Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or experienced after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus. The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk
16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must provide other reliable sources from people who experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to AchillesHeel in post #160]

Just want to pop in and say that was a nice breakdown and graphic AchillesHeel. This gives readers a nice outline of your premise which both explains your reasoning and points out where readers can do their own research. This is the type of thing I never noticed as a believer because no one from the pulpit was going to point out and/or apologize for the differences and growth of the stories. I just assumed (rather lazily) that it was all just one story told by different people. It was only later that I learned about the Synoptic Problem and really started comparing details between the accounts. Once you see behind the curtain, it's practically impossible to unsee.

Your interlocutor, of course, doesn't want readers noticing these things and forming their own opinions about these facts. All they have on offer seems to be opinion, derogatory comments ("The fact that you find this explanation so far-fetched, is disgusting" and other similar barbs), and nothing of substance for readers to go fact check themselves.

I think most readers will see who has the more compelling argument.

[SiNcE_1985]

I don't know what else to do other than point out the challenge still wasn't met.

The challenge is irrelevant, and I say this respectfully.

A legend developing starts off simple and then grows in widely fantastic ways adding stuff in that would have been important for earlier authors to mention. This is how we identify a legend growing in any other context and have no problem doing so.

I've already addressed this, multiple times.

Would a visual help you understand?

It wasn't needed, because I already know what later dating of the Gospels entails.

Here is a summary of the evolution to give a frame of reference for the evolution in the graph. The dates are according to the scholarly consensus.

Yeah, just like the scientific consensus is that macroevolution is true...and if I was to go by that consensus, then I'd be believing a lie.

I simply disagree with later dating theories...nor have I ever seen the case as to why they've drawn those conclusions.

I have, however, seen the case as to why early dating (before 70 CE) seems more true than not.

1. Paul 50s, only talks about visions and mystical appearances. He does not give any evidence of a tomb being discovered empty.

When Paul said that Jesus "was buried and raised on the third day" (1Corinth 15:4), that implies an empty tomb.

Just because he didn't flat out explicitly say "the damn tomb was empty" doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to use our rational, thinking brains to draw the conclusion that a deceased person who had risen from their burial site, that this burial site would now be vacant of the body.

This isn't rocket science. This is basically reading comprehension.

2. Mark 70, introduces the empty tomb and predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee but does not narrate the appearance.

Yeah, and what did the angel tell the women in Mark 16:6, as it relates to Jesus after his burial?

"He (Jesus) has risen"!

And again, what does Paul say in 1Corinth 15:4 about Jesus, after his burial?

"He has risen (was raised)".

I'm just pointing out how both an earlier (Paul) and a later source (Mark) both uses the word "risen/raised" and even if we used your later dating, 20 years from Paul to Mark, the story remained the same.

3. Matthew 80, has Jesus appear to the women immediately after they leave the tomb before telling any disciples, then there is an appearance to the Eleven in Galilee on a mountain which some "doubt" - Mt. 28:17.

The 80's dating is wild.

4. Luke 85-95, alters what the angels say at the tomb

Luke recorded other things that the angels may have said, which is not limited to what was recorded in Mark.

I'm assuming the angels weren't just some programmed robots to only deliver some programmed one-liners that God programmed them to say.

They may have said other things beyond the three lines that one particular account has them saying.

Or is this also such a far fetched concept for you to grasp?

and removes any reference to an appearance in Galilee. Instead, all Luke's appearances take place in or near Jerusalem.

I've already addressed this and you've offered no viable response, but have instead provided dismissals and hand waving.

There is an appearance to Peter which is not described

1. The appearance to Peter was not described.

2. Therefore, there was no appearance to Peter.

or..

"I question any appearance to Peter, because it was not described".

Either way, illogical thinking.

along with the appearance to two on the Emmaus Road.

Same illogic with Peter being displayed here.

Jesus does a disappearing act then appears to the Eleven in Jerusalem where he invites his disciples to inspect his "flesh and bone" body and confirm he's "not a ghost." Then he eats a piece of fish in their presence! After that he is witnessed ascending to heaven!

No point being made here.

5. John 90-110, the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb after she first tells Peter and the "other disciple" which contradicts Matthew's version.

?

That same evening Jesus teleports through a locked door and appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we hear about the famous Doubting Thomas story (not mentioned anywhere else). Then, in Jn. 21 there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee involving a miraculous catch of 153 fish! This story isn't mentioned anywhere else either.

1. X wasn't mentioned in Y.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. Illogical thinking.

6. Gospel of Peter 2nd century, there is the dramatic scene where Jesus leaves the tomb with two giant angels and a talking cross!

Irrelevant, and not part of Biblical canon...unless we are using it as an example of a book written well after the fact was rejected as an uninspired fraud.

But anyways, I'm glad I was able to call your attention to the Gospel of Peter, because you probably wasn't thinking about it until I mentioned it.

No charge for the lesson.

Now, how can anyone honestly say this data does not look like a legend evolving?

Easy. The data (besides Peter) does not look like a legend evolving.

Why does the only firsthand account just mention visions and none of the amazing stuff from the later third person anonymous stories? Why would Mark leave out the immediate appearance to the women after they left the tomb? Why would Mark and Matthew not refer to an appearance in Jerusalem? Why would the disciples in Mt. 28:17 doubt the appearance in Galilee when they were already "overjoyed" in seeing him alive the same night of the resurrection as Jn. 20:19-20 says and then again a week later in the same place? Why would Luke erase all the mentions of an appearance in Galilee? Why does none of the vanishing/teleporting and bodily inspection stuff take place until the latest two accounts?

This is all subjective interpretation based on super-skepticism.

Skeptics will be skeptics.

It's because each consecutive story is a later legend that developed.

Opinions.

I've given evidence of this in the thread. Irenaeus was just wrong about the order here. Mark was written first as you already admitted earlier in the thread. He says Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul which took place in the mid 60s. So it cannot be the case that Mark was written before they died according to Irenaeus.

Well, either..

A. Matthew was written before Mark, after all.

Or..

B. Irenaeus was simply wrong.

Either way, Papias is the earliest source we have for Gospel authorship, so I'm rocking with him...and I don't need to rely on any of the early church fathers for my case for early Gospel dating.

It doesn't matter if you want to date all the documents before 70. The progression throughout the accounts still holds. Saying there "wasn't enough time for a legend to develop" is false. We have legends that develop while people are still alive. Just see the 2020 election as an example. The North Korean dictators are another example how falsehoods can spread in a contemporary context. This article refutes your assertion. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/kom378030

It is true as it relates to Christianity.

The book of Acts, along with Paul's Epistles shows how vigorous and zealous believers of Christianity were in dispelling false teachings (and unquestionably false depictions of Christ).

All of the missionary work and letters written, from the late 30's to the late 60's, would have dispelled any false teachings, and everything that was recorded in the Gospels would have never gained any steam (much like, again, those false Gospels previously mentioned), if they weren't accept as reliable and sacred.

So, I stand by what I said.

[AchillesHeel]

The challenge is irrelevant, and I say this respectfully.

If we're trying to assess the historicity of the documents in question and they're inconsistent with what we know reliable history to be, then the challenge is entirely relevant. If you disagree they're inconsistent then the burden of proof is on you to provide an example showing otherwise. You've simply failed to do this. Simple as that. Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't cut it.

This is all subjective interpretation based on super-skepticism.

There was no interpretation there at all. I was literally just detailing what the accounts say or don't say.

1. X wasn't mentioned in Y.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. Illogical thinking.

A valid argument from silence needs two things:

1. The author was aware of the event in question.
2. Due to the extraordinary nature and importance of the event, the author would most likely have mentioned the event if it did, in fact, occur.

Again, if you disagree with this basic principle then it follows you should just believe everything you read no matter how fantastic it is. You would never be justified in concluding a legend was developing which is absurd. Have fun with that.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to AchillesHeel in post #160]

Just want to pop in and say that was a nice breakdown and graphic AchillesHeel.

Don't get caught in the crossfire.

This gives readers a nice outline of your premise which both explains your reasoning and points out where readers can do their own research.

Doing your own research in this context is just another of saying "confirmation bias".

This is the type of thing I never noticed as a believer

True believers never leave the faith, according to the Bible.

because no one from the pulpit was going to point out and/or apologize for the differences and growth of the stories.

Apologetics needs to be taught in Churches so that every believer is prepared to deal with skeptics.

I just assumed (rather lazily) that it was all just one story told by different people. It was only later that I learned about the Synoptic Problem and really started comparing details between the accounts.

Alleged inconsistencies in the Gospels have been floating around for decades..and so have rational responses to them.

You have been late to the party.

Once you see behind the curtain, it's practically impossible to unsee.

What you will see is people who've once called themselves "Christians" and were looking to leave the faith, stumble across skeptical content and therefore have their leaving of the faith justified.

And what you will also see is rational, apologetic responses to such content which has believers like me, and my faith, strengthened.

All depends on which side of the coin you're on.

Your interlocutor, of course, doesn't want readers noticing these things and forming their own opinions about these facts.

Readers, read whatever you want and go where ever your heart leads you.

How about that?

All they have on offer seems to be opinion

Opinions.

derogatory comments ("The fact that you find this explanation so far-fetched, is disgusting" and other similar barbs)

I said what I said.

, and nothing of substance for readers to go fact check themselves.

Check the Bible..for yourselves.

I think most readers will see who has the more compelling argument.

Mines.

[SiNcE_1985]

If we're trying to assess the historicity of the documents in question and they're inconsistent with what we know reliable history to be, then the challenge is entirely relevant.

By "inconsistent", you mean "contradicts".

I've already explained what a true contradictions entails, which is not what we have with the documents, according to what I see.

So, I've done my part.

Next..

If you disagree they're inconsistent then the burden of proof is on you to provide an example showing otherwise. You've simply failed to do this. Simple as that. Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't cut it.

This is disingenuous.

I've provided more than "nuh-uh", and you should know this based on the amount of my posts that you've been ignoring, and selective-quoting.

There was no interpretation there at all. I was literally just detailing what the accounts say or don't say.

Nonsense. With the detailing came the interpretation.

A valid argument from silence needs two things:

1. The author was aware of the event in question.
2. Due to the extraordinary nature and importance of the event, the author would most likely have mentioned the event if it did, in fact, occur.

Again, if you disagree with this basic principle then it follows you should just believe everything you read no matter how fantastic it is. You would never be justified in concluding a legend was developing which is absurd. Have fun with that.

If I have reasons to believe it, Ill believe it.

If I don't, I won't.

Plain and simple.
.....

It's obvious you've got nothing else of substance here, but I wanna thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, because it made me a better Christian Apologist.

Unless you got something else of substance, you can have the last word.

[AchillesHeel]

By "inconsistent", you mean "contradicts".

No, I meant reliable eyewitness testimony is largely consistent in details. In contrast, the gospel resurrection narratives tell totally different stories of what took place! Who did Jesus appear to, how, where and in what order? Each one says something different happened. That's what I mean by inconsistent.

I've already explained what a true contradictions entails, which is not what we have with the documents, according to what I see.

Here are some actual contradictions:

When did the women buy/prepare the spices? Mark 16:1 says they bought them "when the Sabbath was over" while Luke 23:54-56 and Lk. 24:1 say this:

"It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. 24:1 - On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."

When did the Sanhedrin trial take place?

Mk. 14:17 says "when evening came" then narrates his arrest and trial occurring the same night.

Luke 22:66 says it happened "when day came" which means it occurred the day after Mark said.

The initial appearance to the women (including Mary) in Matthew happens before they reach any disciples whereas in John, Jesus doesn't appear to Mary until after she runs and tells Peter and the other disciple what happened. This is an explicit contradiction as you cannot have the initial appearance to Mary before telling any disciples as well an initial appearance to Mary afterwards. It can only be one or the other.

I've provided more than "nuh-uh", and you should know this based on the amount of my posts that you've been ignoring, and selective-quoting.

Selective quoting? Kind of like how you totally ignored the challenge and are not acting in good faith?

Nonsense. With the detailing came the interpretation.

Quote it then. Where is the "subjective interpretation" here?

Why does the only firsthand account just mention visions and none of the amazing stuff from the later third person anonymous stories? Why would Mark leave out the immediate appearance to the women after they left the tomb? Why would Mark and Matthew not refer to an appearance in Jerusalem? Why would the disciples in Mt. 28:17 doubt the appearance in Galilee when they were already "overjoyed" in seeing him alive the same night of the resurrection as Jn. 20:19-20 says and then again a week later in the same place? Why would Luke erase all the mentions of an appearance in Galilee? Why does none of the vanishing/teleporting and bodily inspection stuff take place until the latest two accounts?

The only thing I see that can plausibly be asserted to be interpretation is that Luke erased the Galilean appearance. The reason I said that is because we know Luke used and copied Mark's gospel. This is called "Markan Priority." So he had a copy of Mark in front of him and at the exact same part of the story has the angels say something entirely different than what's found in Mark and Matthew. This is a deliberate alteration. Further supporting the hypothesis that Luke intentionally rewrote the story is that he also removes the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from the prediction of Peter's denial - Mk. 14:28 cf. Mt. 26:32. The phrase "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee” has been omitted from Luke 22:31-34, 60-62. Luke is simply not telling the truth here. He is not providing a "carefully investigated" and "orderly account" as he says in his prologue. He's changing the story to suit his own purposes and this is demonstrable in this example.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to AchillesHeel in post #160]

Just want to pop in and say that was a nice breakdown and graphic AchillesHeel.

Don't get caught in the crossfire.

What crossfire. Was that a threat?

This gives readers a nice outline of your premise which both explains your reasoning and points out where readers can do their own research.

Doing your own research in this context is just another of saying "confirmation bias".

Huh?

How is readers taking what was said and checking if for themselves 'confirmation bias'? Do you just plop down what sounds like a good counter argument in the hopes no one notices?

OP lays out argument and points to data from the Bible. Readers are free (in fact encouraged) to go check themselves. The only bias I see so far is you letting your faith position override what the data appears to say.

This is the type of thing I never noticed as a believer

True believers never leave the faith, according to the Bible.

Right.... That's what current believers tell themselves so it doesn't all fall apart on them.

By the way, just because "it's in the Bible" has no relevance on whether that thing is true. People 'truly believe' all sorts of things until they are convinced otherwise. Christian faith is no different. Feel free to continue using that argument (which by the way is just a poor man's ad hominem). I love it when my interlocutor starts focusing on me rather than the actual argument. Readers no doubt see what's happening.

because no one from the pulpit was going to point out and/or apologize for the differences and growth of the stories.

Apologetics needs to be taught in Churches so that every believer is prepared to deal with skeptics.

No doubt that apologetics are required to explain away all the problems to current believers. It's a fine line for those making sermons between pointing out the flaws and then quickly trying to paper over them. The problem with doing that (and likely why I never saw it) is that they are probably doing more harm than good. Apologetics are designed to deal with people who start seeing the problems. No point bringing up the problems first, but maybe some churches do this and hope for the best.

I just assumed (rather lazily) that it was all just one story told by different people. It was only later that I learned about the Synoptic Problem and really started comparing details between the accounts.

Alleged inconsistencies in the Gospels have been floating around for decades..and so have rational responses to them.

You have been late to the party.

Your response belies the fact you don't know what the Synoptic Problem is. Readers who care are already looking into what I'm talking about if they don't already know. So, sorry, cat is out the bag and it's got nothing to do with 'alleged inconsistencies'.

Once you see behind the curtain, it's practically impossible to unsee.

What you will see is people who've once called themselves "Christians" and were looking to leave the faith, stumble across skeptical content and therefore have their leaving of the faith justified.

Readers, note that our interlocutor here is now claiming to be a mind reader. What other magic do they possess?

I was never looking to 'leave the faith', but I realize this is a comforting argument to those still in the faith. They don't want to believe that there are insurmountable problems and thus blame the people who leave rather than blame the real problem. Please continue to shout this argument from the rooftop because it is easily refuted and obviously bogus and certainly doesn't help your position.

And what you will also see is rational, apologetic responses to such content which has believers like me, and my faith, strengthened.

Maybe you could present some of this so I and readers could check it out? Haven't seen any of this yet.

Your interlocutor, of course, doesn't want readers noticing these things and forming their own opinions about these facts.

Readers, read whatever you want and go where ever your heart leads you.

How about that?

I would prefer facts lead them, but that's a start.

[SiNcE_1985]

What crossfire. Was that a threat?

No.

Huh?

How is readers taking what was said and checking if for themselves 'confirmation bias'? Do you just plop down what sounds like a good counter argument in the hopes no one notices?

Readers come here with presuppositions, and will only research stuff that confirms those presuppositions.

We are all guilty of it, to a certain extent; some more than others.

OP lays out argument and points to data from the Bible. Readers are free (in fact encouraged) to go check themselves. The only bias I see so far is you letting your faith position override what the data appears to say.

OP has his data supporting him, and I have my data supporting me.

Right.... That's what current believers tell themselves so it doesn't all fall apart on them.

That's what the Bible says.

By the way, just because "it's in the Bible" has no relevance on whether that thing is true. People 'truly believe' all sorts of things until they are convinced otherwise. Christian faith is no different. Feel free to continue using that argument (which by the way is just a poor man's ad hominem). I love it when my interlocutor starts focusing on me rather than the actual argument. Readers no doubt see what's happening.

Understood.

No doubt that apologetics are required to explain away all the problems to current believers. It's a fine line for those making sermons between pointing out the flaws and then quickly trying to paper over them. The problem with doing that (and likely why I never saw it) is that they are probably doing more harm than good. Apologetics are designed to deal with people who start seeing the problems. No point bringing up the problems first, but maybe some churches do this and hope for the best.

Opinions.

Your response belies the fact you don't know what the Synoptic Problem is.

I know exactly what the Synoptic Problem is...and you can check my back & forth with Transponder which supports my knowledge on that subject.

Readers who care are already looking into what I'm talking about if they don't already know. So, sorry, cat is out the bag and it's got nothing to do with 'alleged inconsistencies'.

I know, it is the exact opposite

Synoptic Problem: "Matt, Mark, Luke are too similar".

Inconsistency Allegations: "Matt, Mark, Luke are too different".

So, which is it?

Same question posed to Transponder.

Readers, note that our interlocutor here is now claiming to be a mind reader. What other magic do they possess?

I was never looking to 'leave the faith', but I realize this is a comforting argument to those still in the faith. They don't want to believe that there are insurmountable problems and thus blame the people who leave rather than blame the real problem. Please continue to shout this argument from the rooftop because it is easily refuted and obviously bogus and certainly doesn't help your position.

What I said here refers to those of whom it applies to.

Maybe you could present some of this so I and readers could check it out? Haven't seen any of this yet.

Sometimes, people don't see things because they do not wish to see them.

I would prefer facts lead them, but that's a start.

So would I. But what are/aren't the facts...are points of contention.

[benchwarmer]

Your response belies the fact you don't know what the Synoptic Problem is.

I know exactly what the Synoptic Problem is...and you can check my back & forth with Transponder which supports my knowledge on that subject.

Readers who care are already looking into what I'm talking about if they don't already know. So, sorry, cat is out the bag and it's got nothing to do with 'alleged inconsistencies'.

I know, it is the exact opposite

Synoptic Problem: "Matt, Mark, Luke are too similar".

If by 'too similar' you mean 'plagiarized', then yes.

We expect them to be quite similar in detail. We don't expect them to have copied word for word Greek among them.

[Difflugia]

Synoptic Problem: "Matt, Mark, Luke are too similar".

That's not the Synoptic Problem. It's obvious that the Synoptics share some form of literary dependence. The Synoptic Problem lay in determining the form and direction of that dependence.

Inconsistency Allegations: "Matt, Mark, Luke are too different".

They're different. Whether or not they're "too different" is mostly meaningful to dogmatic inerrantists. The relevant question to scholars is who made specific changes and why.