> You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.

Yes, and I explained why I did in the post above

> And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right..

Fuck me this is getting repetitive.

Let’s just forget all mention of gender because my points stand up without that context. The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings. And let’s just say, for the context of our discussion, the reasons for that omission is a historical curiosity but mostly irrelevant to this conversation.

Now you can argue whether missing texts affects the authenticity or not. And whether that even matters for a recommendation. At least if we disagree on that, we’re arguing the same topic. :)

> You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.

I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here, I was just adding some background for anyone who might have been interested.