Quote:But a difference is not necessarily a contradiction

Oh cut the shit.  In this case it is a correction, not even a contradiction. 
97% of "mark" is copied by "matty."  Was he stupid or just a plagiarizer?

In this case he read what mark said, realized that it was absurd based on his own knowledge of the area and tried (badly) to correct it.  It is generally conceded that matty is the most "jewish" of the gospels which indicates a far greater understanding of the region than the other two synoptics had.

Well for what we have gone over so far, I am comfortable with a little more information and a little bit of common sense, that the arguments given so far are not that good.   

I'm willing to look at the reasons and evidence.   If you are just going to appeal to authority, then yes, I'm going to stick with the accounts that are closer to the events.   Not something made up 2000 years later.

But you have confidence in your fucking gospels which is your whole problem in the first place.

Reality is a bitch, huh?

I do find it ironic, that those who are suggesting that I have a particular end in mind, are the ones who abruptly change the subject, when the argument is countered and more information and critical thinking is used.   When an answer is given, they shift to something else, and attack the person, rather than confront the challenge.  And yet my motives are questioned.

It doesn't seem to bother you, RR, that your views and opinions are at odds with mainstream scholarship.

No, because I bet he thinks fucking god whispers in his ear.

I just wish he could read a fucking map.  It would make things easier.

(June 6, 2018 at 2:26 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It doesn't seem to bother you, RR, that your views and opinions are at odds with mainstream scholarship.

It's not that I don't respect scholarly work and opinion; but, I do think that it is reasonable to be able to  ask "why do they believe that", when they present their claim.  Most of what I have seen, is much like the above.  I'm surprised, especially when being discussed, that how bad these arguments are, don't seem to bother you.

And really the scholarly opinion in these things seems to have wavered back and forth since the 1800's (probably prior).   It's not because of some big archeological discovery (these mostly support the Christian tradition).  It's not because of some major shift in philosophy, where we find we have been thinking wrongly all along.   It just seems to be a shift in opinion and bias. 

Most Theologians who study about God, seem to be theists.  It doesn't bother you, that you are going against scholarly consensus?

Most scholars of the Quran consider it to be divinely inspired; doesn't that bother you?

(June 6, 2018 at 7:30 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Most scholars of the Quran consider it to be divinely inspired; doesn't that bother you?

Why do they think that?

And I would note that this is you argument; not mine. I don’t think that they get a special no questions asked privilege.

(June 6, 2018 at 7:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 7:30 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Most scholars of the Quran consider it to be divinely inspired; doesn't that bother you?

Why do they think that?

And I would note that this is you argument; not mine. I don’t think that they get a special no questions asked privilege.

I think that they think that, because religious belief is a meme that infects individuals and cultures; in other words, they are the product of the belief systems that they were raised in, just as you were.

In any case, neither of you have "good" reasons to claim what you do -- both the Bible and the Quran are products of the human imagination, nothing more.