(July 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm)Irrational Wrote:(July 7, 2016 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: I'm certainly not going to argue further over a definition of a word that can be looked up.
Nothing on the other thing?
Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.
Steve, why appeal to scholarly work anyway? It's not like your views regarding the history of the early church are in line with the mainstream scholarly view anyway.
Now it's likely, as far as mainstream scholarly views go, that there were no intentional fabrication of significant events. But it's clear through analysis of the texts that certain events (such as the nativity events) were added later on to indeed support later orthodoxy. This does not imply fabrication, however, in the deliberate sense. More that later authors (e.g., "Matthew" and "Luke") heard about some additional stories about Jesus, and without verifying it for themselves in a proper skeptical manner, included them in their texts.
I don't need scholarly or published articles... I mostly look for something however, that provides the factual details, which the conclusion is based on and can be collaborated or attested by other evidence.
As to the nativity, I think that you are neglecting a couple options, that Mark may have been aware, but simply chose not to include it in his Gospel. Or it is possible that Mark was not aware, but the Matthew and Luke where made aware by their sources. In his book "Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace; he points out that witnesses often do not always provide the same details (some may focus on one thing, that others do not). Likewise a witness (especially one who is aware of others testimony) may not provide all the details, that they think your already know and rather focus on what they can add.
On what basis of the nativity narrative not being in Mark, but being included in Matthew and Luke, do you conclude, "later authors (e.g., "Matthew" and "Luke") heard about some additional stories about Jesus, and without verifying it for themselves in a proper skeptical manner, included them in their texts"?
