The Jesus Itinerary

[Minimalist]

Except that unless you find the magical Q

Sorry. "Q" is like the tachyon. A hypothetical that no one has ever seen or measured.

The difference between the two is that there is a chance that the tachyon may still be found.

[DeistPaladin]

Except that unless you find the magical Q, it's likely that one of these did indeed have access to the other - probably Luke had a copy of Matthew.

Obviously not.

[John V]

Obviously not.

There are verses common to both that are not found in Mark. Occam's Razor says that one had access to the other.

[DeistPaladin]

There are verses common to both that are not found in Mark. Occam's Razor says that one had access to the other.

There are tremendous contradictions between the two, which surely would have been ironed out if they knew about one another's work. A simpler explanation is they both drew upon similar urban legends.

[Tonus]

I kinda like the idea that they were competitive and maybe even trying to one-up each other. "Whoa, not a bad explanation... for an amateur! Let me show you how it's done..." *scribbles furiously*

[DeistPaladin]

I kinda like the idea that they were competitive and maybe even trying to one-up each other. "Whoa, not a bad explanation... for an amateur! Let me show you how it's done..." *scribbles furiously*

That might explain John, perhaps.

[Cinjin]

I kinda like the idea that they were competitive and maybe even trying to one-up each other. "Whoa, not a bad explanation... for an amateur! Let me show you how it's done..." *scribbles furiously*

That might explain John, perhaps.

I thought that would explain Revelations. That guy seemed intent on showing up EVERYBODY.

[DeistPaladin]

I thought that would explain Revelations. That guy seemed intent on showing up EVERYBODY.

Actually, that book came very first.

[Godscreated]

Why was it necessary for Matthew to include these things in his writings?

By "these things" I assume you mean the shepherds and the manger? The answer is "he didn't". All that comes from Luke.

do you really believe Matthew would not have known this?

Matt either didn't know the OT from a hole in the ground, and thought he could get away with pretending to be an expert on OT prophecy, or else he thought he could get away with lying about what it had to say. Either way, he didn't seem concerned about accuracy when it came to the OT.

There is nothing inaccurate with Matthews story, it doesn't contradict Luke's story. You are purposely avoiding what I've asked, why?

As I said before history is put together by using details from some writings and then details from other writings and confirmed by other writings. You did not respond to this either, curious.

What's to respond to? This isn't "history". It's mythology placed in a historical context. Even if there was a "Historical Jesus" of some sort, the Gospels would have as much to do with his history as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" has to do with the real bio of President Lincoln.

First of all you can't prove that it's not history. You also can not prove these writings are not an accurate portrayal of Christ's life and ministry. You are still avoiding answering what I have stated, and the answer is not, because it's not history, you have not established that. Just to help you out a little here, most if not all Myths were put together by taking many writings and comparing them to come up with the story, so even with the logic you're trying to push around, you still have no case. It boils down to trying to avoid the reality of the birth record. Why, why are you doing this, is it so wrong to you to have this be a reliable set of stories.

GC

[Cyberman]

Just a suggestion, but instead of stating "you can't prove it's not history" or whatever the subject might be, how about asking if your opponent actually can prove it? If nothing else it's much more reasonable, yes?