Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose. The plagiarism I speak of is that they both copy Mark, as I have made very clear in many of the posts on this thread.
Both add infancy stories to Mark, and these are so different that they defy harmonization.
The point I was making is that if only one of these were in the canon, it would be harder to make the case for falsehood.
These are definitely NOT two viewpoints of the same 'history'. To insist upon this stretches credibility to the point of ridiculousness.
|
Very clear? Defy harmonization? Definitely not? Stretches credibility to the point of ridiculousness?
You see duplication and you charge them with plagiarism. You see diversity and you charge them with prevarication.
Dream on Theist. Dream on. I've met others like you. They all could be considered the "church of one." Everybody else was wrong but them.