A good case against God

[FallentoReason]

It isn't about Mark, Luke etc… it is about their source material. Scholars have determined that there are multiple sources behind the gospels themselves such as "Q".

No document has been found yet that resembles the hypothetical document Q. But suppose there is. I think there's still the main issue that needs to be solved about the historical Jesus. For all we know Q could have been sayings that early cult priests would say during rituals. In other words, I don't see how Q would prove the historical Jesus on its own.

There is the information, if I remember correctly that is in matthew and Luke but not in mark, the information in mark and matthew and not in luke, etc… There are differences perhaps in certain accounts but that is something that is a part of historical studies as the historian must discern what is historical and what is not.

Yes, that's correct about the shared information. I've seen a pie graph that shows exactly the percentages of what each Gospels has from the others. What are your views on Markan priority?

To say that Paul did not believe that Jesus actually lived and died on a Roman cross is absurd. (if this is what you are saying) I challenge you to find one historian in the world with a teaching job and Phd who will agree with you.

I don't read the work of scholars. I believe they have all confined themselves to strictly looking at the Gospels as history when they could very well not have been intended to be read like that.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-13747.html

If you disagree, I'd like to hear why that is.

Actually, scholars deduce that the earliest sources were probably saying sources.

Fair enough, but like I said this on its own doesn't say much. Yes, pun intended =).

All of the relevant scholarship is against you.

And my research suggests the authors of the Gospels would disagree with what scholars say about their work.