I have consumed myself with scholarship on the subject. Some secular, but some also Christian. The synoptics are in agreement with John, most, if not all “disagreements” can clearly be set down to different perspectives on the same topic. (eg, men being at the tomb vs angels. Clearly they initially saw them as men, but later figured out they were angels.)
You clearly aren’t in conversation with historians because there are only two things that are uncontroversual about the gospels: that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by pontias pilate.
And the reason I reject Christian sources is their bias. There’s a reason modern devil’s advocates are often prominent atheists.
And in that vein you should take me with a grain of salt if I start talking about the historical intervention of the gods in akkad.
I have consumed myself with scholarship on the subject. Some secular, but some also Christian. The synoptics are in agreement with John, most, if not all “disagreements” can clearly be set down to different perspectives on the same topic. (eg, men being at the tomb vs angels. Clearly they initially saw them as men, but later figured out they were angels.)
You clearly aren’t in conversation with historians because there are only two things that are uncontroversual about the gospels: that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by pontias pilate.
And the reason I reject Christian sources is their bias. There’s a reason modern devil’s advocates are often prominent atheists.
And in that vein you should take me with a grain of salt if I start talking about the historical intervention of the gods in akkad.