The Ageless and The Useless

Originally posted by MrGordon ↑

DBT9 , you supply no references to support your claims.
Matthew wrote his account in Palestine. The exact year is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts say that it was 41 C.E. Paul's earliest letter was to Thessalonica around 50 CE. There is evidence to indicate that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the popular Hebrew of the time and later translated it into Greek. In his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” Jerome adds that the Hebrew text of this Gospel was preserved in his day (fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) in the library that Pamphilus had collected in Caesarea.
It is of interest to note that only in John's gospel account (the last to be written) are details given as to where Lazarus lived.
(John 11:1) Now there was a certain man sick, Laz′a·rus of Beth′a·ny, of the village of Mary and of Martha her sister.
John could now reveal what the other gospel accounts could not because it would endanger Lazarus.
(John 12:10, 11) The chief priests now took counsel to kill Laz′a·rus also,  because on account of him many of the Jews were going there and putting faith in Jesus.
Compare the accounts in the other gospels. They are deliberately obscure!
(Luke 10:38) Now as they were going their way he entered into a certain village. Here a certain woman named Martha received him as guest into the house.
Matthew & Mark speak of Simon of Bethany but never Lazarus. Luke only uses the name in a parable.

Expand

. In his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says:

Oh Dear Mr Gordon did you not see me school our lost Unitarian friend Trademanic when he quoted Calvin thinking it was a nice piece to support his position. Yet he would not agree on any other point in his Trinitarian theology, he apologized for such and so far the poor chap hasn't been back with any historical support for his false Unitarian worship.

Mr Gordon you quote St Jerome a Doctor of the Roman Catholic church as an authority yet you know that he is a Trinitarian theologian. You reject his faith as false but conjure up his name to support some historical point.

Mr Gordon why can you not quote theologians that actually believe in what the Jehovah Witness believe from this time period to back up your assertions.

Not much intellectual credibility to use sources that otherwise you believe are the works of the devil, its being an intellectual hypocrite.