All Comments (136)

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

Great site!22736fe334b84731a8057272fa722818

This not a comment so much as a request. May I have permission to include the following quote from your site in a forthcoming book on challenges to the Christian faith?

"Next, theology. I myself am not convinced -- but could be persuaded -- that this is the family tomb of Jesus. Were I convinced, it would neither destroy my Christianity nor destroy my faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

I have always believed that resurrection is a metaphor but a metaphor about the body of Jesus, a belief that he was crucified by Rome and raised by God so that, in other words, God is -- as always -- on a collision course with Empire.

Finding the bones of Jesus would not disturb my faith but finding they bore no wounds -- ah, that would be another matter.

Posted by John Dominic Crossan on February 28, 2007 10:06 AM"

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

Logstaff said...
I was seeing the moovie recently. I am surprised that the investigators clearly mentionned at the beginning of the moovie that the archeologist found the stone boxes with the bones inside. Also some skulls are standing arround in the corners of the cave. An archeologist has seen all these skeletons and apparently made an inventory of each of it. Here is an unanswered question... Who was that archeologist.. where is that report about the skeletons, and probably where are the drawings or photographs. I would expect that it would have been a routine job at least to analyze the remains in order to find out the age of the person??? Than the comment is done that because of the religious tradition of the jews a reburial was done. Now another question is obvious: I guess that such a reburial is not just done anywhere without inventory... so why is that entire moovie going arround the main trace? I was expecting that a team of investigators ready to scretch the bottom of the stone boxes in order to recover a couple bone chips for DNA analyze (which is a good way to trace all kind of info, for sure)... why such a team of "scientists" is not able to check at least the age of that individual by getting hold of the reburial place.. or to start with of the archeologist file describing the content of the stone box. That is why I felt strange about that theory.. all was tried out to malke the story look probable.. and than the most obvious control wasnt done...
.........
Also the reburried bones can be now 100% identified, since the DNA must be identical to the DNA already taken out of the stone box with the Jesus Name written on it.
.........
It would be of cause very interesting to check these bones in order to see if they could have been of a man aged like the Christian Jesus. Than it would be even better to discover the damages done to the bones on legs and hands, ribbs.. whatever.
....
But here we expect too much.... Since probably the people who made all this reportage.. already saw the archeologist file.. which they hide in the moovie... that probably.. the bones found in that box.. did not fit the profile of the Christian Jesus... who knows.. maybe they found a guy 60 years old without his teeth.. than the entire story is ridiculous...
......
Still an interesting point to mention: Who ever was burried in that precise grave, I think all agree that it is an ancient grave of the period of the christian Jesus. Now what I think is quite astonishing.. is that the symbols hammered into the rock over the entrance door to that tomb.. seem to me looking like some version of ALFA and OMEGA... You know that these greek letters stand for the Beginning and the End of all.. and that Jesus also used them in a speech to situate his mission on earth... so I just wish to mention this find.. this observation which to my surprise even the film maker did not mention.. and it would be quite in favor of their theories... or at least it is quite "greek".. to put that alfa and Omega in front of a commun jewish grave..
Any Comments welcome!

I actually thought Eric's March 6th (7:09) post was very well written. He represented his side well, without quoting scripture too much, which is always a deal breaker in trying to convince a non-believer. The "good guys" are lucky to have him on their side. But it still falls short and lands in one of three outcomes.

I'll be presumptive and arrogant and call this "The Kaman Aphorism".
+++++++++++
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then:

1. God is evil. (He created evil to inflict torture on his creations.)

OR

2. God is apathetic to evil. (He created Lucifer, who then created evil. God knew this would happen but created Lucifer anyway and then let him go.)

OR

3. The Christian definition of God is wrong. (If #1 and #2 aren't true, then the definition of God is flawed.)
++++++++++++
Assuming Eric believes God created everything, then even his eloquent post does not discount the "The Kaman Aphorism". It breaks down in the first paragraph. Eric says God cast Lucifer out of heaven, allowing it evil to survive, knowing it would "ruin" his perfect creation and communion with him (#2). If he was all-powerful, then he would have pinched evil out of existence then, but he didn't. Why? Assuming he is love, good, hates evil, and wants the best for us (communing with him), perhaps he isn't all-powerful after all, since he didn't/couldn't stop it (#3). Or he wanted to see what bad things would happen, like a kid burning ants with a magnifying glass (#1). Or he didn't care and simply let Lucifer/evil loose in the wild (#2).

This is so old, I don't even know if anyone will even read this.

viagra

I see the God haters are piling on whatever Eric says. Boy, do I feel sorry for you guys (E Favorite, Lindizw).

Lindizw:
As I see you have learned from your attending physician, Viagra is for the impotent. It's good you have some experience with impotence--you're presumably experienced in your recommendation of Viagra to Eric--because I suspect that one day you will find yourself impotent before your Creator if you don't have the change of heart described in Ezekiel 36:26 and quoted by Eric.

Your post ("buy viagra") and that of E Favorite ("Eric doth protest too much ... that's Shakespeare") is known as an ad hominem attack. If you had any intelligence you would know that's an irrational response. Good luck with that God hatred.

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Is there a difference???

Eric doth protest too much, methinks.

PS, that's Shakespeare, not the Bible.

There comes a point in these things in which you are simply enjoying the argument.

Your common sense statements are common opinions in the atheist world. When common opinions equal common sense, there is a serious problem.

Now... I am in a predicament. As it is, I feel that you are not seeking truth but trying to pollute truth your own way and having fun with it. As a result, my time here is wasted unless there are some who are reading this while actively searching for truth. Because I have no evidence of this, I am rationally assuming that it is not so. As a result, I will take my leave now.

I understand that one of two things will be said here. In my leaving, you may say that I couldn't respond to your latest witticism and you have defeated me. Otherwise, you would say that I am ending with the last word and copping out.

I do not care what you say about me, honestly. My purpose here was not for my own advancement, but for the advancement of truth and the upholding of my living God. More than one in the bible there have been accounts of men whose hearts were hardened beyond any willingness to hear. Jesus came to give a chance for all to soften their hearts... to "replace their hearts of stone with hearts of flesh" as it is written. Ultimately, however, you do choose. You have chosen. All that is left for me to do is pray for you. We have evoked scripture, I have invited you to ask me about my logic for belief in God, which you did not take up. Either because you did not read the post, you were already thinking about what you wanted to say, or because you didn't care. Any of the above point to you being an arguer, not a seeker of truth. In this case, then, I take my leave.

I pray that some day what we have said here may take seed in your heart and that you might share in the very real truth that I partake in, the true joy and love that I experience, and the hope that I have.

I never wished to put you down, but rather to bring you up. I hope that God reaches you someday, some how.

Concerned,

You said:

"Of course, there are the other religions that have the same God but different authentic Words. Very strange that our God could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics and economics."

Amen/Amin to that.

regards

Jihadist

Final observation:

Every Christian has their own interpretation of the Word of God. Four different books, at least five auxiliary books/epistles, competing theologians/sects/protests, and competing stories just in the original set followed by translations and embellishments followed by countless interpretations, hidden codes and raptures. IMHO, God needs to have another visit to a mountain top to get the mess cleaned up.

Of course, there are the other religions that have the same God but different authentic Words. Very strange that our God could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics and economics.

I will stick with Mark's Gospel, the seven authentic epistles of Paul and the twelve Commandments along with the evaluation of these by modern biblical scholars to get some semblance of what God is trying to communicate realizing that good people of other faiths or no faiths are also God's chosen ones.

Some questions:

Is Pilate, although not the founder of Christianity, the "necessary accessory" ?

And Constantine would also be considered another "necessary accessory"??

Adding this to God not knowing the future, is there any God involvement in the foundation of Christianity or any religion for that matter?

Might it simply be that Christianity and the other contemporary religions are the result of human evolution away from the "dark> side"??

More common sense:

From the history of humankind:

There is no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.

The evolutionary process continues with contributions from the historical Buddha, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, the NT scribes, Constantine, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Schillebeeckx, the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, Mother Theresa, and the Hubble Telescope.

More common sense:

from Father Edward Schillebeeckx: Church, the Human Story of God:

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices".

More common sense:

As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven.

More common sense:

As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Christian theologian, God does not know the Future. From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For
God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Added common sense:

JD Crossan notes in his book, Who is Jesus:

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

....and waiting for your response re Eric's post Concerned, which is supported by Joel:)

Believers like them and me are very irritating eh, regardless of all your "proofs" and "facts" on the flimsiness of beliefs and faith:)

Eric:

Outstanding post and explanations. I will stand with you.

Concerned...

I found it interesting that you called God barbaric for sending his son to die for the sins of the world. I believe your understanding of this is flawed, however.

Some background knowledge:

God, by nature, is holy -- a word that literally means "set apart". People often think that God can do "whatever he wants," but this is a flawed logic. God can do whatever he wants while abiding by his nature. Because he is Holy -- set apart from evil -- he cannot abide in the presence of evil. When evil developed in heaven with Lucifer, Lucifer was cast out of heaven because God could not abide by his presence.

God, by nature, is just. God always acts within the bounds of justice, bringing justice in all situations -- even if it is out of our vision or ability to understand. Do not confuse this to mean that every time something bad happens, God is bringing justice. This is not the case. That is for another post. What it means is that God cannot, "just forgive sins" because that would be overlooking his nature of justice.

God, by nature, is loving and graceful. The Bible witnesses that "God is love" and the apostle Paul attributes everything worth having to Love (1 Cor 13). Note: love and justice are not mutually exclusive. If you love your child, you discipline him to make him into a better person.

So, why did God send his son? When God created the world and humanity, he did so in a way that was perfect. Humans were and are the pinnacle of creation. When God created the light and dark, the land and sea, the birds and fish, etc... he said about each that "it was good" and when he breathed life into man, he called him "VERY good." The peak. Man was created to be in a relationship with God from the beginning. Unfortunately, when man choose to disregard God's command, he brought sin into the world. With this sin, God, by nature, could not abide in the presence of his beautiful creation. As a result, he had to make a plan for redemption. In the Old Testament, a system was created in which the sins of a person could be laid on an animal (from which we get the word "scapegoat"). Ultimately, this was not something that God intended to last. Rather, it was a means of preparing the way for the finale.

The Old Testament and the covenant therein is impossible to abide by. There was reason for this. God wanted his people to see that they could not do what was necessary to attain holiness. As it is written "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." When it became clear that they had fallen short and could not do it on their own, God continued with his plan to redeem his beloved creation. Jesus, who was God-in-man, conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, came by his own volition to pay the price for sins.

You see... Romans tells us "the wages of sin is death." In the garden of Eden, God made this clear by telling Adam and Eve to not sin (in the only way possible then) or they would surely die. From Adam's fall came the fall of man as a whole institution and sin, death, murder, rape, slander, hatred, etc entered when the door for sin was opened. As a result, all of mankind from then out is condemned to die, because that is the just penalty for sin.

Here is where God steps in.

Out of love, God sacrificed his own son as the ONLY ONE who could truly cover the sins of all of creation. This is what Aslan represents in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe. Edmund sins and is condemned to die, but Aslan takes his place... not only does this free Edmund, but it breaks the hold of death and the witch altogether!

In the same way, Jesus' death gives the opportunity to every man to accept his act of love and grace and be cleansed of their sin. With Jesus' death, God gained a way for justice to be served while also creating a means for allowing for his nature of grace and love.

This is not barbaric.

It is not barbaric to take a bullet for a friend, to die for a just cause, to dedicate your life to others. There is nothing barbaric about giving up what you value and love the most for the sake of humanity. Nothing barbaric about loving enough to give everything you hold dear.

No.

Barbaric is knowing what people need and turning your back. Barbaric is dodging the bullet to let your friend die. Barbaric is refusing to stand up for a cause worth defending. Barbaric is quitting on something more valuable than life itself to save your skin. Barbaric is fearing the thing that must be done to pave a way for others to live.

God is anything but a barbarian. No, he is a father. He is Holy. He is Just. He is Graceful and loving. He is Abba. My Abba. And he deserves all respect, love, and adoration. My God's bones cannot and will not be found in any tomb today or any day. My God's body sits today on the throne in heaven and I await the day that I might meet him there. In the meantime, I will serve. I will follow in his steps taking bullets, sacrificing, giving, loving, hoping, persevering, and believing.

Most of all, I will share this. I will yell it from ever mountain top and proclaim it in every city. Christ Jesus is risen, Amen, AMEN!

You know Concerned,

Now that you are talking like this in your recent postings in the On Faith threads, I am learning a lot more from you:)

Best regards

Jihadist

Joel,

What is being taught these days at major Christian universities:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting
Adam [Solomon])."

" Satan and devils do not exist.
Devils, including Satan, are wed to a pre-scientific interpretation of
reality and may simply symbolize temptation to commit sin;"

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions. (no bodies allowed).

i.e. Christ 's and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed
into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives
death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place ). The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the
Church. Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to
Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as
"Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of
Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's
positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies."

My last post was cut off, but I think I'm signing off.

I hope you three in particular will read your Bible a little more and fully understand it before attacking it. Read Matthew, and understand Matthew. And I hope you will stop rejecting Christ out of ignorance.

If any of you are foolish enough to think you can single-handedly discredit the Word of God on this post, or perhaps with the help of a few books and websites, you're a fool. And I mean that. So does the book of Proverbs.

I hope someday you will all look to Jesus for forgiveness for your sins as I have. I can tell you it is the best thing I ever did, and the only thing that has lasting significance for me.

E Favorite, Tonio, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

E Favorite seems sincere about questions and concerns posted, and at least honest intellectually. It seems like you may be willing to go where the evidence leads, and for that I commend you.

However, you are still reacting to Scripture without first understanding it. For example, the temple was not torn in two--it was the massive, thick, beautiful curtain inside the temple that was torn in two. The curtain separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. The presence of God was in the Holy of Holies, and nobody could enter but the priest like once per year, and if he wasn't right and didn't do all the procedures correctly, he'd be struck dead (so they attached a rope to his foot when he went in). When Jesus died on the cross and the curtain was ripped in two, it was something that could not be done physically by human hands, and symbolized the fact that when Jesus died for our sins, we are no longer kept out of the presence of the Holy God--rather, through Jesus' sacrifice atoning for our sins, we can enter the Holy of Holies so to speak, and be washed clean of our sins and once again be in fellowship with our Creator as He intended originally.

As far as communion, non-believers should not take it. You have no business doing so. It is only for believers who understand that by their trust in Jesus as their Savior, they partake in the blood of Jesus that washes over the believer's sin, making him clean in the eyes of God. That symbolism is beautiful to the believer. Since you're not a believer, it doesn't really matter if you think it's gross or not, because you shouldn't take it anyway.

Further, E Favorite should be careful not to appoint him/herself as God by questioning whether God should have sent His Son to die a cruel death. That was His plan. And if you could only see that He died that death for YOU, so that you could be saved, you would be much better off.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated is much further along at appointing himself God, since he has apparently declared Adam and Eve and other Bible stories as myths. Congratulations, you have appointed yourself the center of the universe. Have fun there, for awhile. Then he uses his own declaration to prove the Bible is not God inspired. You will see someday, as the Bible predicts that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.

And Tonio, the problem is that there IS such thing as Scripture, and you must deal with it one way or another. If you're on the fence, you reject it. You have to take action. Sadly, you don't seem prepared to do so.

seem to have an agenda and I will not waste time responding to their baseless attacks of Christianity.

"No one is fighting or dying over it and no one’s demanding that it be used as a moral code for the modern world."

E Favorite, that is exactly my point. What would happen if there was no such thing as "scripture," meaning that no book was regarded as the literal or inspired word of deity? Would people still kill each other over beliefs about deity or afterlife? Separating beliefs from actions for a second, what bloody difference should it make to other people what someone believes about deity or afterlife?

Hi, Joel –

I don’t think Jesus deserved the death penalty either, but that according to the story, that’s what he got.

Regarding God’s capability to perform miracles. Sure, if there is a God, I think he could probably perform miracles. I think, though a loving God would do something helpful to humanity – instead of raising some people from the dead, causing an earthquake and rending the temple in two. The purpose of those miracles seems to be only to impress people with how powerful he is and how angry that they killed his son. This is confusing, considering that He set the whole thing up in the first place.

And if he can forgive sins, why not just forgive them? Why send his Son, and have him cruelly murdered? Sorry, this is barbaric. Any father who did that today would go straight to jail.

And what’s the deal with Christians celebrating this by eating his body and drinking his blood? That’s downright cannibalistic! I know – Jesus said it in the last supper. But why say such an awful thing. The Jewish Sabbath ceremony involves sharing bread and wine, just like Christians do, but it’s regular food and drink – not body and blood. Yuck. Why do this even symbolically. Have you thought about that? Let’s just call it sharing a communal meal and I’ll be the first one back at the communion rail.

Tonio –

good example in King Arthur – it’s a pleasant myth, a good story, with some useful meaning attached, but like other good stories (Greek myths, etc.) nobody thinks it’s true. No one is fighting or dying over it and no one’s demanding that it be used as a moral code for the modern world.

I believe that trying to dismiss the Resurrection as a hoax is somewhat irrelevant. It assumes that the only value of the Bible is in a literal reading.

For a secular analogy, look at the King Arthur legend. I would guess that no one in England has believed in the Lady of the Lake or Merlin or Morgana Le Fay for centuries. Scholars have concluded that the legend originated with a real Briton chieftain who sought to rally his people against the Anglo-Saxon takeover. But the legend has grown and endured over centuries because it evokes feelings of national pride. Plus, it's one hell of a story - action, romance, betrayal, tragedy.

Joel,

I recommend reading the some books about the historical Jesus. There is great listing at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Again, the Bible is not god inspired. If it were, there would be no mythical figures like A & E or global floods nor would there be four gospels and related epistles with such varitions in events and single attestations. e.g. one of the greatest "miracles" of Jesus, the changing of water into wine, only appears in John's gospel.