XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   Dawn Flood  wrote:   
   > On 2/5/2026 12:08 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:   
   > > "chine.bleu"  wrote:   
   > >> Samuel Spade wrote:   
   > >>>> Before there were lines to read between, the story was widespread and   
   > >>>>> accepted.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> That totally must be true.  It said so in the gospels!   
   > >>   
   > >> Hard to know who was deluded. It remains the story spread, and people   
   > >> would die for it. That has to be accounted for. Anti-god botherrers   
   > >> simply deny it. It is not clear Rome was burned by christians, but they   
   > >> were well enough known to be blamed.   
   > >   
   > > The first lines to read between, Mark's book, were written c. 70 CE,   
   > > about 6 yearrs after the fire.  So there was time for early apostles to   
   > > get together and get their story straight before they committted   
   > > anything to writing.  Their early converts didn't need a well developped   
   > > theology, they were just mysterrious strangerrs in the shadows.   
   >   
   > The consensus is that Mark was composed between 65 and 80 CE, and that   
   > he was probably not an eyewitness:   
   >   
   > https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html   
      
      
   Yep, we don't know who actually wrote any of the bible, except that Paul   
   wrote at least most of the pauline epistles.  It's likely none of the   
   gospels were written by eyewitnesses, except John might have dictated   
   his gospel to a ghost writer, who translated it and wrote it down.  Much   
   like Mohammed did, who was also illiterate.   
      
   There are no reports of John looking into his hat while dictating.   
      
   Matthew and Luke especially appear to be written ex post facto to fit   
   the OT prophecies about the messiah.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)