = (384,401 km)6 x (0.000038 km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year
∫0T dt = ∫0R (r6/k)dr
T = R7/(7k)
In His name and for His glory,
David Wright, AiG–USAIn 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.
- This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.
- There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.
- The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by
P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N
The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.
First, I want to response to Sandra, than I'll respomd to Joel.Hello Sandra,You hit got me right 100%. Its just the terms the definitions for the terms we use I might have different than others.First, you saying that I am an agnostic that would really prefer to take my chances on getting into heaven is correct.Now, let's get into some interested stuff.What is heaven? What is hell? What is pergatory?What if we all already died, and THIS LIFE WE ARE IN is hell, or heaven, or both depending on the person we are.Scientists believe that all the known matter in the universe is only like 6% of all the matter present. Scientists call everything else "Black Matter" and "Black Energy."What if all this "Black" stuff is just the going on's off the after life?What if...............insert anything here.I believe is could be anything.However, one thing is really live by is karma and being a good person. If somebody screws me over, I wont go and screw them over back. Obviously this depends on the situation, but I wont do anything usually, because I know karma will get them.And if somebody does something nice to me, I know karma will get them in a nice way as well.Karma is a force I believe in.Also, anybody watch The matrix series? What if we are living in that?Nobody can prove OR disprove any of the above, just like nobody can prove or disprove antheism and Bible worship.Any thoughts?
Joel, it took me a long time to post the replys to your points (formatting them was hard) so please do read them.Hi Gregory, thanks for all the work you did, and now you can see why I don't have the time to devote to all of this, unfortunately. I don't know where you are getting your statistics but they cannot be factual.One is your assumption that Moses led 600,000 men out of Egypt. Even if that were correct, there were probably a total of near 3,000,000 since their families were large and there were multiple wives involved in many of the households. But mainly I don't understand why you are using that for a number for any calculation. Those Israelites were only a fraction of the then population. Maybe I'm not following your reasoning.Nor does the 13 people for building the pyramids make any sense to me. First of all, the dating of their building is sheer guesswork. The scientists simply date them to suit their needs.I admit some stuff I didn't exactly read over carefully; I just made sure the important stuff was in that long post.Can I ask you, you are actually a young earth creationist or are you just "leaning" towards that side because of what the Bible says?Hi Gregory, Well I am actually a young earth creationist. I do not in any sense, believe the foolishness of a singularity so densely compacted out of nothing that exploded and created this universe.The only place I am willing to hedge on the young earth is because of the first 2 verses in the bible. It says: I"n the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void." From that point on, I believe in a 7 day week, because He calls each day.."the morning and the evening" Now that was Moses writing and that is the Jewish method of accounting literal days. And he was writing under the inspiration of God.Now there is no time frame mentioned in the first two verses but I find no reason to think that it took Him 4.6 billion years to create that material and then form it into the present universe in 6 more days. I know, this sounds like some superstitious jerk. But that is Okay. I have total faith that the Bible is literally the word of God and inerrant. I believe it so strongly that, where I can be shown that something I believe about it is wrong, then I believe I have been mistaken about what it meant, not that it is in error.Now, that is not my accepting it by blind faith. I have read it from cover to cover 7 times and by reading by other methods and certain portions at a time, I suspect that I have read it the equivalent of many times that much. And there are just too many things in there that could, in no way, have been known by the writers in their time, except through inspiration.The bible was written by over 20 people. You really think that God guided each persons hand to write what God wanted written?How about all the contradictions in the Bible (I''ll look em up if you dont know about them)?Religion is a tool used to silence the masses and make them obey. Doesn't that make much more sense that anything else.Have you ever heardof Orkam's (sp) Razor. It dicates that the simplest explenation for something is usually the best.Instead of all these fairy tales, people ought to be good people, rresponsible, and good people. And theres nothing wrong in believing in a higher power. But the Church is so corrupt.All the molestations.They don't recommend protection for Sex.I have to leave work right now, but theres so many more things to talk about.And I'd like to add that you are, from what I can tell, a great person. if your faith makes you a great person, than thats great. It's those people that try to shoove it down other people's throats that I hate.Hi Gregory, once again, the lines around our comments are squeezing us in but I'll comment on one or two of your questions.If we want to really bring all this out, in detail, I suggest that you send me a few "contradictions" and I'll write an article about them. If you will search my list of articles, you will find a number of them already addressed. I have a book by John W. Haley containing 436 pages of alleged discrepancies in the Bible.This is one thing that makes me have the greatest confidence in this book. Of all those assumed discrepancies, not one single one can be proven to be error. Now, that may sound like someone hiding behind a rock, but when someone accuses something of being false or mistaken, etc. that doesn't make it so. Unless it can be proven that there is no way it could be correct.Now, consider that a moment. According to your own statement, that over 20 writers, actually it is thought to be 40! But if even 20, who wrote writings seperate and apart from the others and in all of this monumental compilation of men's writings in different centuries and different lands, not one statement can be proven absolutely and beyond any doubt to be wrong. That does not prove something? You can take 3 of your most brilliant PhD's and ask them to write a critique on some complicated subject, such as the creation, history of man, etc., then see how many errors and contradictions you find among them. Or take 3 witnesses to a pile up of car accidents and later ask them to tell you how many cars, some of the colors, makes, etc. and see how harmonious they are.I'll write more later on some of the other questions.I will message you links to a site that has a list of the errors. Try to disprove them in an article, if you can.I need a way to send to links. Can you e-mail me your e-mail address so I can do this? My e-mail address isGregoryAkerman at sign gmail dot com"This is one thing that makes me have the greatest confidence in this book. Of all those assumed discrepancies, not one single one can be proven to be error"The known translation errors aside, it may be impossible to prove a specific discrepancy is an arror, because proof only applies within logic and mathematics, but it can be proved logically that it contains errors, because some parts contradict other parts - they present differing, mutually incompatible accounts of the same thing. Therefore, some of the accounts must be erroneous.Hi Ben, thanks for commenting. I disagree with you, there are reasonable explanations available for what appears to be discrepancies. Only when one does not want to see it does it become impossible to reconcile.Where there are some things said in the Bible that could not possibly have been known at the time of the writing is what makes us who believe it so dogmatic. Until those things can be explained away, I know when there is some apparent discrepancy, it is only because I don't understand it.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.