Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (16457)	2/29/2004 10:28:55 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

But you are suggesting a reliance on the assertions at this site, that Matthew used a UFO gospel? You can't be serious. I haven't seen anything yet in the authors' arguments and material that sounds reliable and causes me to call into question anything about the gospels. The material is hugely more fantastical and contrived on the face of it, as is the theory that Matthew relied on it. NT scholars are not embarrassed about differences in the gospel accounts, as the author says. That explanation is quite silly. Well, what other documents are you suggesting reliance on? So far the primacy of Mark still makes the most sense to me, but not for any of the reasons discussed on the site literature. What would you say I am missing? I am still so surprised by this evidence that I hardly know what to say. We certainly have not established from this evidence that Jesus is a composite invention. That is a conclusion brought to the story for other reasons. But please believe it based on the evidence you find compelling. But don't ask me to go for the UFO gospel theory. That's Jonestown stuff. I am not trying to be insulting, please don't be insulted. But I find this turn of the discussion to be confounding and amazing. Certainly even the historicity of the proposed proto-Matthew writing is questionable, let alone the UFO elements, etc.