Anti-anti-theist

From here:

The Incompatibility of Bible Contradictions and Fiction
Atheists, or critics of the Bible and primarily the Gospel accounts, really love to make the following claims, usually simultaneously:


The Gospels contain contradictions, and

The Gospels are fictitious.
In this essay, I aim to demonstrate that both of these cannot simultaneously be true, for they are in contradiction to the other. Let's address the first.

<snip - please consult the link>

Speaking of Tekton...

"You might be a fundamentalist atheist if when a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation." - J.P. Holding

dog-on

The Gospels are original what?

dog-on

I was watching a movie with a car chase where in one scene, the car careens off of a guard rail on the driver's side.

In the next scene, the same car still has it's showroom finish on the driver's side.

So... :wave:

shirley knott

[QUOTE=Anti-anti-theist;4977323]
...
Let's put all of this in argument form.

True.

Also true.

True regardless of whether they are fictional or not. Non sequitor.

Absurd on the face of it. Else we could not explain the existence of plagiarism lawsuits. Counter-example: Gone With the Wind, the screenplay for Gone With the Wind, and The Wind Done Gone [or whatever it was called]. ALL have similarities, NONE were written simultaneously with the others.

Unsupported assertion, and complete irrelevency.

Absurd and unsupportable. Else there would be no cases of collaborative lying.

Aburd and unsupportable, else all multi-author works would be inerrant.

Unsupported by the premises.

Irrelevent. ALL writing is based on actual experiences, even writings about impossible experiences. Consult any work of psychopathology or any work on the basics of phenomenological philosophy. Or any number of other sources, included Freud.

Unsupported by the premises and irrelevent in the extreme.

So, not much to your "argument", is there?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Cege

How about feeding the four thousand, found in both gMatthew and gMark? And walking on water? And healing Peter's mother-in-law? And on and on.

You've read the gospels but conclude that the feeding of the 5 thousand is the only miracle perfomed by Jesus that is found in all 4 gospels?? 'Fraid your arguments fail to be convincing in the least since you don't know your subject matter a'tall.

ughaibu

Does this site have an award for worst argument?

Jack the Bodiless

The author has heard of "Markan priority", but hasn't heard of the Synoptic Problem?

In a nutshell: "Matthew" and "Luke" are both based on Mark (and another shared source, "Q", inferred from stuff they both contain that isn't in Mark).

But "Matthew" and "Luke" are independent from each other.

That's why, when they invent details that aren't in Mark, some of those details (the ones that weren't in "Q") contradict.

And John is different again. However, that doesn't make it entirely independent: obviously, "Mark" and "John" both had access to the same basic story. But that doesn't make the original story true.

Lucretius

I am currently reading Heracles by Euripides (in translation)and using the same "logic" as shown in the OP I can now prove that Heracles and the Greek Pantheon actually existed .
Heracles appears in 3 plays by Euripides, Alcestis ,Heracles,and Children of Heracles
In addition Heracles appears in 4 other plays by Sophocles(Women of Trachis & Philocetes). and Aristophanes (Birds & Frogs) .

There are some inconsistences and similarities in these plays,therefore

Clivedurdle

But Hercules does exist! Who let Atlas off for a bit? Jeanette Winterson has written about it and I have her book Weight and anyone can ask her directly!

reniaa

BUt by your own arguements aren't these just assumed assertians with no valid prove to back them up.

This is just somebodies baseless viewpoint of how in some way the 4 independent sources could have come from one, but there is no factual prove of this at all! and the similarities of the stories which could equally be exactly what they appear to be just 4 peoples different account of an actual event they either saw themselves or got from an eyewitness.

Personally i prefer the simpler view because the way you describe it is very complex but ultimately self-defeating arguement without prove.

BTW anti-anti-thiest i love your original statement which just shows how much athiest will tie themselves up in knots to disprove something to the point of ridiculous.