(September 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm)Drich Wrote:(September 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I find your defense lacking, to say the least.show me. lacking how?
Well, your first defense is that John and Mark were trying to portray a different message and were using a different writing style to appeal to the locals at that time, and they weren't meant to be chronological retellings of Jesus' life. You then claim Erhman is judging them by the wrong standard. You fail to state the proper standard to judge them except for vaguely claiming they were written for different people. Using that method, one could dismiss any discrepancy in any two stories, but it doesn't prove what you've set out to do.
The second one seems like a minor issue, so I'm not really concerned about that one.
The rest of your defense is an obfuscation of terms and an attempt to explain why one author would count some while not others, but this is the key plot point in the narrative of Jesus that the authors are describing. As C.S. Lewis has pointed out, all of Christianity hinges on the resurrection, so I find this explanation to be inadequate.
I just don't find your explanations adequate in explaining discrepancies in a message supposedly from an omniscient deity.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
