Is there any historical worth to the Gospel of John? Does it stray so far from the actual life of Jesus that we can hope only for a pious but mostly fictional story of him? Skeptics like to point out the differences (not the same as contradictions), but do they ever see the remarkable similarities?
These records go from 1659 to 1838 and are mainly about wills and cover twelve counties.
These records go from 1652 to 1799.
When you read the first three Gospels, you are likely to observe countless similarities. And that is the dominant picture: the places, the names, the crowds, the rural setting, busy Jerusalem. However, some skeptics see insurmountable problems.
Henry Randolph and William Randolph were gateway ancestors (descend from royalty) who arrived in Virginia in the mid-seventeenth century. Virginia was a populous colony and then state. Surely one of your lines links up to them. They and their descendants left behind excellent records to sort out relationships.
The author of this Gospel made sure he used eyewitness testimony; indeed he was an eyewitness!
I prefer the GOP, but if each popular vote were a dollar of income earned and accumulated over twenty-eight years, then the DNC would be much richer than the RNC by $21,468,701.
Luke researched those who knew Jesus from the “beginning.” His key criterion.
The evidence suggests that Peter was indeed a portrait painter, but he used words alone. Jesus was his subject.