(June 28, 2015 at 11:50 am)Cato Wrote:(June 28, 2015 at 11:22 am)Randy Carson Wrote: If you think people should dismiss the gospels, then you ought to provide some reasonable arguments for doing so.
There is a thread entitled, "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". That would be a great place to post your thoughts.
If the gospels were consistent your argument would at least be compelling. The fact that they are embellished as they go along destroys your case. Later gospels aren't just filling in gaps. Again, a boy says he is risen in Mark. Later gospels replace the boy with one or two angels. The women at the tomb in Mark never see Jesus, later they rub his feet. This isn't gap filling, it's embellishment and contradiction.
If the gospels were in lock-step agreement, you anti-christers would be screaming "Collusion! The Church co-ordinated the stories!"
The very fact that the Catholic Church knew that the gospels contained varying accounts and STILL CHOSE TO INCLUDE ALL FOUR GOSPELS (instead of just one!) speaks to the fact that all four are considered both reliable and inspired. It's called the "criterion of embarrasment". Further, the differences give greater confidence that the authors provide multiple, independent attestation to the resurrection.
After the sinking of the Titanic, some of the survivors claimed that the ship broke in two before going beneath the waves. Other survivors testified that this did not happen. All of them were there. All of them were adamant about what they saw. Eyewitnesses don't always agree, but there is no question that the Titanic sank.
The synoptics represent different testimonies about Jesus. The authors don't agree on all the details - they may have chosen to emphasize different things for any number of reasons. But they all agree that Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a tomb and rose from the dead.
Mark included.
