As I said, theology and history are not the same. You could always try to read for yourself rather than uncritically swallowing "muslin" theology as fact too.
Do you take the word of Christians on the Gospel narratives over critical historical scholarship too?
Also it was actually the word of a scholar from the University of Notre Dame published in a peer-reviewed journal, but I understand why you feel the need to try to misrepresent this fact rather than respond to it rationally.
If you were as well informed as you claim, and put a bit of effort into actually reading before hitting the reply button, you'd be able to work out why that source doesn't contradict what I said at all. The Dunning-Kruger effect always seems to get in the way of you actually understanding anything though.
As such it's a waste of time expending any more effort trying to get you to the point where you can start to understand the difference between religious narratives and actual history.
History and theology have agreed for 1400 years, recently apologists have tried changing history to massage their theology. All they can do is go by what is known or believed to be known, otherwise they are guessing and making up whatever suites their "scholarship". You are welcome to accept revisionist history.
Please show me where i have misrepresented anything, if you cant when i will accept a your apology.
Of course your source contradicted your claim. It made a suggestion as you highlighted, not a definitive claim
Edit: while you are trying to dig out where i have misrepresented anything you can also try finding anywhere where i have made any claim about being well informed (as you claim). When you come up with a blank i will accept your apology for that too.
Last edited: