Who Wrote The Gospels?

[headinhands]

"Matthew contains 606 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke."

A good diagram here

Capsium: I'm not sure we have a higher standard of behaviour, globally. There is still plenty of oppression and war going on.

We still expect better from a deity than committing serial genocide, which is why so much effort is put into spinning the evidence to present him as benevolent and interested in being the author of miraculous cures.

Capsium: I asked you a question, did you consider your statement a straw man?Then I replied to your question regarding what I thought.

So you did not identify a strawman in my statement then?

Capsium: The reason they believe they were healed by Faith was because the doctors did not or could not offer any effective treatment.

Links to the evidence, please?

CasualCobra where did I talk of evidence? Belief does not require conclusive evidence, with conclusive evidence, that belief becomes knowledge.

There is evidence, but it is of the anecdotal sort, and thus inconclusive.

Capsium: There is evidence, but it is of the anecdotal sort, and thus inconclusive.

It's all just assertion then. Easily dismissed.

Your choice Casual.

And I choose reality.

I believe Truth exists beyond human realisation of it.

Me too. Which is why we have scientists researching stuff so that we can understand things we don't yet know. None of it, so far, stretches as far as an undetectable ethereal being that has only chose to reveal himself to a superstitious primitive desert tribe which recorded his will using ambiguous language that left much to interpretation.

You know I find myself saying this every now and then. Evidence doesn't always have to mean hard evidence as in DNA samples and CCTV. In some contexts it just means "a reason to think something".

Because if you don't any reason at all to think something than it makes no sense to think it.

For example. I believe my friend will pay me back that money he borrowed. I don't have evidence for this that will stand up in court, but of course I have reason to think so. He has always done so before and it basically honest etc.

So not hard evidence, but I do have evidence.

But if I said I've never actually met my friend and I only have my faith to say he exists, only faith to say he he would be my friend if he did exist, only faith to say he would borrow money from me and only faith to say that he would pay it back, then that is worse than having no hard evidence. That's not having a reason to think it at all.

Didn't someone advise against building a house on sand?

I have evidence enough for me. I want God in my life and I believe on Christ. Millions of others do too. There is a long tradition of Christianity.

No one can force you to believe Back but we are actually allowed to have Christian beliefs, you know...no matter what you think about houses and sand...

millions of others do too. There is a long tradition for Christianity

Yeah like other religions.

Number of followers and longevity of belief system says zero about how real it is. Do you believe in every belief system that has been around for a long time? (Hinduism is the the oldest organised religion) Druids were around long before that.

head how do you know that?

Know what caps?

Your statement that Hinduism is the oldest organised religion and that Druids were around long before that.

Although however people have determined the age of these beliefs it does not really matter to me.

The OT in Genesis talks of the beginning of time.

Whether it is believed the account is allegorical and symbolic or more factual, even if it was not written until later, it refers to the beginning of time. The account could draw from oral traditions or Moses could have received it later by Divine Revelation, it does not really matter to me, Genesis concerns the beginning of time and God, who was there at the beginning.

I remember reading of the similarities between creation accounts from other religions which is suggestive of an original Truth to me.

Many archeologists/anthropologists have established the age of Hinduism placing it substantially earlier than the writings used for the OT.

Similarities in creation myths are down to geography, countries that rubbed shoulders borrowed many Ideas and we can see this in other areas not just creation myths. Similarly separate continents have some very different myths that have similarities with neighbouring countries.

Some cool creation myths

You're right that it shouldn't matter caps, like I mentioned earlier, how long a belief has been in existence for says absolutely nothing about how true it is.

And how popular a belief is doesn't make it any more true.

head Cobra I agree Truth of a belief is not dependent on popularity of that belief or on how long the belief has existed for.

The age of ancient writings is not conclusive evidence for their validity, the contents could have existed as an earlier oral tradition.

Differences in creation accounts, differing between continents is not conclusively reflective of the natural surroundings either. It could suggest that as people separate it allows for a different / separate evolution in oral tradition, as some oral traditions allow for ad lib.

As I said earlier we choose what we want to believe.

My main reason for referring to popularity and tradition is that Christian belief widely exists, that is it is not something I have made up, many people find validity in in.

Yes many people do, and that highlights one of the more insidious aspects of religion- the proselytising and evangelical nature of faith. The use of missionaries to convert and spread the word- whether those indiginous people need or want it.

The "good news" is spread by zealous pushers peddling a dangerous emotional message.

And if an account is considered allegorical, differences in the details of the account, do not matter. What matters is the underlying message of the account, the details used to convey the message are selected in terms if how powerfully they communicate that message to an audience.

atthestroke how do you consider yourself different to those zealots?

You actively reject Christian beliefs, passionately speaking out against them, even though I and many others maintain they make us happy.

You regard your practice of witchcraft superior to the practice of Christianity and claim from your perspective there is no good and evil. Here:

capsium you know little of witchcraft. THis idea of "do know harm" is a christian perspective. Good and evil, the duality is your perspective, not mine.

So how can you suggest Christianity is a dangerous emotional message? if there is no evil, bad, dangerous....harmful? If the concept of 'do no harm' does not exist according to your belief system?

Not something that I have made up but you have no reason to think someone else didn't make it up though. That's the problem.

Well I presume you consider witchcraft superior, atthestroke, since you have chosen it and have said you reject external deity.