My book report pt1

[Drich]

Well, your first defense is that John and Mark were trying to portray a different message.

This is the failure in your analisis. Mark and John were trying to convey the SAME MESSAGE not a different one. They simply approached it in different ways.
Again the people Mark could have been focousing one may have been a little more educated and wanted structure in their account, while John spoke to the guys who like action movies over a documentry.

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.

He is judgeing them by the standard Mark used which is a chronicological accounting of said events. When clearly John is not giving a Chronological retelling as witnessed by the temple events being placed at the front of his book. even in light of this events misplacement he continues to force the assumption that John and Mark's accounts are ment to be read as sequential events. When by the very placement of these same stories placed at either ends of the respective accounts dictates otherwise.

You fail to state the proper standard to judge them except for vaguely claiming they were written for different people.

and in that I expressly implied that John was not giving a history lesson in that his telling of Christ was not the sequencial order, yet Bart insists they were. The fact that they are not in order and the fact no one who compiled the bible put them in order suggests that neither book is in the wrong here. which means that they are to be read and accepted as written/John was not meant to repersent a chronological order of the events of Christ.

Using that method, one could dismiss any discrepancy in any two stories, but it doesn't prove what you've set out to do.

Actually no. The only thing what I said does is allow John the freedom to not chronical his account in the order the others did.

The second one seems like a minor issue, so I'm not really concerned about that one.

It's your show.

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.

Your glancing over something you simply do not understand or something you know breaks your arguement so we need to revisit eitherway.

Let say someone asks you to describe a group of people standing over on a street corner, and you look and say there are 7 asian men and 3 women standing there. Another may say there are 10 'orenitals' (which is a racist term because orential describes a thing and not a person) standing over there, Then i may be asked the same question and Ill say there are 2 japanese men, 3Han Chineese men, 2 Tu women, 1 Han Korean woman(most likly north Korean) 2 korean men standing on that same corner.

Now who is right?

According to Bart we all can't be right because we did not describe the identical same thing, using the same identical words.

When if fact we simply described what we saw using all of what we have been given to understand. In other words we are all right to one degree or another, the variances we report are not because we are trying to describe something false, but rather we describe what we understand we saw. The more we understand the deeper the description.

As C.S. Lewis has pointed out, all of Christianity hinges on the resurrection, so I find this explanation to be inadequate.

Well, i find your quote to be inadequate.
How you like dem apples?

I just don't find your explanations adequate in explaining discrepancies in a message supposedly from an omniscient deity.

what does this have to do with what is being discussed?