You really don’t have a clue about the issues but are tilting at windmills. The issue, is not about trying to reconcile some dates or discovering some portions that on the surface, at least, appear to be contradictory but instead; does the primary source document bear the hallmarks of an authentic and historic document?
The piecemeal approach that you and your “expert” collaborators take is naïve and uninformed because it indicates that you know little about the methods linguists and historians employ in literary criticism.
When these tests, which are also applied to secular documents, are applied to the New Testament one finds that there is a greater weight of evidence for its authenticity and historicity than virtually every other document of similar antiquity.
These other documents are universally accepted as sound evidence for persons and events from ancient history. The New Testament is thus shown to be an equally credible and historically accurate source document.
That is why, I along with most historians and countless others, accept that Jesus Christ is an historical person.
This really is just another of your crazy theories that turns genuine scholars into conspiracists and frauds.
If you’re too lazy or too committed to your neat yet crazy little CT to get a more liberal education, we can help you.
