other doctrines

[pshun2404]

The synoptic problem is real and demands a solution. You can't just hand-wave it away.

Only a problem for those who think the Apostles and the early church were full of liars and hoaxters who were not telling the truth.

Matthew first...Mark second and used Peter's testimony and probably Matthew...Luke as an accurate History...John last and they all were who they claimed to be and this is what was passed on from the beginning and all this is written testimony like any other historical documentation.

Since this is the history let the accuser prove their case...

If it were any other matter or personage referred to in history this alone would be sufficient evidence, even discounting those few archaeological confirmations and historical investigation by people like Ramsey. This alone, considering the closeness to the source (this is where documentary testimony is assessed), is already more than we have for Alexander the Great (for example), but none of these children of Belial doubt his reality or the reality of his deeds.

In His love

Paul

 

[ebia]

Daniel isn't fraudulent. Continuing to portray my statement as saying such is at best highly disingenuous.

Really? You said it was fiction..

fiction is not fraud.

One either believes the OT IS the word of God (John 17:17) or not...

Daniel is God-breathed scripture.

 

[ebia]

The synoptic problem is real and demands a solution. You can't just hand-wave it away.

Only a problem for those who think the Apostles and the early church were full of liars and hoaxters who were not telling the truth.

It's an historical problem that demands explanation - the word for word overlap between them is beyond coincidence. How did it happen.

 

[pshun2404]

fiction is not fraud.

It is if one claims it is the true factual presentation of what it claims when it is not and expects people to accept it as truly historical and prophetic fact from the time written and by the author implied if it is not.

Paul

 

[ebia]

fiction is not fraud.

It is if one claims it is the true factual presentation of what it claims when it is not and expects people to accept it as truly historical and prophetic fact from the time written and by the author implied if it is not.

Paul

It's original audience would know that it's not claiming to be historical. Just as someone reading a modern historical fiction knows that.

 

[pshun2404]

It's an historical problem that demands explanation - the word for word overlap between them is beyond coincidence. How did it happen.

Mark and Luke had the extant Hebrew/Aramiac Matthew to refer to, and Luke additionally had Mark's, and both Mark and Luke had person to person communications with alive at the time Apostles who were eye-witnesses to many of these things (plus the precise 'word for word's' are very few, most are slightly different wordings saying the same thing...sometimes because they were the same teaching taught by christ to different groups in different places...for example see the Matt/Luke "sermon on the Mount" argument...if one just reads the text it is apparent Luke's is on the plain and to a different group, I assume at some other time...important teachings are repeated to different groups sometimes with different applications). It was also not uncommon for the disciples of Rabbis to memorize (word for word) and even write down (as Matthew could) the exact words of their teachers stories and instructions. You asked...

Paul