Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Subduction Zone]

Ok pretend that there are 100 sources for Alexander the Grate.

Then I suppress and burn 94 of them

Then I ensemble the remaining 6 sources in a single book

Would you say that the remaining 6 sources spontaneously became 1 source just because I decided to join these documents in a single book?


Independent sources don’t become “dependent” just because one guy decided to create a book out of those sources,

Sorry that is a hypothetical and a rather weird one. Why would there be suppression? History is usually not subject to the same sort of suppression that religious beliefs are.

You simply do not like the fact that you only have one source. And it is not a very reliable one.

 

[KWED]

That is a dishonest straw man, I never said that most scholars accept the resurrection, I said that most scholars accept he empty tomb and other 4 claims that I mentioned earlier.

OK. Provide a reference for an authoritative historian (who is not also a religious apologist) who claims the six points you mentioned are historical fact.

 

[joelr]

from my source
"3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel"

So my source actually explains why Luke (L) is independent from Mark (it has details that marks lack) and it not likely to be an invention (because the story is also in John)

This is standard methodology that historians (and researchers in general) use to evaluate if a source is independent or not.

So when a scholar like WLC claims that (“L”) is independent from Mark he provides reasons for making such a conclusion // and he is actually responding to your criticism.

If this is not “good enough” to show that L is indepenent from Mark then what evidnece woudl you accept?

WLC is not a historian? Is that your source? Is this peer-reviewed by the field for possible mistakes? How dare you?

Mark Goodacre has the latest peer-reviewed work. He has shown that there is little doubt that Mark is the source for Matthew and Luke.
The Case Against Q
Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
Mark Goodacre

Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002


The standard solution to the Synoptic Problem supposes that Matthew and Luke made independent use not only of Mark but also of another source, now lost, called 'Q'. But in The Case Against Q Mark Goodacre combines a strong affirmation of Markan Priority with a careful and detailed critique of the Q hypothesis, giving fresh perspectives on the evidence drawn not only from traditional methods but also from contemporary scholarly approaches. In an invigorating and imaginative approach to one of the most important issues in New Testament scholarship, Goodacre paints a plausible picture of Synoptic interrelationships in a bid to renew discussions about Christian origins.

Reviews


John S. Kloppenborg in Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2002)
Leo Percer in Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2002)

James A. Cox in MidWest Book Review Internet Bookwatch, April 2002 [http://www.midwestbookreview.com]

Now onto a different paper that uses some of the best peer-reviewed works on the Synoptic Problem.
Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction


First the majority of scholars DO support the Markan priority:
"The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter). This is the view adopted in this paper as well.9 Stein puts forth eight categories of reasons why Mark ought to be considered the first gospel. Though not all of his arguments are of equal weight, both the cumulative evidence and several specific arguments are quite persuasive."

some arguments:
-When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke.

-Stein lists three broad categories of Mark’s poorer stylistic abilities: (1) colloquialisms and incorrect grammar, (2) Aramaic expressions, and (3) redundancies. The first and second arguments are significant for pericopes which Mark shares with either Matthew or Luke; the third is valuable for considering material omitted in Mark.

-Mark has redundant expressions on several occasions where both Matthew and Luke omit the unnecessary phrases. For example, in Matt 27:35 we read that the soldiers “divided his garments among them by casting lots”; Luke 23:34 parallels this with “they cast lots to divide his garments”;

-There are several passages in Mark which paint a portrait of Jesus (or the disciples, etc.) that could be misunderstood. These passages have been altered in either Matthew or Luke or both on every occasion.

-
Stein points out that “Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark are considerably less frequent than any of the other forms of agreement”33 and that what best explains this phenomenon is Markan priority in which Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently of one another. In particular, Markan priority best answers three questions:

(1) Why at times Matthew and Mark agree against Luke—Luke diverges from his Markan source whereas Matthew does not.

(2) Why at times Mark and Luke agree against Matthew—Matthew diverges from his Markan source whereas Luke does not.

(3) Why Matthew and Luke seldom agree against Mark—this would require a coincidental change on the part of Matthew and Luke of their Markan source in exactly the same manner.34


- What has indisputably been considered to be the strongest argument for Markan priority is the argument from order. Karl Lachmann was the first to articulate it clearly. The basic argument is both positive and negative: (1) positively: when all three gospels share pericopae, Matthew and Luke agree in the order of those pericopae a great deal; (2) negatively: when either Matthew or Luke departs from the order of Mark in the arrangement of pericopae, they never agree against Mark. To put this another way: in the narratives common to all three, Matthew and Luke agree in sequence only when they agree with Mark; when they both diverge from Mark, they both go in different directions. What best accounts for this? Most NT scholars have assumed that Markan priority does. Some have gone so far as to say that Lachmann proved Markan priority.

-
Fourth, a careful examination of 38 reveals that the reasons for Luke’s/Matthew’s departures from Mark’s order are well-suited to their various literary purposes, while the supposition that Mark rearranged the material does not fit any easily detected pattern in his gospel.39

In sum, although it would be too bold to say that Markan priority is completely demonstrated by the argument from order, it certainly looks like the most plausible view. Once it is kept in mind that historical reconstruction is concerned with probability vs. possibility, rather than absolute proof either for or against a position, Markan priority stands as quite secure.

-“There exist in the synoptic Gospels a number of literary agreements that can best be explained on the basis of a Markan priority. These involve certain omissions and wordings that make much more sense on the basis of Matthew and/or Luke having changed their Markan source than vice versa.”40

 

[joelr]

If this is not “good enough” to show that L is indepenent from Mark then what evidnece woudl you accept?

WLC is not interested in history. He is interested in proving a religion is literally real and he produces work for layman fundamentalists who don't care about real fields of study.
The evidence needed is from historical sources who do not care what came from what and only want the truth and have the training to study the text in the proper manner.
Goodacre is considered to have closed the book on the Q, M, L arguments and the below paper is summing up other recent work.

To sum up reasons for Markan priority, the following eight arguments have been given.

(1) The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericopae parallel Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.

(2) The argument from grammar. Matthew and especially Luke use better grammar and literary style than Mark, suggesting that they used Mark, but improved on it.

(3) The argument from harder readings. On the analogy of early scribal habits, Luke and Matthew apparently removed difficulties from Mark’s Gospel in making their own. If Matthean priority is assumed, then what is inexplicable is why Mark would have introduced such difficulties.

(4) The argument from verbal agreement. There are fewer Matthew-Luke verbal agreements than any other two-gospel verbal agreements. This is difficult to explain on the Griesbach hypothesis, much easier on the Lachmann/Streeter hypothesis.

(5) The argument from agreement in order. Not only do Luke and Matthew never agree with each other when they depart from Mark’s order, but the reasons for this on the assumption of Markan priority are readily available while on Matthean priority they are not.

(6) The argument from literary agreements. Very close to the redactional argument, this point stresses that on literary analysis, it is easier to see Matthew’s use of Mark than vice versa.

(7) The argument from redaction. The redactional emphases in Mark, especially in his stylistic minutiae, are only inconsistently found in Matthew and Luke, while the opposite is not true. In other words, Mark’s style is quite consistent, while Luke and Matthew are inconsistent—when they parallel Mark, there is consistency; when they diverge, they depart from such. This suggests that Mark was the source for both Matthew and Luke.

(8) The argument from Mark’s more primitive theology. On many fronts Mark seems to display a more primitive theology than either Luke or Matthew. This suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark, altering the text to suit their purposes.


There are also arguments against Q, M, L but Goodacre has also done this in his work.

There are three principle arguments against the existence of Q: (1) Why was it not preserved? (2) If it existed, it apparently consisted almost exclusively of dominical sayings, lacking the birth narrative, the resurrection, etc. Is it conceivable that such a document could have been produced? (3) “It requires a certain overlapping with the materials in order to explain such Matthew-Luke agreements as we find in the baptismal accounts . . . ; the Beelzebul incident . . . ; the parable of the mustard seed . . . ; and the mission charge . . . . The overlapping of the Q material with Mark has often been viewed as an embarrassment for the Q hypothesis and has even been sarcastically referred to as the ‘blessed overlap.’”71 We will address these arguments in chiastic fashion.

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org


Stein, Synoptic Problem, 37.
W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1976) 208-209.
Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art, 368
G. M. Styler, “The Priority of Mark,” in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament
Cf. N. Turner, Style, 11-30, on Markan style in general.
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark?

 

[joelr]

So my source actually explains why Luke (L) is independent from Mark (it has details that marks lack) and it not likely to be an invention (because the story is also in John)

It is known that Luke took Mark and added his own details? How would that be proof when he clearly used Mark verbatim?
John has seen a version of previous Gospels. As I pointed out?

This is standard methodology that historians (and researchers in general) use to evaluate if a source is independent or not.

No, first they compare -
When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88%
Then they look at wording, agreement in order, presence of identical parenthetical material.
Then writing styles - colloquialisms and incorrect grammar, Aramaisms, redundant expressions, and many many more arguments.

So when a scholar like WLC claims that (“L”) is independent from Mark he provides reasons for making such a conclusion // and he is actually responding to your criticism.

No WLC needs to respond to the mainstream scholarship and deal with every argument? I have posted the synoptic article several times and your current response is to source WLC posing already answered ridiculous questions?

This paper - http://www.markgoodacre.org/Rewalking.pdf explains why Luke replaces some of Mark after using much of it and how Matthew plays into Luke as well.
There are dozens of papers and articles by all the scholars who work on the Synoptic Problem?
Mark Goodacre's Articles
And you are reading WLC?

 

[joelr]

There are 6 sources for the emty tomb: (none of them depends on the existance of Q)


Independent Sources of the Empty Tomb
1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb.

2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.”

3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel.

4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all.

5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty.

6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts

---
IF you disagree, then how many sources do you suggest? 4 ? 3 ? 2? ……… if the tomb was not empty what other explanation do you suggest and why is that explanation better than “the tomb was emty” what are your sources for this other alternative explanation?

The vast historical consensus is Matthew/Luke sourced Mark.
John saw a version of both and a passion narrative. Carrier says John redacted Mark as well.
Acts can be shown to be fiction, especially in the peer-reviewed work of Purvoe:
The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story
The author of Acts unwittingly committed a near-perfect crime: He told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest of traces. And thus future generations were left with no documents that recount the history of the early Christian tradition; because Acts is not history. According to Richard Pervo, 'Acts is a beautiful house that readers may happily admire, but it is not a home in which the historian can responsibly live.' Luke did not even aspire to write history but rather told his story to defend the gentile communities of his day as the legitimate heirs of Israelite religion.

"This is the most important book I have read in five years. Bravo Pervo! Summarizing the discoveries made during the writing of his magisterial commentary on Acts, this little book makes it wonderfully clear that there is little if anything of historical value in the book of Acts, apart from what it can tell us about the community that wrote it. In one fell swoop, the only basis of support for the traditional model of Christian origins has been eliminated. It is now possible to entertain seriously other models of Christian origins, including the theory that Christianity did not begin at any particular place in space or moment in time, but rather began like the ancient religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome."

Paul clearly says the resurrected body is not flesh and blood.
Bart Ehrman speaks to this:
QUESTION:

What is a BODILY resurrection without the flesh? Don’t the early Christians (and Paul) think the flesh (the corpse) didn’t matter anymore and could be left behind, rotting and decomposing? Isn’t it all about the spirit finally getting this new, better, perfect, divine ‘body’?

Addendum: The Greek for ‘spiritual’ (like in spiritual body) is pneumatikos, right? According to Strong’s that means: pertaining to wind or breath, windy, exposed to the wind, blowing. Now those wouldn’t be obvious words to describe something physical or made out of matter, would it? They seems to rather define something ‘intangible’

RESPONSE:

OK, I’ve been getting a lot of questions along these lines (some on the blog itself). So I need to try to clarify the whole matter. It’s not easy, for a variety of reasons. But I’ll do my best.

First thing to stress: the ancient apocalyptic view of the human that Paul had is not the view of the human that WE have. This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh. “Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)

Second point. In ancient ways of thinking, the body was not the ONLY material part of a human. Humans also have souls and spirits. And for ancient people, souls and spirits were MATERIAL entities, not IMMATERIAL entities (as they are for us). For *us* the difference between soul and body is visible/invisible or material/immaterial or substantial/insubstantial. That’s not how the ancients saw it. For the ancients, soul and spirit were made up of *stuff*. They were material entities. But their material was much finer, more refined, than the clunky shell of our body.

And so, if an ancient apocalypticist like Paul talked about a spiritual body, he meant a body that is no longer made up of just this clunky meat, it is a body of a more refined substance; it is still matter, but it is a different kind of matter. When Paul thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that was NOT a contradiction to his claim that Jesus had a spiritual body at the resurrection. Spiritual bodies *were* physical. We too will be raised (for Paul) into spiritual bodies. At that time we will not have “flesh,” because sin will no longer have any role to play in our existence. But when he says this, he means it in the ancient, not the modern, sense.

If you want to read up on ancient understandings of body, flesh, spirit, soul (especially as these are physical entities, not immaterial), I’d suggest you read the book by my friend Dale Martin, professor of NT at Yale, The Corinthian Body.

Later Christian theologians who were NOT raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh, leading to all sorts of confusions. They stressed the “resurrection of the flesh,” which for Paul would have been nonsense. For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was. But later theologians (for example, Tertullian) did not make this distinction and stressed that it is precisely the “flesh” that comes to be raised. By that, he meant what Paul meant when he talked about “body.”

One of the ironies that was created is that later theologians stressed the resurrection of the flesh thinking that they were advocating Paul’s view, e.g., against Gnostics. In fact, they were not advocating Paul’s view at all, since Paul did not think the flesh would be raised.

One text where this is particularly interesting is the pseudepigraphic (i.e., forged) 3 Corinthians, where, as my student Benjamin White has shown, in an important article recently, the author, claiming to be Paul, tries to wrest Paul away from the Gnostics precisely by stressing that the flesh is all important before God and will be raised. Whoops. That’s not Paul’s view. But this later second century author was not trained in Jewish apocalyptic thinking, and so simply didn’t know that.

So Paul was not talking about a missing body.
You have ZERO sources.

 

[leroy]

I said historians, and no historical scholar would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't see to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an historical scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.



Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this.


Ah, you're back to juvenile ad hominem, grow up.

This is boring and tedious / you are suppose to quote a scholar (historian if you whant) that claims that he will only accept evidence outside the Bible

 

[leroy]

Then why would that be enough for Jesus?



There are at least 4 independent sources for King Arthur, but the general consensus among historians is that Arthur was mythical.


King Arthur - Wikipedia


What are you calling "the original claim"? The short ending of Mark, where the tomb is empty, everyone's confused and afraid, but nothing necessarily supernatural is implied?

I don't necessarily have an issue with that claim (though I don't think it is anything particularly remarkable).

But let's say I think it's false. Why would I need an alternative explanation?

If you have an alternative for "the tomb was empty " you are expected to support that alternative, that is all i am saying

 

[leroy]

You're quoting the subjective opinion of a Christian, who citied 3400 article, but whose work was never peer reviewed, a basic requirement for any credible historian, who has refused multiple request to submit has data for critical scrutiny by other expert historians, again that speaks volumes to anyone who isn't either rabidly biased, or entirely ignorant of how historical sources are subjected to critical scrutiny.

1. How many of the articles were from the the same author?
2. How many of the authors were themselves peer reviewed historians?
3. Did the biased Christian author you cited, lend the same credence to published street preachers (for example), with no qualifications in historical analysis, and to biased apologists like WLC, as he did to expert historians?

You are embarrassing yourself with such biased ignorance, but throwing slurs at the intelligence and integrity of those who try to help you understand these most basic facts, is simply hilarious.

The conclusion of a study doesn't becomes wring just because you didn't like the methodology.



You are free to repeat the study using the methodology that you think is best , if you find different conclusions feel free to share them......

 

[leroy]

So you finally admit you used a biased source, whose work was not peer reviewed, and the 75% figure you quoted was meaningless.

Well what do the mayority of scholars that have the credentials and world view that you personally find appropriate say about the empty tomb ? Wht percentage agrees with the emty tomb? ....do you have any studies?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you have an alternative for "the tomb was empty " you are expected to support that alternative, that is all i am saying

No, that's up to you.

If you're arguing that "the tomb is empty" is the most likely possibility, then to justify your conclusion, you would need to explore the evidence - fairly - for every other possibility.

If you're happy leaving things at "an empty tomb is one possibility out of an unknown number of possibilities," then you don't need to do this, but I'm not sure what that would get you.

 

[leroy]

The original texts of the gospels had existed without names. The Church Fathers assigned the names, about three centuries after the alleged events, The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. Nor was Paul, who neither knew nor even met Jesus, and his claim are hearsay.

But you font reject other historical sources that where written by non-witnesses dacades after the event do you ?......you are making an arbitrary exception with the Bible.

 

[leroy]

Historical scholars do not, you cited the subjective opinion of a Christian author, whose work is not peer reviewed, thus no historical scholar or expert would lend his claim any credence. It has already been explained why, multiple times.

Historical scholars do not

Source please ?

 

[leroy]

HE can't, he has only cited the subjective opinion of a single Christian author, whose work has never been peer reviewed, what's more that author has refuse the requests of several prominent historians to submit his data for critical analysis.

He was backed by the hubris of one William Lane Craig though, pretty funny. talk about damning with praise.

And your refutation comes from a blog (not peer reviewed) from a man that makes a living out of "refuting " chistianity ..... so you are not meeting your own standards... if you only accept peer reviewed unbiased sources then you should only use those sources for your refutations

 

[leroy]

Oh ffs, GREAT GREAT GREAT, for Pete's sake.

There is a consensus among historians that Alexander the GREAT was an historical person, there is none for the unsubstantiated hearsay of an empty tomb, or the superstition of magical resurrections.



Did you burn them in the (Alexander the) grate, dear god...

One wonders , why are you quoting my comments if you are not responding to the point made in such comments?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you font reject other historical sources that where written by non-witnesses dacades after the event do you ?......you are making an arbitrary exception with the Bible.

FWIW, I also don't believe that Ragnar Lothbrok was executed by being thrown into a snake pit, and we have about as good support for the details of his life as we do for Jesus.

 

[leroy]

It is known that Luke took Mark and added his own details? How would that be proof when he clearly used Mark verbatim?
John has seen a version of previous Gospels. As I pointed out?


No, first they compare -
When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88%
Then they look at wording, agreement in order, presence of identical parenthetical material.
Then writing styles - colloquialisms and incorrect grammar, Aramaisms, redundant expressions, and many many more arguments.





No WLC needs to respond to the mainstream scholarship and deal with every argument? I have posted the synoptic article several times and your current response is to source WLC posing already answered ridiculous questions?

This paper - http://www.markgoodacre.org/Rewalking.pdf explains why Luke replaces some of Mark after using much of it and how Matthew plays into Luke as well.
There are dozens of papers and articles by all the scholars who work on the Synoptic Problem?
Mark Goodacre's Articles
And you are reading WLC?

Can you quote anything from these articles that contradict what WLC said in the article I quoted?

 

[leroy]

No, that's up to you.

If you're arguing that "the tomb is empty" is the most likely possibility, then to justify your conclusion, you would need to explore the evidence - fairly - for every other possibility.

If you're happy leaving things at "an empty tomb is one possibility out of an unknown number of possibilities," then you don't need to do this, but I'm not sure what that would get you.

Of the alternatives that I am aware of, the empty tomb is the best alternative

If you think i am wrong present your own alternative and lets compare them

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of the alternatives that I am aware of, the empty tomb is the best alternative

If you think i am wrong present your own alternative and lets compare them

I do think you're wrong, but this doesn't oblige me to put any effort whatsoever into showing you why you're wrong.

If you care about convincing me, you'll put in the effort to demonstrate your case.

If I care about convincing you, I'll put in the effort.

... but it's absolutely no skin off my nose if you keep being wrong.

 

[leroy]

I do think you're wrong, but this doesn't oblige me to put any effort whatsoever into showing you why you're wrong.

If you care about convincing me, you'll put in the effort to demonstrate your case.

If I care about convincing you, I'll put in the effort.

... but it's absolutely no skin off my nose if you keep being wrong.

You are not obligated to do anything, but if you want to have a descend conversation with someone who disagrees with you the best way to go would be:

1 establish what you r actual view is on the empty tomb

2 support that view

3 explain why your view is better than mine.

If you dont want to do that, then we simply disagree on how discussions are suppose to be