Anunnaki

And the troll has finally emerged from it`s cave for all to see.

Goodluck getting anyone to listen to your ranting now Radorth (not that anyone ever did).

Yuri Kuchinsky

Not me, that's for sure!

I think, by now, I've read more than enough of this silly and self-contradictory pap, as produced by these dreary "Synoptic specialists". IMO, Goodacre's idea that Luke was secondary to Mk and Mt is completely untenable. The sheer amount of Luke's Special Material, alone, proves that its authors were using all sorts of other sources.

Here, for example, is Luke's Special Material for parables alone,

Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35)
Good father (Lk 11:5-8)
Wealthy farmer (Lk 12:16-20)
Unfruitful fig tree (Lk 13:6-9)
Places at table (Lk 14:7-11)
Tower builder (Lk 14:28-30)
King contemplating war (Lk 14:31-32)
Lost coin (Lk 15:8-10)
Lost son (Lk 15:11-32)
Dishonest steward (Lk 16:1-7)
Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31)
Dutiful servant (Lk 17:7-10)
Persistent widow (Lk 18:2-5)
Pharisee and tax collector (Lk 18:10-14)

So where did the authors of Luke get all this stuff? Dreamed it all up?

So I say that Goodacre's theories are not worth the paper on which they are written.

<strong> And I would describe him as dishonest.

Cheers,

Yuri.

NOGO

No doubt that you love your self-assigned role of the victim. How about answering the question and showing us some truth. You keep saying how easy it has gotten on your side. Here is a challenge for you. Tell me that Matthew and john's stories of the resurrection are both TRUE and you are going to rationally tells us how that can be.

I want to believe, help my unbelief!

Radorth:
I'm here mostly for the fun of satirizing what passes for "free-thinking" here Nogo.

Frankly, I do not believe it. You have a "holier than thou" attitude and you are here to "self masterbate", to convince yourself that you are so much better than all of us, that you alone have all the truth and nothing will ever change your mind.

Actually it isn't your fault you have given yourself a role model of a man who went around telling people that he was from above and they were of the devil and unless they accepted everything he said they would be damned.

Looking at your post one can see where it all comes from.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Family Man

Coming from someone who believes in a religion that has generated so many splinter groups because they can't agree on their own theology, that's funny.

I'd say Radoth's performance on this thread pretty much buries him as someone to treat seriously.

Radorth

(From the man whose idea of perfomance is to denigrate people personally. Hopefully it does not go unnoticed).

I think it's a marvel what we do agree on- all but the fringers agree on the Nicene Creed. Then there is the more recent "Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." I'll post the URL if anyone would like to read it. (What? No hands shooting up? Heh heh) In the 80's in CA, there was a tremendous visitation in both Protestant and Catholic churches, and I spent much time worshipping with Catholics. You are much oversimplifying the case FM.

Love Rad

NOGO

I am glad that you used the word "free-thinking".
It show that you do understand what free-thinking is. We do not need nor seek to agree on anything. We are free-thinkers.

You on the other hand need to believe everything your organization teaches.

I happen to have read Doherty's book. Doherty never stated that all of GJohn was based on GMark.
You are simply being dishonest in mentioning this in order to avoid answering my question.

Will you answer my question or not?

You who talk about truth, let's talk about the truth. I believe that you are afraid of the truth. You avoid it as best you can.

NOGO

I think that you can verify it quite easily. Take all of Matthew's account, add John's account, and then add anything that you want to make it into a credible story.

You will very quickly realize that it can't be done because the stories are so complete different.

My conclusion is that one of these stories (if not both) was fabricated either by the author himself or his sources.

Good luck!

Peter Kirby

NOGO writes: I think that you can verify it quite easily. Take all of Matthew's account, add John's account, and then add anything that you want to make it into a credible story.

Note that if you add anything you want, you will not be able to claim the prize for the Easter Challenge. As I recall, the rules say no stuff you make up on your own.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Hi Peter,

Believers will usually come up with the "what if" scenarios. For example what if Mary Mag went to the tomb twice?

I am giving extra flexibility here allowing additions but no deletions.

So what if Mary Mag went to the tomb twice can you make a reaonable story out of it? I say not.

Of course I will not accept something like "the sun rose twice". There is a limit to how silly you need to get to win this challenge.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Have there been any critical reviews of John W. Wenham's Easter Enigma?

best,
Peter Kirby