Please re-read the OP. In point 2), I explain that most do not want to read a text wall.
SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 7:07 pm
First off, the difference between what happened then and what is happening now is... On that thread^,
you were the one asking for the information.
You make repeated claims about how evolution is a lie, in multiple threads, in topics which are not discussing evolution. I told you I was going to create a separate thread about it. I did. I asked you for evidence. You provided a 2+ hour video diatribe. The end. I even went further and addressed the first claim made, from the video. The end, again.
Point? You ask.... Stop mentioning how "evolution is lie", unless you can back it up. Thnx! Otherwise, I will keep referring to this post I created, where you conveniently do not want to engage.
For context, allow me to post something by
Benchwarmer. My position is essentially in
red (more or less). Yours would likely jive, more or less, with the first part of option 4).
If the Gospels:
1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.
2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.
3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.
4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.
SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 7:07 pm
Changed stuff like what?
When Jesus heals someone in Mark 1:41 vs Luke 24, was he compassionate or irritated?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."