>Christ only came to save Jews Initially yes, but he makes

>>3271387
>Mark

Not a source for Jesus' life, it was written several generations later.

File: Reliability of NT.jpg (1MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3508x2480px

>>3271603
Mark was written between 60-70 AD which is only a few decades after the resurrection and within the lifespan of the original apostles.

>>3271387
I don't think you can take the bible seriously as a religious doctrine, it's so obviously filled with various contradictions and opposing accounts.

How can such a compilation of books be considered grounds for an actual religion.

>>3271387
>todays gospel is literally about the canaanite women
wow op did you go to church?

File: 78f1bcc047d5c34b57df1f194a1202bf.jpg (91KB, 736x949px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 736x949px

>>3271603
That's actually not true. It's also based primarily on Peter's (who was illiterate) personal account according to Papias, and I see no reason to doubt him here

>>3271617
If you have multiple eyewitnesses giving an account of events that transpired decades ago, there are going to be contradictions. That doesn't make the composite narrative incoherent

>>3271649
It wasn't that for me, it was the servant and the debt. You must by Catholic or Julian Calendar Orthodox or something.