I hate religion.

[scaryjim]

Either it's not original or it's proof of the magic sky daddy.

Where did anyone say the Gospels were "original". So far you've stated that one of the Gospels is composed of bits of the other three, but unfortunately you've chosen the Gospel that "most contemporary scholars now regard [...] as the earliest of the canonical gospels" (Wikipedia). So the earliest canonical gospel is made up from bits of later documents? If that isn't proof of miracles I don't know what is

Most scholars, and many christians (the ones with a brain), are quite happy to accept that the four Gospels were not written entirely from scratch, in one sitting, by one individual. They couldn't be. They were written in exactly the same way a modern biography would be: you talk to people who knew the subject, research any existing books / documents that has details of their life, and piece together the work as best you can. Just because an account draws from a variety of sources doesn't make it less likely to be authentic - in modern writing the more sources you have the better regarded your work will be. The Gospel of Mark was almost certainly one of the source documents for the other synoptics, Luke and Matthew. So it's hardly surprising that there are striking similarities between them, is it.

[melon]

hehe Bill telling it like it is. ( Note to Fuddam )

m

[TeePee]

But Fuddam is saying that because several books of the bible contain the same verses, that's proof that the bible is true, but also saying that because many other books also contain the same verses, that's proof that they aren't true and that the bible is. Logical failure.

I'm a 'believer' in Mark and Q being the sources for the other gospels. But I just don't believe any of them to be a first hand account of anything. The gospels are of as much historical value as the Edda of Odin (One of the many resurrected gods!). Which is to say packed full of information about traditions and myths of the time period, really quite fascinating, and worthy of study. Tolkein's version is easily accessible.

Odin is a rather more pleasant myth.

[melon]

But Fuddam is saying that because several books of the bible contain the same verses, that's proof that the bible is true, but also saying that because many other books also contain the same verses, that's proof that they aren't true and that the bible is. Logical failure.

I'm a 'believer' in Mark and Q being the sources for the other gospels. But I just don't believe any of them to be a first hand account of anything. The gospels are of as much historical value as the Edda of Odin (One of the many resurrected gods!). Which is to say packed full of information about traditions and myths of the time period, really quite fascinating, and worthy of study. Tolkein's version is easily accessible.

Odin is a rather more pleasant myth.

Theres something definitely romantic about those stories, and dancing round an open fire naked at night like some pagan / wiccan sorts with some toad toxin on your broomstick cant be 2 bad too.

m

[TeePee]

Odin = Iceland.

Rather you than me.

[melon]

Odin = Iceland.

Rather you than me.

Dont worry , I tried it ( the bufotenine not the other part ) as primer for ayahausca many moons ago , and can confirm that I traveled many places that night - I just have no recollection how I got there..

m