EN

[EN @EricNtw]

@EmmanuelIfergan @KnowledgeNorth @JesusSavesUs777 That’s a good start, includes ancient history, archeology, textual criticism and theology.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 Replied in our conversation.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 No my friend, I never claimed they are in conflict. Why do you make this up?

Why don’t you answer the question? Again: do you agree with scholarly consensus of authenticity or not, yes or no?

+ I referred to several passages, not only Mt 28. You never replied my latest answers

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 No my friend, I never claimed they are in conflict. Why do you make this up?

Why don’t you answer the question? Again: do you agree with scholarly consensus of authenticity or not, yes or no?

+ I referred to several passages, not only Mt 28. You never replied my latest answers

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 I always did.

Do you accept the wide scholarly consensus or do you not? Yes or no.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 Yes it does! I’ll take that as you accept the scholarly consensus. Very good.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 No denial, just stating the facts. Let’s do it again.

I’m impressed you claim ”knowledge” yet refute wide scholarly consensus that debunks your forgery claims.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 You keep calling it “deceit” while alleging forgery where scholarship cons. affirms authenticity. Mt is dated to 70–90 AD. Didache (1c/early 2c) use same triadic formula. There’s no competing textual tradition. If you claim a 4c insertion, provide the textual evidence. I’ll wait

[EN @EricNtw]

@Azriel_The_One @KnowledgeNorth @JesusSavesUs777 Nope. My reading aligns with the broad scholarly consensus. Jesus explicitly identifies himself with the Son of Man figure from Daniel 7, most clearly in Mark 14:62.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 You call me a liar for calling out the truth about the wide scholarly consensus of the authenticity on a passage you claim is forged? Priceless

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 You’re welcome

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @JesusSavesUs777 I’m familiar with your faith and doctrines that you repeat. It doesn’t change what the sources say, or how they are read in mainstream scholarship.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @JesusSavesUs777 Not according to the sources. Scholars widely agree Jesus’ “Son of Man” invokes Dan 7. In Mk 14:62 he claims the Son of Man will sit at God’s right hand (Ps 110) and come with the clouds (Dan 7), clear divine prerogatives. That’s also why Caiaphas charges him with blasphemy.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @JesusSavesUs777 Nope, but you did it again. Ezekiel’s ben adam = “mortal human.” Daniel 7’s bar enash = cloud-riding apocalyptic, given everlasting dominion and universal service. Mainstream scholarship agrees Jesus deliberately invokes Daniel 7. Thanks for confirming the distinction.

[EN @EricNtw]

@KnowledgeNorth @grok @JesusSavesUs777 Just pure scholarly consensus that evidently disqualifies your ungrounded claim of late interpolation and forgery. Your'e welcome!