"God is bigger than Allah"

[Heresson]

No, but North Irish, central Scottish and most of England, barring Cornwall have Anglo-Saxon ancestry

and...? Pre-Arab Syrians have the same semitic roots as Arabs.

Sudanese are not part of the Arab world.

Why?

Moroccans are a mixture of Berbers and Arabs

As well as Algerians and, to a lesser extent, also Tunisians and Libyans

[quote]
The Southern part is Black
[quote]

In fact, the northern part is Black as well. Perhaps to a smaller extent, but it is.

Other than that, an Arab from Morocco is as much an Arab as one from Yemen as is one from Sudan as is one from Syria, etc. Sure, there are variations on dialect, but people can change nationalisities, cultures, etc.

If an Arab from Morocco met Arab from Yemen, I'm not sure if they would understand each other. You can change your nationality easily not only amongst Arabs.

Even the Assyrians consider themselves to be Arabs.

That's not true.

You don't understand the concept of extra money, do you?

And You don't understand the concept of christian values and of religion, do You?

[Ben Kenobi]

Given that they were the available testiomony, that's a circular argument.

Che:
:stun:

No. I said earlier in this very thread that Mark and Luke used Eyewitness testimony to compile the Gospels.

Therefore, the Gospels are not the only source of testimony available to the Fathers of the church to evaluate the various "Gospels" existing.

Again, your answer proves that the church fathers carefully examined the accounts if they rejected so many that did not match their standards.

So again, thanks.

It's easy to say you have 90% consistency when you are only looking at four texts. When you change that number to 20+ it drops to only about 20% consistency.

This assumes all sources are equally valid. You need to show me why these other Gospels ought to be included alongside the others against the previous recommendation of the early church. Clearly they saw a difference in quality.

Now, for your earlier points. 60 years generally presupposes that the Gospels had to be written after the destruction of the Temple since Jesus could not possibly have predicted that event. Am I right?

With the Roman empire, select a particular event, and show me the documentation that we have for that event.

Luke 24:12

"Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened."

Again, in John 20:5-8

"He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."

Now, you say you were a Christian and never read the Gospel of John!

It's really the best Gospel!