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.
18 years a Christian, same. The Gospel of John and the "synoptic problem" helps you realise how stupid the cult is.
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?