#i remain convinced that the op of the relevant post is a self righteous twerp

[maryellencarter]

so just a general hint if you're going to claim to be a professional historian stating that other professional historians agree with you on the date of a document. try to understand the difference between "60-100 years after the birth of jesus" and "60-100 years after the *death* of jesus", huh? especially if you're using that set of dates as the basis for a claim that eyewitnesses to the events couldn't have been alive during the timeframe you're talking about. there's about a thirty-year offset there.

(in related news, i have had *enough* for one lifetime of people pulling history out of their asses in order to discredit other religions, and it doesn't become any less reprehensible just because you're not the locally dominant religion. which is why i'm not further rebageling this post this is about. professional historian my well-rounded ass.)

(also maybe don't try to shame me for not digging up an explanation you previously posted somewhere in 10k notes, especially since when you "reposted" it for my benefit it was mainly evidence that the torah says what you said it does, which i never questioned.)