Posted: Sep 05, 2011 2:07 am
by Ichthus77
willhud--do you see Byron's (oh, hey Byron--howdy! this is for you, too...) attempts to explain why one author would mention a detail, while another author would leave the detail out? It is important to keep in mind that it doesn't matter why (though, I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to know why)--it only matters that their details are (without intention) inter-locking. It smacks of authenticity. If you would just sit down and study the examples, you might see what I mean.


Ichthus77 wrote:For other types and examples, and more sources for further research, go here: ... y-tim.html

Accusing someone of "cherry-picking" is an opiate-meme which dampens critical thinking--it is best to avoid it and use actual reasons.

Shrunk and Byron:

I don't think anything can be proved, and please refer to my earlier attempt at being explicit:

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk and Cito--These are undesigned coincidences because the Gospel authors fill in eachother's missing details without intending to. ... their not intending to fill in eachother's details is a good test for the authenticity of what they are shows they did not rely on eachother, that they are independent sources. Historians get excited when you have 2 independent sources for the same recorded saying/event.

More opiates devoid of reason:

This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at apologetics I have ever seen. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel. For this, people can get a full professorship?
-- Shrunk

I've seen some lame apologetics, but this one's barely coherent.
-- Byron (like Shrunk...a real role-model)

Not exactly what you'd expect from a forum with the word "Rational" in the title...

I am resigning from this discussion. You know where to find me if you actually want to talk about the examples.