But then again I’m not Armenian so that was a guess

Why should we concede

also they were paid immediately after to people who survived it first hand

@Fred the Fish you're not being rational

you're ignoring the fundamental problems with the idea of reparations

Your plan is about as rational as people who say "if the government gave everyone money we'd all be rich"
You have put zero thought into it

how much money do you suggest paying to black people?

It would be a waste of time

do you want to know what Congress's conclusion would be

If you can find a way to resurrect a slave owner, you can charge him for reparations. Otherwise, it is unjustifiable

it would be, "holy shit, this is way too expensive"

"let's not do this ever"

hypothetically they decide to pay $1000 to every single black person in this country

37,144,530 x 1000

that's $37,144,530,000

So you're saying the bank bailout was good

bailing out a fundamental part of the American economy is not comparable to paying reparations to one subset of the country

Yes or no, do you think the bank bailout was a good decision? @Fred the Fish

I just want to determine if you are arguing in bad faith here

my guess would be no

If the bank bailout was not a good decision, why are you using it as an example of how a mass payout can be conducted successfully?

You either support the bailout or you simply don't care if your arguments make sense so long as you get what you want

The latter means you're willing to decieve people to get your payoff, why should anyone take what you say seriously if that is the case?

@agag

How do you respond to this?
https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/

Take your time

i sent that before lmao

Based

it doesn't matter who the traditional authors of the Gospels were, what matters is where their information comes from

we know that they were based on pre-existing sources like the Q document

and from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 we also know that more or less the same story was being taught by the Jerusalem church very shortly after Jesus's death

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

**1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - New King James Version (NKJV)**

```Dust


<3> For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, <4> and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, ```

It does matter

We have no idea of who authored ANY of the four Gospels of the Canon. They are anonymous documents, with the words "according to" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appended to them in the late 2nd century. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, for they are all written in the 3rd person. Moreover, it is indeed odd that Matthew (supposedly an apostle of Jesus) copied virtually verbatim from a non-apostle, Mark (who is unknown). We have no record of the sources of the Gospels.

In sum, the Gospel stories are HEARSAY acounts from unknown authors. They were also not written in the mother tongue of Jesus and the apostles (Aramaic), so Jesus' words are not preserved. We can be fairly confident that the NT documents did not undergo substantial change after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) - that much is true - but that presents no evidence that the originals were reliable accounts.

they were not written in the mother tongue because the common language at that time was Koine Greek

the Apostles also used the Septuagint Bible despite speaking Aramaic as their primary language

I could grant that

You didn’t respond to my whole argument. I can continue this tomorrow, until then you can layout your complete response.

the eyewitness stuff doesn't really matter that much since we know that the core Gospel story was being taught by the Jerusalem Church very shortly after Jesus's death

which refutes the Muslim idea that the entire story of Jesus was corrupted from Jesus never dying or being crucified at all to Jesus dying on the cross