So then the bible isn't even first hand accounts, just (supposedly) "based on actual events"?
Might as well base my life and view of Divinity on The Iliad.
It just became harder for the news to claim that Q is explicitly a right wing thing.
Q is non-partisan.
All of the swamp is to be drained.
That's the point.
But who was Luke, then?
He wasn't an Apostle, so how did he know that which only the Apostles were there for?
If they told him later, why didn't the author attribute their testimony?
Why should we believe someone who wasn't a witness?
Again, where is this testimony cited?
Why is there no tracing of where the accounts came from?
Surely it wouldn't be hard to as "according to the son of James, whom Jesus loved" if it was so close to the source, right?
¿Que pasa?
Was it meant to add or lend some sort of credibiiiiiility? Why bring it up?
Theophilus just means "Friend of God". It's talking to the reader.
Ah, so it gets retconned later, like how John was a massive retcon, if not Fake Good News, since it doesn't match up with the other 3.
Why would I be angry over your bringing up superfluous information?
You're one of those "God buried dinosaur bones just to fuck with us" sorta Creationist people, ain'tcha?
"You say that I am."
But fuck it, I'll just roll witcha.
I get annoyed when people base their lives on nonsense and then use that nonsense as an excuse to abuse people.
Like the DNC, Hindu Castes (when they were a thing, CCP, or Islam… let alone the actions of those who direct from the Throne of Peter.
word play?
look up what he said according to Matthew/Mark and Luke and come back.
Wait, that's not Whoopi?
SAVAGE