Quote:You do know the gospel of Mark and Luke are taken seriosuly by rational scholars?
No true Scotsman fallacy.
I don't know of any, but so what? ALL rational scholars do not,nor is such a thing the consensus.THE basic issue with the NT is the absence of ANY supporting contemporary evidence, a basic condition of modern historical study.This does not invalidate the veracity of the NT,nor does it allow an inference even of 'most likely or probably' which is the most any competent ancient historian will claim on the basis of the unsubstaniated accounts used by apologists..As a general principle,ancient historians especially avoid definite truth statements.
The resurrection stories are all the same, you have to remember the audience
You have not done as I asked,or you would not make such an absurd and patently untrue statement. Come back when you have done so.
The NT is replete with factual errors,contradictions and later additions.Nor indeed do all Christian churches accept the same canon (Eg Copts and Eastern rites) Google is your friend.
I try to avoid wasting my time with apologists.I don't know you and have limited interest in you or your personal superstitions,especially when you have nothing interesting or informed to say.Bored now.
