Why can't atheists debunk the undesigned coincidences between the gospels?
'cept they can
>>18486913Prove it, then. Why does the feeding of 5k contain coincidences that explain stuff left out or correspond well in others?
>>18486903Why do they need to?
>>18486903>WHY DON'T YOU WANNA ANALYZE MY JEWISH FAIRYTALESjust don't wanna :^)
>>18486903Can you debunk the fact that angels descended from the heavens to fight alongside with the Prophet Muhammad?
>>18486956Less historical basis then resurrection
>>18486903Every single Gospel is a redaction of Mark, and the Gospels before them. Ipso facto, they all depend on Mark and their preceding Gospels. Matthew depends on Mark, Luke depends on Matthew, and so on.
>>18487068Yet they fill each other's details out, especially when it comes to feeding 5k.
>>18486903Can you debunk the fact that the gospels all contradict each other. You believe that all of them are historical documents written by eyewitnesses, so tell me why they contradict each other?>>18486956Never happened, Islam is schizophrenia.
>>18486949>>18486941No debunk?>>18487076Contradictions literally make the case stronger, because when there's a car collision, people will not remember the same thing. Some people remember the driver while others the color of the car.
>>18486903Yo that's real neat but did you know that the bible claims that Jews were enslaved in Egypt and that camels were being used in the Levant prior to 3000 years ago, even though both of those things aren't true?
>>18487081>You got trolled by Satan.
>>18486903Can you debunk embarassing my beloved prophet Isa infront of Allah? Because you worshipped him as a God, reading the letters of paul and the gospels influenced by the soteriology of paul?
Marcion was first and y'all are too semitic to get over this.
>>18487077>Contradictions literally make the case strongerNo, they quite literally do not and only prove that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses but instead other authors who got their information from word of mouth.
>>18487100So why is the account of feeding 5k in all the gospels, and they even have coincidental details the others don't?
>hey I am op why can't [thing] do [thing] even if I didn't provide an iota of proof for what I am talking aboutchristfag bros not like this....
>undesignedYour stupid book was compiled by Irenaeus, the only thing "undesigned" about it was how easy it would manipulate morons like you.
>>18487110>GJohn has Jesus ask Philip to find more bread. >GMatthew mentions that Philip is from Bethesda.>GJohn tells us the feeding takes place in Bethesda. So? What should we make of that?
>>18487113See:>>18487115It's a historical book
>>18487115that a feeding near bethesda took place and christfags appropriated it and you're using it to mask all the other contradictions because you're bored and had nothing better to do there you go, was that so hard>>18487119yes but that's cope because Irenaeus THE GREAT compiled it~
>>18487070Yeah, because the others were all based on Mark which was written first.
>>18487066actually true and based fact
>>18487132Mark didn't mention Bethesda, and John didn't base his gospel on Mark or Matthew.
>>18487128Name the contradictions.>inb4 nativity and escape to egypt vs templeLiterally no contradiction, they went to the temple and after that escaped.
>>18487181>>18487115Correction: It was Luke not Matthew
>>18487077>No debunk?You haven't given me a reason why I need to debunk it.
>>18487183Matthew implies Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem; Luke states they lived in Nazareth and traveled for a census.Matthew records the family fleeing to Egypt; Luke omits Egypt and states they returned directly to Nazareth.Matthew 1 and Luke 3 list entirely different ancestral lineages for Joseph.The Synoptics place the Temple Cleansing at the end of Jesus's ministry; John places it at the very beginning.The Synoptics state Jesus died on Passover; John states he died on the Day of Preparation before Passover.Mark says Jairus' daughter was dying when Jairus asked for help; Matthew says she was already dead.Luke says the centurion sent messengers; Matthew says the centurion came in person.John names Mary Magdalene alone; Matthew, Mark, and Luke include various groups of multiple women.Matthew and Mark mention one angel at the tomb; Luke and John describe two.Matthew states Jesus first appeared to the women on a path; John states he first appeared to Mary Magdalene alone at the tomb.Matthew and Mark have Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee; Luke states he met them in Jerusalem and ordered them not to leave the city.
>>18486903Why would they have to? Obviously the gospels all follow the same rough narrative and have to meet the same landmark events. And the synoptics obviously draw from eachother, or a previous tradition.
>>18487207Technically, the short ending of Mark doesn't describe anything else after the Women return from the tomb, they do not tell anyone and he is never shown resurrected, giving great comissions, etc. So you could add that.
>>18487207Contradictions just prove that these events happened, see: Gary Habermas's Minimal Facts. There's clear historical truth to them.
>>18487223Bait used to be believeable.
>>18487207>Matthew 1 and Luke 3 list entirely different ancestral lineages for Joseph.One is mother's family lineage, the other is father's.
>>18487237What's wrong with Habermas?
>>18487223>>18487242Contradictions don't prove an event happened, especially if the works containing these contradictions are attributed to alleged eyewitnesses.
Even if you dismiss the idea that the gospel authors used a common source, so what? Is it really that surprising there would be coincidences over oral stories based on the apocayptic preacher?All of this is irrelevant anyway. You would keep on believing even if the text had the most glaring contradictions imaginable and you know this. You would just find a way to rationalize them, because you decided the text is true and faultless a priori.And I don't understand why evangelicals are obsessed with pseudo-scientific/historic proofs for God's existence anyway. It's honestly embarassing and not really convincing anyone, except for those already convinced.
They're all recording the same legend? No debunking needed?
>>18487252They can prove that there's an old basis, though.
>>18487482That's the assumption behind every legend and tradition. Sure, there probably is some original basis, but they can't prove a miracle or its historicity. They can prove that there's the same original oral legend of a miracle, which was floating around, and it likely had many versions. Even if the basis was historical, there's no reason to believe a real miracle is behind it. Take the feeding and seeding of the needy for example.>Jesus was feeding the needy>Jesus was feeding dozens of needy people>Jesus was feeding hundreds or thousands of people>Jesus was feeding over 4000, no, 5000 people>Jesus was feeding 4000 and 5000 people in different times>Jesus was feeding 4000 and 5000 people in different times and he performed a miracle by making plenty of fish and bread appear>Jesus was feeding 4000 and 5000 people in different times and he performed a miracle by making plenty of fish and bread appear in Bethesda>Jesus was feeding 4000 and 5000 people in different times and he performed a miracle by making plenty of fish and bread appear in Bethesda, because he had a disciple who was from BethesdaEvery time the story is told, recorded or mended, something naturally changes, because the writer seeks to include stuff. John read Luke, and it's a fact. John either connected Philip into the account because he read Luke, or he made it up to explain how he got the bread, or there was some legend how Philip was from Bethesda and John wrote it down, or at some point people added Philip into the story. That's pretty much it. It literally proves nothing. Contradictions don't prove anything about historicity. They merely point towards some kind of oral tradition, which had many different variants. Everything besides that is pure guesswork.
>>18486919John and Matthew saying things that imply knowledge of what's in Luke (like that the feeding of the 5000 took place in or very near to Bethsaida) can be explained by John and Matthew being familiar with Luke (or an earlier Marcionite Luke, given that canon Luke is usually dated to after Matthew).Now can Christians explain why, in Mark, immediately after the feeding of the 5000, Jesus tells his disciples to get in a boat and cross the sea of Galilee to Bethsaida? Kind of a weird thing to say if they were already in or within walking distance of Bethsaida as Luke would have it.
>>18487239That's complete idiocy. It's never said anywhere in the text.
>>18487508Didn't Luke copy things from Matthew, though, since currently people believe there is actually no Q?
>>18487515My current mental model of it is that every gospel had multiple stages of development before becoming fixed into their canon versions, so it's possible that our canon Luke copied our canon Matthew, but our canon Matthew also copied parts of an earlier version of Luke whose existence could be indicated by Marcion's allegedly mutilated version.When Luke has the big miracle feeding explictly taking place at Bethsaida and a later "Woe to Bethsaida" for not repenting despite the great works done it, while Matthew only has the "Woe to Bethsaida," my immediate thought was that this could be explained by Matthew taking the "Woe" from Luke but leaving out the earlier reference to Bethsaida as the location of the feeding. In fact Matthew leaves out all mention of Bethsaida in the feeding either as its location or as the place the disciples were sent off toward later, so maybe Matthew was looking at Mark and protoLuke, was as confused as I am, and decided to avoid taking sides by dropping mention of Bethsaida entirely.However, the "Woe to Bethsaida" is paired with a "Woe to Chorazin" for the same reason, and Chorazin isn't mentioned at all as far as I can find outside of that one saying shared by Luke and Matthew. So, since Mathew copying an early Luke l would only securely explain half the saying, on second thought I'm not very confident about it.
>>18487115Uh... why should we make anything of it? Am I missing something?
>>18487570One thing that could be relevant is that the Chorazin/Bethsaida saying also mentions Tyre and Sidon as a pair, and, in the story of the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew says Jesus went into the districy of "Tyre and Sidon," while early manuscripts of Mark only mention Tyre, so maybe Matthew doubled a lone "Woe to Bethsaida" by adding Chorazin the same way he doubled a lone mention of Tyre in Mark by adding Sidon. Matthew is known for doubling lots of things, actually.
>>18487584>Matthew doubled a lone "Woe to Bethsaida"from hypothetical Marcionite protoLuke, that is.
>>18487115>What should we make of that?That some semitic guys wrote a story two thousand years ago?I really don't see how this "coincidence" proves the bible when it's just a guy helping jesus in the same town he was fromI really don't fucking get it
>>18487239No they're both patrilineal. One says Joseph's father was named Jacob, the other says Joseph's father was Heli.
>>18486903I think Kyouko would be more interested in debunking the undesigned conincidences between parts of the Pali canon
>>18487066>>18487076So the best argument is "nuh-uh". Can't debunk the angels swooping down from the heavens fact, therefore it happened.
