The 'synoptic problem' is the seminary version liberal academia's attempts to reinvent reality to suit their vision. It is pushed by individuals with an a priori disregard for the authenticity of Scripture.
In a court of law, do we consider the agreement of witness statements to be a problem? Of course not. We consider that evidence that the witness testimony is reliable.
If three friends all tell you they had a good meal at a particular restaurant, do you immediately jump to the conclusion that there must have been a fourth friend - one you have never met - who actually went to the restaurant, so you can't possibly trust their accounts? No, that would be utterly ridiculous.
The 'synoptic problem' is not an actual problem for theologians, lay or professional. The Gospel of John doesn't even have any meaningful differences, or contradictions; rather, John focuses on certain truths and events over the ones the other Gospels centered on. If you disagree, go ahead and list meaningful discrepancies. Take your time. I'll wait.
Is that supposed to be some sort of backhanded ad hominem? Neither that nor the expletives are necessary. unless your intent is to undermine your credibility to other readers.
What are your specific arguments? That article is full of fairly general ones, and some rather speculative assumptions about dating. Which is to say, the entire framework of the argument presented is soaked in atheistic, liberal propositions that assume Scripture cannot be accurate and Christ cannot be God.
That's not even defensible by secular scholarship or religious history, let alone Christian theology. Your wikipedia link - already a questionable source of scholarly information - doesn't even mention Jehovah.
So far you've made a number of extreme claims. When asked to back them up, you've posted links to low quality articles of dubious scholarship, and refrained from answering any questions with specifics or reasoning.
The 'synoptic problem' is the seminary version liberal academia's attempts to reinvent reality to suit their vision. It is pushed by individuals with an a priori disregard for the authenticity of Scripture.
In a court of law, do we consider the agreement of witness statements to be a problem? Of course not. We consider that evidence that the witness testimony is reliable.
If three friends all tell you they had a good meal at a particular restaurant, do you immediately jump to the conclusion that there must have been a fourth friend - one you have never met - who actually went to the restaurant, so you can't possibly trust their accounts? No, that would be utterly ridiculous.
The 'synoptic problem' is not an actual problem for theologians, lay or professional. The Gospel of John doesn't even have any meaningful differences, or contradictions; rather, John focuses on certain truths and events over the ones the other Gospels centered on. If you disagree, go ahead and list meaningful discrepancies. Take your time. I'll wait.
Holy Fuck, the social dissonance!
https://www.learnreligions.com/comparing-john-and-the-synoptic-gospels-363395
You must be a lay theologian.
Is that supposed to be some sort of backhanded ad hominem? Neither that nor the expletives are necessary. unless your intent is to undermine your credibility to other readers.
What are your specific arguments? That article is full of fairly general ones, and some rather speculative assumptions about dating. Which is to say, the entire framework of the argument presented is soaked in atheistic, liberal propositions that assume Scripture cannot be accurate and Christ cannot be God.
So I ask again, what are your specific arguments?
Jesus is Lucifer. Baal is Jehovah/Yahweh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Cycle https://youtu.be/EtlsNlEjTUE
That's not even defensible by secular scholarship or religious history, let alone Christian theology. Your wikipedia link - already a questionable source of scholarly information - doesn't even mention Jehovah.
So far you've made a number of extreme claims. When asked to back them up, you've posted links to low quality articles of dubious scholarship, and refrained from answering any questions with specifics or reasoning.
This is very much a pearls and swine situation. I don't say that to insult you. But you're coming out swinging with the same kind of energy as this fellow: https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/9ff3a93c-f75f-4adf-a10e-8b54cbc8449a.jpeg
I'd say about the same amount of intellectually honest theology as well.