This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

the gospels are 4 crossreferencing historical artifacts that say the same thing!

#1MoistenPosted 9/26/2013 3:05:07 PM
how do we explain this? archaeology has backed up MANY events of the bible! if this was anything else it would be historical fact taught in all the classes.
#2Izual_Reborn_Posted 9/26/2013 3:15:10 PM
I thought there were subtle differences between them and a few contradictions as well.
---
Start Weight 101.9kg Start Date July 21
Target Weight 89.9kg Current Weight 94.9kg
#3FlashOfLightPosted 9/26/2013 3:19:17 PM
This is where you contradictionists shoot yourselves in the foot by failing to be consistent.

Which one is it? What's the concensus? Is it that they are all the same? Is it that some match but not all? Is it that they contradict each other? Or is it that any particular combo of them is copied from the other or one of them is exclusive?

Make up your minds.
---
http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/7270/aoa04.jpg
#4darklaoPosted 9/26/2013 3:54:50 PM
how do we explain? archaeology has backed up quite a few events of the bible! if this was anything else it would be taught in some classes as fact.
---
[agitprop]
come and play come and play forget about the movement
#5GBALoserPosted 9/26/2013 3:55:09 PM
I don't think anyone here denies the historicity of Jesus.

What they do say is the Gospels were at best eyewitness accounts and at worst relating versions of an original Jesus story. That Jesus' existence is at least nominally backed up by non-Christian sources further solidifies his existence.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#6DarkContractorPosted 9/26/2013 4:14:35 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
This is where you contradictionists shoot yourselves in the foot by failing to be consistent.

Which one is it? What's the concensus? Is it that they are all the same? Is it that some match but not all? Is it that they contradict each other? Or is it that any particular combo of them is copied from the other or one of them is exclusive?

Make up your minds.


omg lmao is this a real thing?
#7SirThinkALotPosted 9/26/2013 4:16:55 PM
GBALoser posted...
I don't think anyone here denies the historicity of Jesus.

What they do say is the Gospels were at best eyewitness accounts and at worst relating versions of an original Jesus story. That Jesus' existence is at least nominally backed up by non-Christian sources further solidifies his existence.


There are people out there who think that there wasnt a person named Jesus who inspired Christianity and the Gospels at all. Granted most serious historians(regardless of their religious views) think the idea is absurd, but the idea is out there.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#8Nitro378Posted 9/26/2013 4:17:30 PM
GBALoser posted...
That Jesus' existence is at least nominally backed up by non-Christian sources further solidifies his existence.


It really isn't, by anything credible/likely not to have been forged or tampered with.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me
#9DarkContractorPosted 9/26/2013 4:20:25 PM
the theory that the majority of contemporary scholars, both christian and nonchristian, subscribe to is that matthew and luke used mark as a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_source_hypothesis

i think that answers both tc and flash.

also what the hell were you even trying to get at? the existence of an alternative viewpoint means both are wrong? what the hell? Flash how about you quit making random, snobby jabs at 'modernists', as you handwave us by, and actually put forth some argument for once? why exclude the viewpoint of the 'non-contradictionists' from whatever problem a lack of consensus is? you're the one who randomly plucks verses completely out of context all the time, from the KJV none the less which large and by far is one of the worst translations and has an assload of textual variants.
#10DarkContractorPosted 9/26/2013 4:22:49 PM
Nitro378 posted...
GBALoser posted...
That Jesus' existence is at least nominally backed up by non-Christian sources further solidifies his existence.


It really isn't, by anything credible/likely not to have been forged or tampered with.


yeah, people made up a crucified, baptized messiah to increase their credibility, clearly. thats the way to go convincing people youre the Son of God. Do a sin washing ritual and then roll over and die.