(October 27, 2015 at 9:31 am)Irrational Wrote: So I was close. 70% is good enough an estimate.

Ok, you included Matthew 2, but what about Matthew 1 as well? Make that 25 extra verses, and you now have 47. That's a relatively large number of verses omitted in two chapters only.

But I disagree with that simplistic approach to measuring similarity. I'd rather we go by account similarity rather than word or verse similarity.

No, you'd rather wave your arms about, make a bare assertion (or very close to it), and hope you don't get challenged. If you want to go by accounts, go ahead and do the legwork.

Quote:The nativity account in Matthew is not in any way similar to the one in Luke. The genealogy as well. So Matthew 1 and 2 are entirely not in Luke.

"Not it any way similar"? You're either purposely lying, or haven't even read the passages.

In both:
- Mary is a virgin
- Mary is betrothed to Joseph
- Mary conceives by the Holy Spirit
- An angel says the child's name will be Jesus
- Jesus is born in Bethlehem

Each account has additional information not included in the other. This is problematic for the by account approach, and is why a verse count is better.

Quote:I don't want to keep going as it's a lot of work,

That's your problem.

Account, alpha male, I said account. I never said there won't be any common words at all. Be sure to understand my point first before considering dishonesty on my part. The accounts are not similar.

And verse similarity doesn't help because there were no verse numbering back then, and because we need to account for Matthew taking some freedom in adding a few statements of his own within the account.

(October 27, 2015 at 9:52 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:I don't want to keep going as it's a lot of work,

That's your problem.

Considering that you did not even address my account by account comparison for those chapters I listed, I think it would've been a big problem if I had kept going. I don't like wasting that much energy on someone who wants to insist they're right no matter what.

The gospel tradition divides into two streams. There's Mark and there's John. Mark is the earliest gospel written shortly after the war that destroyed the Temple, the war between Rome and Judea. And Mark presents one type of Jesus with a particular narrative where Jesus begins in the Galilee and he ends his life in Jerusalem. John, a gospel that we can't date at all, has Jesus really with the Jerusalem ministry. He's hardly in Galilee at all. And he's really talking and preaching and doing in Jerusalem. It's a quite different story and a quite different personality. Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. Which is why those three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels. Because they can be understood together. But in terms of literary dependency, Matthew and Luke construct their story around the plot provided by Mark. and matthew mark luke and john all these people had different perceptions ideas and motivations , its not like they were impartial reporters on the scene like we have today.

(October 27, 2015 at 10:14 am)Irrational Wrote: Account, alpha male, I said account. I never said there won't be any common words at all. Be sure to understand my point first before considering dishonesty on my part. The accounts are not similar.

As I noted, the two accounts share several key points. "Similar" is ambiguous. It will end up a false dichotomy with you on one side and me on the other.

Quote:And verse similarity doesn't help because there were no verse numbering back then,

Neither were there chapters, or headings, or agreed-upon "account" divisions, but you need to use some such system to do an account analysis.

(October 27, 2015 at 9:35 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 9:31 am)jenny1972 Wrote: good point why dont i believe in pink unicorns but do believe in God if im a superstitious person wouldnt i just believe in everything ? you believe in what you have been convinced of if i become convinced that God does not exist then i will disbelieve until then i will believe what i have been convinced of ... your not going to believe until you get proof why should i disbelieve without proof?

Is there a post somewhere where you explain how you're convinced God exists?

in my intro thread its called 'hello atheists'

(October 27, 2015 at 10:18 am)Irrational Wrote: Considering that you did not even address my account by account comparison for those chapters I listed, I think it would've been a big problem if I had kept going. I don't like wasting that much energy on someone who wants to insist they're right no matter what.

When you have a complete analysis I'll look at it. For all we know, you'll end up finding enough differences on an account basis that the nativity differences don't stand out as unusual.

(October 27, 2015 at 10:40 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 10:14 am)Irrational Wrote: Account, alpha male, I said account. I never said there won't be any common words at all. Be sure to understand my point first before considering dishonesty on my part. The accounts are not similar.

As I noted, the two accounts share several key points. "Similar" is ambiguous. It will end up a false dichotomy with you on one side and me on the other.

Quote:And verse similarity doesn't help because there were no verse numbering back then,

Neither were there chapters, or headings, or agreed-upon "account" divisions, but you need to use some such system to do an account analysis.

These key points which are:

Bethlehem (based on a verse in Micah)
Virgin: Based on an unfortunate mistranslation of the verse in Isaiah
Joseph and Mary: common news at the time

But notice about the angel appearance: Matthew says he appeared to Jospeh, but Luke says he appeared to Mary.

And, alpha male, anyone not blinded by the "inerrancy" of the Bible can see that the nativity accounts are drastically different (even considering the few words you mentioned).

at this point 2000+ years later its unlikely we can put together any 100% accurate picture of the events surrounding Jesus all info coming from the catholic church i think should be viewed with skepticism . History has proven that the catholic church conceals and corrupts truth to serve itself , so to get a real accurate picture of Jesus going outside of the info that the catholic church controlled is important . i cannot imagine a more unreliable source of information than the catholic church just looking at recent history shows their attitude regarding deception . Human teachers just repeat what they have been taught so that should be taken with a grain of salt too .

(October 27, 2015 at 10:44 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 10:40 am)alpha male Wrote: As I noted, the two accounts share several key points. "Similar" is ambiguous. It will end up a false dichotomy with you on one side and me on the other.

Neither were there chapters, or headings, or agreed-upon "account" divisions, but you need to use some such system to do an account analysis.

These key points which are:

Bethlehem (based on a verse in Micah)
Virgin: Based on an unfortunate mistranslation of the verse in Isaiah
Joseph and Mary: common news at the time

But notice about the angel appearance: Matthew says he appeared to Jospeh, but Luke says he appeared to Mary.

And, alpha male, anyone not blinded by the "inerrancy" of the Bible can see that the nativity accounts are drastically different (even considering the few words you mentioned).

And anyone not blinded by anti-theism will conclude, or at least consider as a plausible possibility, that the accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory.

Same with the genealogies - that one is of Mary, or they're both of Joseph due to Levirate marriage, are possibilities that people without an agenda would consider.