Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Logic dictates that at best three are wrong and one is right. At worst, all are wrong.
One said it was an angel.
Another said it was two angels.
the third said it was a man
the forth said it was two men.
THESE ALL CAN'T BE TRUE.
I've already brought in a link that logically explains the "one and two" alleged discrepancies . . .
You've brought in all manner of nonsense over the course of the thread, DOC, and none of it has explained anything logically.
Perhaps you'll either grace us with a link to this 'explanation', just as you are so fond of demanding of others, or even better, you'll do as you were asked and provide YOUR explanation for these ACTUAL discrepancies.
. . . and regarding angels:
From the article: What does the Bible teach about angels?
Are you for real???
"When angels do appear, they generally appear in the form of men {Thus names like Gabriel and Michael}. In Genesis 18, Abraham welcomed three angelic guests who appeared at first to be nothing more than some travellers. In the following chapter, two angels went to Sodom where they were assumed to be simply a pair of human visitors."
DOC, the Old Testament no more serves an authoritative source for the information contained within in the New Testament than The Hobbit points to the veracity of The Lord of the Rings.
Given the huge number of times this incredibly simple idea has been explained to you, it's either ingenuous or wilfully ignorant of you to pretend to not understand it.
And this site states angels are mentioned 108 times in the OT and 165 times in the NT:
<snip>
So bloody what, DOC? Does the number of times that wizards are mentioned in the various Harry Potter books mean that wizards exist?
If I write 'Leprechaun' 1000 times on a peice of paper will that somehow make them real?
Your 'argument' here is childish prattle, DOC, but as hard as it might be to believe, it's about to get even worse.
And the above alleged discrepancies just proves without a doubt the 4 Gospels are overall independent accounts.
This one short, grammatically-challenged sentence contains more concentrated stupidity than I would have thought could possibly be jammed in to such a small space.
Lets' look at it bit by bit.
Alleged discrepancies?
These are the actual words from YOUR Bible. The book that YOU are claiming contains absolute truth.
Those words in red aren't allegations, DOC. They're right there for everyone to see. They've been there in every Bible that has ever been printed.
They are DIFFERENT WORDS. They are DISCREPANCIES. You are describing God's Holy Word as ALLEGATIONS.
Are you sure that's what you meant to do?
Matthew 28:2-5
Mark 16:5
Luke 24:4
John 20:11,12
2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
Mark 16:5
And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
Luke 24:4
And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
John 20:11,12
11But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. 12And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Those words in red aren't allegations, DOC. They're right there for everyone to see. They've been there in every Bible that has ever been printed.
They are DIFFERENT WORDS. They are DISCREPANCIES. You are describing God's Holy Word as ALLEGATIONS.
Are you sure that's what you meant to do?
Proves?
my boldingFirst of all I want to know why he is using the word proof in this thread. This thread is about evidence not proof. Currently there is no proof for Christianity but there is plenty of evidence. This is similar to abiogenesis (the life from non-life theory), there is some evidence but no proof.
ETA But the bible does say without faith it is impossible to please God, so it would seem God doesn't want us to have definite proof regarding religion.
Holy Contradiction, Batman!
Alleged discrepancies just proves without a doubt?
What a stupid thing to claim, DOC. Within one phrase you refer to EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS as both ALLEGATIONS and as PROOF BEYOND DOUBT.
Perhaps you can't see the complete and utter failure in doing this, but please be assured, you'd be totally alone in this bit of selective blindness.
Perhaps you can't see the complete and utter failure in doing this, but please be assured, you'd be totally alone in this bit of selective blindness.
Independent accounts?
Well go on!!!
It's kind of the whole point (for the purpose of this particular question) that these accounts are 'independent'. The question you're being asked is why do these different accounts of what you claim as the single most important event in history contain DISCREPANCIES.
The question remains unanswered, DOC, and that's out there for all to see.
It's kind of the whole point (for the purpose of this particular question) that these accounts are 'independent'. The question you're being asked is why do these different accounts of what you claim as the single most important event in history contain DISCREPANCIES.
The question remains unanswered, DOC, and that's out there for all to see.
