Anno domini

[Diocle]

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/chr...history-france
The First Christians in France
France received its Christianity directly from Jerusalem in the first century BC. After Christ’s death, Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem and in all cities of Palestine. Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus (resurrected by Jesus), Mary Magdalene, and several other followers of Jesus were all exiled from Israel, and set afloat by their persecutors in an oar-less boat without sail. The boat miraculously reached an area near Marseilles (called today “Les Saintes Maries de la Mer” or “The Holy Mary(s) from the Sea), where Philip had already settled down and begun to preach the Word.2

Joseph of Arimathea was the Virgin Mary’s uncle. He was a tin trader who was well known in Marseille, as his ship would stop there on its way to the tin mines in England. Joseph (with some other disciples) then continued northwards through Gaul, passing through Limoges and Roscoff and across the English Channel before finally reaching Cornwall, where he established the first Christian Church in England (see Christian History of Britain).

Philip (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) had been given the responsibility of spreading Christianity in Gaul (France), and had commissioned Joseph of Arimathea to help him. Joseph and his group had been in Avalon (modern day Glastonbury, in Cornwall, England) for about four years. During that time, Philip’s disciples won people for Christ and started schools and churches. Philip had sent about 160 Christians from Gaul to be trained by Joseph. In return, Joseph sent many of the workers back to Gaul, including most of the original group that had come with him.
The first one he sent was Lazarus, who was sent to Massialia (Marseilles); Maximin who was “the rich young ruler” and one of the seventy sent out by Jesus, went to Aix. Mary Magdalene, Mary Salome (mother of James and John) and Mary, wife of Cleopas, went to Camargue; Eutropius went to Saintes (in Aquitaine) and later to Orange, Arles and Tarascon. Saturninus went to Toulouse; Martial went to Limoges and Parmenas (one of the deacons mentioned in ACTS 6:5) went to Avignon. Restitutus (the blind man healed by Jesus in JOHN chapter 9) also went to Aix; Zaccheus (who accompanied Joseph of Arimathea) settled in Rocamadour and Sergius Paulus, a deputy of Paphos (the “prudent man” in ACTS 13:7-12) went to Narbonne. Many others who were sent as missionaries to Gaul/France could be mentioned. It should be noted too that Pilate was banished from Jerusalem to Vienne (South Lyon) in AD 38 and Herod Antipas was banished to Lyon in AD 39.3

But this is a Fantasy Novel, this is invented christain trash!!! ...poor Hanny, what a imaginative mind the child! From any serious historical perspective, Captain America is a more serious reading than the so called 'Acts.....'....

Hanny, dear boy, listen to me: When you quote something as an Historical source you should look at the year of the original sources called 'Codex'.

But no fear, you'll see, growing you'll learn all these things!

[Hanny]

I have some serious issues with you "source." Do you have any corroborating evidence?

I posted the parts of intrest, which quoted part is confusing you?

One of the sources on the page goes into a long explanation of the supposed connection of the the word, Gaul to words associated with ancient Israelite. The problem is "Gaul" is not a people. They are various tribes Celtic tribes that adopted Roman ways of living.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archive...elremnant.html you mean here, which i did not quote from, had =you read it however, its a liguistic biblical explantion of the who and where the celts came from, ignoring archeology and gentic et all and reliance only on biblical texts.

Moreover the language the ancient Israelite spoke is related to the Canaanite language, which was a Semitic language. It begs the question; How does a Semitic language suddenly become indo - European?
----

Strawman, langauge spreads religion, Jews spread to S France for its tin from Cornwall to return with it and other trade goods, Christainaty was in Cornwall and S France very early on, acording to the catholic Church records http://members.tripod.com/cornwall_p...d_the_foun.htm

To spread only requires a common langauge, in Massilia that was greek, which we know Joseph and Phillip both spoke.

[Hanny]

But this is a Fantasy Novel, this is invented christain trash!!! ...poor Hanny, what a imaginative mind the child! From any serious historical perspective, Captain America is a more serious reading than the so called 'Acts.....'....

Hanny, dear boy, listen to me: When you quote something as an Historical source you should look at the year of the original sources called 'Codex'.

But no fear, you'll see, growing you'll learn all these things!

Post something that is factually incorrect from it.

[Diocle]

I don't know what has happend! Sorry, the strangest duble post of my entire life in TWC! Sorry again guys and beloved authorities!

[Diocle]

Post something that is factually incorrect from it.

ALL!

It's only religious crap, invented centuries after the supposed events, we have not even a single fragment of direct source about the existence of the Galilean or his supposed execution! Nothing! The entire story could have been invented from the scratch, from any seriuos historical perspective! we have only few Domus Ecclesiae of the II century AD in Palestine and no sources about what happened in reality in the Jews religious world during the years of life of the rabbi of Nazareth and speaking of him! Nothing!

As a side note: Hanny if you are interested in the Biblical Studies, Latin and Greek are strating point, but then Aramaic and Akkadian language (expecially this one!) must be your targets! So at work Hanny! And leave the Apostles and their silly acts to the priests at Sunday mass!

[Hanny]

[CENTER][SIZE=6][B]ALL!

Question too difficult?, how did christianty spread to Gaul, and where is there a factual error in the portion i posted. All, is a reply, not an answer.

"Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem and in all cities of Palestine" so this is wrong acording to you? along with everything else.

[PikeStance]

I posted the parts of intrest, which quoted part is confusing you?

I think you are confused by my question. Do you have any other evidence other than the source you quoted to corroborate what the source you posted claims? If the answer is no, then we move on until we do. If yes, please share if you can. Thanks

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archive...elremnant.html you mean here, which i did not quote from, had =you read it however, its a liguistic biblical explantion of the who and where the celts came from, ignoring archeology and gentic et all and reliance only on biblical texts.

Strawman, langauge spreads religion, Jews spread to S France for its tin from Cornwall to return with it and other trade goods, Christainaty was in Cornwall and S France very early on, acording to the catholic Church records http://members.tripod.com/cornwall_p...d_the_foun.htm

To spread only requires a common langauge, in Massilia that was greek, which we know Joseph and Phillip both spoke.

So I take it you do not have any corroborating evidence here either?
I do not actually possess a book that discusses this particular area, however I do have a book that discusses the area around Brittany. It does discuss the trade between the Amoricans / later Bretons and Marseilles. The Greeks did have a colony. It is therefore logical to assume that the Celtic tribes traded with the Greeks along the coast. The problem is the region was conquered by the Romans. It did not take long for the Celtic tribes to adopt Roman ways. I did read in another source (I no longer have the source) that the people around Marseilles did speak a unique blend of Celtic and Latin before their adoption of French. If memory serves, there were speakers of this language well into the renaissance period. The gist of the story is I have doubts there were many who STILL spoke Greek. I could very well be mistaken. I am not an expert on this region. This is why I ask if you have another source.

----

[Petrucci]

wtf is this ? IS there option to close thread?

[Hanny]

I think you are confused by my question. Do you have any other evidence other than the source you quoted to corroborate what the source you posted claims? If the answer is no, then we move on until we do. If yes, please share if you can. Thanks

Yes, i do not grasp what in my post 18 has you confused.

So I take it you do not have any corroborating evidence here either?

i posted it for you.

I do not actually possess a book that discusses this particular area, however I do have a book that discusses the area around Brittany. It does discuss the trade between the Amoricans / later Bretons and Marseilles. The Greeks did have a colony. It is therefore logical to assume that the Celtic tribes traded with the Greeks along the coast. The problem is the region was conquered by the Romans. It did not take long for the Celtic tribes to adopt Roman ways. I did read in another source (I no longer have the source) that the people around Marseilles did speak a unique blend of Celtic and Latin before their adoption of French. If memory serves, there were speakers of this language well into the renaissance period. The gist of the story is I have doubts there were many who STILL spoke Greek. I could very well be mistaken. I am not an expert on this region. This is why I ask if you have another source.

----

Massilia was a greek colony, Pytheas of Massalia was the greek who found Britain and its Tin in cornwall, which also hada jewsh elemnt from the earliest time,, it was the first place christianty arrives in, Lazarius being its first Bishop in the first cent AD. The diocese of Massilia/ Marseille was set up in the 1st century AD.The Problem does not exist, Massilai was allied to Rome , they backed pompey and lost that status and were intergrated , welcoming christianty, the greeks using greek traded with local celtics who used a ligurian dialect, but used greek for trading and they stayed with Druidism while some greeks were converted, but priniciply the exiisting jewish traders were converted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolery/...7628813745569/
According to tradition Christianity first arrived in Marseille when Mary Magdalen evangelised Marseille with her brother Lazarus. The diocese of Marseille was set up in the 1st century AD.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I don't think that many people in Rome took notice of a socialist rabbi carpenter who preached in the troublesome corners of the Empire.
By the way who killed Jesus, was it the Romans or the Hebrews? I'm not really sure about that. I don't mean ho physically killed him, but on whose orders was it and why, because of the Hebrew complaints or the Roman complaints.

He was simply a victim in Caiaphas' careful maneuvering between the unruly Jewish populace in Judea and the erratic, cruel and insensitive to Jewish feeling Roman governor that was Pilatus. As head of the Jerusalimite Temple, Caiphas was the official responsible to the Romans for preserving order. The fact that he had survived for 20 years up to the point that Jesus was crucified shows that he was an astute politician.

The context is the following. 30AD. The Jews are celebrating the Passover and great crowds are gathering in Jerusalem to celebrate. Pilatus arrives from Caesaria, the seat of imperial government in Judea, to oversee the preservation of order. There have already been revolts in this year, and one of the the ringleaders, Barabas, is held under custody and facing certain execution.
Jesus arrives in the city with crowds hailing him as the Messiah or at least a descendant of the house of David. In itself this might be containable, but then comes the incident that marks the turning point. Jesus enters the Temple overthrowing the tables of the money lenders and speaking of its later destruction.
The priests fear that things are slipping beyond their control, that restlessness will exacerbate with the coming execution of Barabas and that disorder will spread, which will eventually provoke Roman retaliation. Caiaphas makes the decision to exploit the Jewish custom that a prisoner might be set free at Passover to release Barabas, thus avoiding the displeasure of the local crowds, while offering Jesus to the Roman authorities in his stead as evidence that the Jewish authorities are committed to the preservation of order.
After some attempts to make him incriminate himself Jesus is handed over to Pilatus, who acquiescing in the accusation that he had called himself King of the Jews orders his execution. No move is made against his disciples, who are allowed to care for his body and visit his tomb.

[NikeBG]

Jesus was probably an historical Rabbi whose story was mixed together with that of other preachers and Jewish "nationalists" of the time. I don't doubt that there was actually a Jewish Rabbi-carpenter who was crucified but the extent of his miracles and what he actually preached may be questioned.

There was a very interesting discussion on the matter of the historicity of Jesus a few years ago. I highly recommend checking it.

France received its Christianity directly from Jerusalem in the first century BC.

Is this like how Abraham Lincoln built the house he was born in or how Napoleon was born before his father?

[PikeStance]

Yes, i do not grasp what in my post 18 has you confused.
i posted it for you.

As I stated, I am not confused, am just waiting for a source that corroborates you assertion. The only thing you link is either a source of the source you posted or a flickr account.

Massilia was a greek colony, Pytheas of Massalia was the greek who found Britain and its Tin in cornwall, which also hada jewsh elemnt from the earliest time,, it was the first place christianty arrives in, Lazarius being its first Bishop in the first cent AD. The diocese of Massilia/ Marseille was set up in the 1st century AD.The Problem does not exist, Massilai was allied to Rome , they backed pompey and lost that status and were intergrated , welcoming christianty, the greeks using greek traded with local celtics who used a ligurian dialect, but used greek for trading and they stayed with Druidism while some greeks were converted, but priniciply the exiisting jewish traders were converted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolery/...7628813745569/
According to tradition Christianity first arrived in Marseille when Mary Magdalen evangelised Marseille with her brother Lazarus. The diocese of Marseille was set up in the 1st century AD.

So you are basing your entire assertion on a "tradition" rather than an actual source.

He was simply a victim in Caiaphas' careful maneuvering between the unruly Jewish populace in Judea and the erratic, cruel and insensitive to Jewish feeling Roman governor that was Pilatus. As head of the Jerusalimite Temple, Caiphas was the official responsible to the Romans for preserving order. The fact that he had survived for 20 years up to the point that Jesus was crucified shows that he was an astute politician.

The context is the following. 30AD. The Jews are celebrating the Passover and great crowds are gathering in Jerusalem to celebrate. Pilatus arrives from Caesaria, the seat of imperial government in Judea, to oversee the preservation of order. There have already been revolts in this year, and one of the the ringleaders, Barabas, is held under custody and facing certain execution.
Jesus arrives in the city with crowds hailing him as the Messiah or at least a descendant of the house of David. In itself this might be containable, but then comes the incident that marks the turning point. Jesus enters the Temple overthrowing the tables of the money lenders and speaking of its later destruction.
The priests fear that things are slipping beyond their control, that restlessness will exacerbate with the coming execution of Barabas and that disorder will spread, which will eventually provoke Roman retaliation. Caiaphas makes the decision to exploit the Jewish custom that a prisoner might be set free at Passover to release Barabas, thus avoiding the displeasure of the local crowds, while offering Jesus to the Roman authorities in his stead as evidence that the Jewish authorities are committed to the preservation of order.
After some attempts to make him incriminate himself Jesus is handed over to Pilatus, who acquiescing in the accusation that he had called himself King of the Jews orders his execution. No move is made against his disciples, who are allowed to care for his body and visit his tomb.

There was no such practice. Also, the description of Pilate by contemporaries makes it unlikely he would be for such a practice.

----

[Hanny]

Is this like how Abraham Lincoln built the house he was born in or how Napoleon was born before his father?

No its like how all Churches get founded from competent authority.

As I stated, I am not confused, am just waiting for a source that corroborates you assertion. The only thing you link is either a source of the source you posted or a flickr account.

See my first reply in post 22.

So you are basing your entire assertion on a "tradition" rather than an actual source.

No, try reading what is posted rather than post inane comments.

There was no such practice. Also, the description of Pilate by contemporaries makes it unlikely he would be for such a practice.

----

Tacitus wrote in his Histories about Roman governors to appease the citizens of the nations that Rome conquered, to show some good faith and help towards assimilation, would have a custom to release a criminal. The practice was to improve relations over the conquered civilizations.
Josephus, Pliny, and Plutarch all made mention of the same custom.

Specificly Pilate released barabas on this same law, as recounted in the Bible
http://www.biblestudytools.com/matth...tthew+27:15-23
"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd.


Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. 'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).

An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.”

I dont think Roman history is your thing, nor the Bible, which is ok, but all 4 Gospeles record this same event a very rare incidence of all agreeing on a detail. Because, wait for it....
there is a Talmudical rule that a paschal lamb may be slaughtered for one who has been promised release from prison.” This can be found in an article by C. B. Chavel, “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Pass*over in Ancient Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LX (1941), pp. 273-78.

Now you know where the term comes from...

[Diocle]

Hanny the gospels from an historical perspective are useless!!! Only crap! The gospels were written later!

Hanny you should look at the correct datation of the source codex of the most ancient Gospel! Hanny History and Bible are two different things! Hanny the Gospel haven't any historical value if you want sources about the I century AD!

In the end, Hanny:

1. You have to learn the difference between History and religion.

2. Then it would be better to study something about the critic of the historical sources.

3. Then when you have finished,.....start again, please! Prudence is never too much, in your case!

[Hanny]

See post 26.

Please refrain from demonstating you know nothing, you have already made that more than clear.

[B. W.]

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/chr...history-france
The First Christians in France
France received its Christianity directly from Jerusalem in the first century BC.

Not to be too picky, but I don't see how it would be possible for this to take place. The first century BC would be before Christ was born. I'm going to assume you meant AD.

[B. W.]

ALL!

It's only religious crap, invented centuries after the supposed events, we have not even a single fragment of direct source about the existence of the Galilean or his supposed execution! Nothing! The entire story could have been invented from the scratch, from any seriuos historical perspective! we have only few Domus Ecclesiae of the II century AD in Palestine and no sources about what happened in reality in the Jews religious world during the years of life of the rabbi of Nazareth and speaking of him! Nothing!

As a side note: Hanny if you are interested in the Biblical Studies, Latin and Greek are strating point, but then Aramaic and Akkadian language (expecially this one!) must be your targets! So at work Hanny! And leave the Apostles and their silly acts to the priests at Sunday mass!

Hmmm, for centuries scholars debated whether or not Pontius Pilat was a real character or not because the only mention of him was in the New Testament. Due to an archaeologiclal discovery a few years ago, we now know he was in fact a real person and THE person in charge in Judea at the time of Christ's crucificion.
This, at the very least, puts a little dent in your claims. It would seem strange that the persons writing the gospels would invent a character that woud later turn out to be a real person don't you think?

[PikeStance]

See my first reply in post 22.

The source in post 22 I provided you when I questioned the original source you cited in your OP. It is the source that compelled me to question the validity of your opening source. Moreover, since it is one of the sources in your OP, it cannot corroborate it.

The second source is a "Tripod" members page. One, I didn't know tripod was still even around with the proliferation of blogs and social networks sites. Two, if you have something important to say, would you make it on a free web hosting site? This is a step below wikipedia.

No, try reading what is posted rather than post inane comments.

I have been respectful in everyone of my responses. I will ask you to do the same please.

Tacitus wrote in his Histories about Roman governors to appease the citizens of the nations that Rome conquered, to show some good faith and help towards assimilation, would have a custom to release a criminal. The practice was to improve relations over the conquered civilizations.
Josephus, Pliny, and Plutarch all made mention of the same custom.

OK,.. Josephus (as far as know) only beg for the release of prisoners, not remark about a Roman or Jewish tradition & Pliny was a magistrate who persecuted Christians. I took the liberty to look up Roman festivals I can find no references to a tradition of releasing prisoners at all. This includes sources on the internet and books in my own personal library. Do you have a specific reference? I can ask around.

Specificly Pilate released barabas on this same law, as recounted in the Bible
http://www.biblestudytools.com/matth...tthew+27:15-23
"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd.

In any historical writing, you must have multiple sources. Coupled with the fact the Bible and other religious text often contains embellishments, you'll need additional sources to corroborate the information

Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. 'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).

An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.”

In either case, it does not speak of a "tradition" but rather the individual act of Roman governors. Moreover, Egypt is not Judea and neither G Septimus Vegetus is Pilate. The fact that one did it in a different region is not proof that the other did it as well.

I dont think Roman history is your thing, nor the Bible, ...

I have not called into question your degree of knowledge in the area, only your lack of corroborating sources. If you do not have any other sources, just admit it and move on- no need to get snippy.

---

[Hanny]

The source in post 22 I provided you when I questioned the original source you cited in your OP. It is the source that compelled me to question the validity of your opening source. Moreover, since it is one of the sources in your OP, it cannot corroborate it.

I quoted that which im willing to defend.

The second source is a "Tripod" members page. One, I didn't know tripod was still even around with the proliferation of blogs and social networks sites. Two, if you have something important to say, would you make it on a free web hosting site? This is a step below wikipedia.

You want me to defend that which i did not quote.

I have been respectful in everyone of my responses. I will ask you to do the same please.

best not to ask people to defend that which they have not quoted then dont you agree.

OK,.. Josephus (as far as know) only beg for the release of prisoners, not remark about a Roman or Jewish tradition & Pliny was a magistrate who persecuted Christians. I took the liberty to look up Roman festivals I can find no references to a tradition of releasing prisoners at all. This includes sources on the internet and books in my own personal library. Do you have a specific reference? I can ask around.

I quoted Josephus for you. Its ( release of prisoners) not related to or connected with Roman festivals, Edit: looked that up, there is one that removes the chains from prisoners, but does not set anyone free.

In any historical writing, you must have multiple sources. Coupled with the fact the Bible and other religious text often contains embellishments, you'll need additional sources to corroborate the information

To publish, example below* yes you need 3, and i have used 3 Roman and 5 Hebrew, to which i can add Peters acount and the Mishna Peshahim refernce.

Mishna Peshahim 8,6 which says that the Passover lamb may be offered 'for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison'. *J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus

In either case, it does not speak of a "tradition" but rather the individual act of Roman governors. Moreover, Egypt is not Judea and neither G Septimus Vegetus is Pilate. The fact that one did it in a different region is not proof that the other did it as well.

Its an example of the Roman practice of governers releasing becuase the are the legal authority with power to do so, as part of Imperial policy of how best to govern. The "tradition" is from Jewish history, ending of slavery under Egypt and becomming free. What betyter time to use the authority to do so than at a time that coicides with local traditions, you currty favour on many levels by doing so, you geta double wammy from doing what you can do anywhen by doing it then.

I have not called into question your degree of knowledge in the area, only your lack of corroborating sources. If you do not have any other sources, just admit it and move on- no need to get snippy.

---

Snippy was called for when you were given that which you asked for and ignored it. You can try Livius as well http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate06.html the same 4 sources were good enough for them

[PikeStance]

I quoted that which im willing to defend.
You want me to defend that which i did not quote.

You have quoted the Bible
You cited evangelical authors, a flickr account, and a tripod account.
I asked if you have other sources in which you based your claims on.

Let's see how you "defend?"

I quoted Josephus for you. Its ( release of prisoners) not related to or connected with Roman festivals, Edit: looked that up, there is one that removes the chains from prisoners, but does not set anyone free.

You didn't "quote" Josephus; you just named him.

To publish, example below* yes you need 3, and i have used 3 Roman and 5 Hebrew, to which i can add Peters acount and the Mishna Peshahim refernce.

Mishna Peshahim 8,6 which says that the Passover lamb may be offered 'for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison'. *J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus

My count; your OP used one source. A later post introduced a link to a flicker account and a tripod members page. I do not believe the latter two are written by the ancients.

Its an example of the Roman practice of governors releasing because the are the legal authority with power to do so, as part of Imperial policy of how best to govern. The "tradition" is from Jewish history, ending of slavery under Egypt and becoming free. What better time to use the authority to do so than at a time that coincides with local traditions, .... [unreadable]

What you are presenting is a fallacy. Releasing prisoners is not a "practice" but a power that governor possess.

Why would Roman Governor release a prisoner during, on, or after the Jewish celebration of Passover? If you throw in the personality of Pilate, its even less likely.
Fact: The Romans did not have a tradition of releasing prisoners
Fact: There is no Jewish tradition of releasing a prisoner on, before, or after Passover. It wouldn't even makes sense, since passover is when the Hebrews painted lambs blood on their doorways during the killing of the first born. It has nothing directly associated with the exodus out of Egypt.

Snippy was called for when you were given that which you asked for and ignored it. You can try Livius as well http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate06.html the same 4 sources were good enough for them

The source you quotes uses the Gospels almost exclusively. It does mentioned Josephus, but it makes a series of "assumption.' It even considers the gospel has independent and corroborative. In other words, if more than one gospel agree, then it is definitely right

Are you suggesting they used the tripod member guy or the dolt who went vacationing in Marseilles (The flickr guy)? <sarcasm off>

---