stephan huller

DCH

I have long suspected something is fishy about these apologists. Somethings not kosher. I wouldn't have said anything but since you brought it up ...

aa5874

I am know your diversion tactics. I have been here for YEARS. I have seen it all.

Now, You suggest that the Synoptics match because they believe they were writing history well I will show that you are UTTERLY wrong.

There are stories copied virtually word-for-word in the Synoptics that are TOTAL FICTION not history.

Examine the Baptism event of Jesus in the Synoptics and it will be noticed that the Holy Ghost BIRD and the Talking HEAVEN are TOTAL FICTION yet the stories MATCH.

They do NOT match because it is History.

They match simply because they appeared to have been merely copied.

Matthew 3.17Mark 1 Luke 3:22 - Word for word FICTION stories are in the Synoptics. It is absurd to suggest word for word copying in the Synoptics is directly related to historical events.

TedM

Why were they copied aa? If they were fictional stories why did at least 2 other authors think they were important enough to match the stories word for word? Jesus didn't need JTB. There was no wide expectation of a person announcing the coming of the Messiah.

We even have evidence that the JTB followers hadn't known Jesus (see Acts--Josephus also shows no connection)--which would have been embarrassing to the early Christian writers. It would have been easier for the authors to just not even include the JTB account. Why did Luke and Matthew retain a connection that was arguably disputed by the JTB followers? And why did gJohn ALSO keep the baptism story, though not matching word for word?

Don't you see that these authors thought they were writing about something that really happened?

Toto

Copying word for word is not necessarily an indication that Matt and Luke thought that Mark was historical. Historians do not feel the need to copy sources verbatim - only religious works do that.

You have still not explained why, if these sources were regarded as historical, Matt and Luke changed some of Mark's details for purposes of their own ideology. This is not how historians treat their sources.

TedM

First of all, who said you have to be a historian to write history? I write history all the time and I am not a historian. 'History' in this context is simply the portrayal of events believed to have been true.

To answer your question about changing some of the details for purposes of their own ideology--I would need to see an example. If we take the JTB story, it is clear that they had a problem with the account, and changed it to match their theology, but it is not clear that they believed they were 'inventing' instead of correcting history. But of interest to me is the parts they don't change: Is it because they like the religous implications, or because they believed them to have occurred?

You seem to have this false dichotomy requiring an account of history to not be written by someone of faith who was capable of creating false history within real history.

aa5874

Are so NAIVE that you don't understand why people REPEAT FALSE claims?

Do you understand that they may have been DECEIVERS?

READ your BIBLE.

Mt 24:4 - Have you been DECEIVED because the Synoptics match?

You think the authors of the Synoptics BELIEVED their own stories?

"Take heed that no man DECEIVE you".

Toto

OK - forget historians. When people relate what happened, they typically put it into their own words, without thinking that they need to repeat things verbatim.
You've been in this for a while. Did Jesus speak in parables because he didn't want people to understand, or because he did? What happened on Easter morning?

Since they felt free to change what didn't match their theology, I think you have your answer. They kept what fit that theology.

No - I challenge your ability to extract that true history from the false.

TedM

That's just stupid aa. I'm done with you yet again...You never answer a question directly when it is asked directly for the 4th time after you have averted a direct answer.

TedM

Do you know of a single example of copied fiction that comes close to what we have in the synoptics? I don't. If you want to make stuff up, you make it up--you don't copy someone else in large measure.

It fails the smell test Toto, pure and simple.

aa5874

I am trying to help you to AVOID DECEPTION.

You see fully MATCHED word-for-word FICTION in the Synoptics and cannot appreciate that it is possible that the authors were attempting to DECEIVE their audience.

The fact that ALL the Synoptic authors claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead when such a claim is blatantly false suggests that the authors may have WANTED to DECEIVE their audience.

Examine the resurrection, a most blatant fictitious event, however it is MATCHED word-for-word in the Synoptics and 2000 year later people still don't believe they have been DECEIVED.

Matched word-for-word FICTION may be a fundamental sign of Deception.

The Synoptic is RIDDLED with signs of Deception.