None of you have shown any conflict between the narrative, as I presented it, and any of the Gospel accounts. I take that to me that acknowledge the consistency of the four Gospel accounts. If you want to continue in your disbelief because of other apparent contradictions in the bible, go ahead. But stop whining about contradictions between the four resurrection accounts becuase there are none. It makes not one whit of difference it the stories are true or not, they are still consistent.
I anticipated that some of you would repeat your same-old tired and lame objections to the Gospels. For the sake of arguement, I will accept both claims that 1) the four books were written a long time after the resurrection and 2) the four books reflect edited versions of a single source. First, objection 1. If the gospel records were written many years after the fact, then one would expect the inclusion of fabrications and/or direct conflicts with the other accounts. The lack of any conflicts suggests that each of the writers was refering to a common source of material, objection 2. If indeed there was a single source then there are two options: a written record of all the events in a single document or a common set of events.
There is no direct evidence for the existence of a master document like Q. Even if Q did exist, the John's Gospel would still be an independent tradition. Thus leaving open the possibility for obvious after the fact fabrications. The consistency of the four, in spite of the production date actually supports their authenticity.
Moreover positing the existence of Q or similar source adds an unnecessary step in the making of the four. Using Occam's razor the simplest explanation is that each of the four refer to a common set of events.
I anticipated that some of you would repeat your same-old tired and lame objections to the Gospels. For the sake of arguement, I will accept both claims that 1) the four books were written a long time after the resurrection and 2) the four books reflect edited versions of a single source. First, objection 1. If the gospel records were written many years after the fact, then one would expect the inclusion of fabrications and/or direct conflicts with the other accounts. The lack of any conflicts suggests that each of the writers was refering to a common source of material, objection 2. If indeed there was a single source then there are two options: a written record of all the events in a single document or a common set of events.
There is no direct evidence for the existence of a master document like Q. Even if Q did exist, the John's Gospel would still be an independent tradition. Thus leaving open the possibility for obvious after the fact fabrications. The consistency of the four, in spite of the production date actually supports their authenticity.
Moreover positing the existence of Q or similar source adds an unnecessary step in the making of the four. Using Occam's razor the simplest explanation is that each of the four refer to a common set of events.
