It took me ages to get the grips of quoting on this board, I know it can be a headache but try to seperate it I get abit confused.
Well that's your presumption, thats ok, but the way you presented the case before it was pleading to a miracle to indicate the speciality of someone. But if you just say you believe Jesus was this and that thats ok, when you try to bring a logical reasoning to it thats where I oppose, specially to the one before.
I don't know if you missed it, but using the miracle of the Birth means Nothing, I have asked you if you would consider an athiest who was healed by God to be better than a christian who was not healed by God, do you?
Furthermore, Prophet Adaam was born without mother or father, beats being born without Father but Mother, on top of that from Adam came eve, thats even bigger miracle.
You see, if you leave our minds behind then there's no point in discussion, that'll be my condition.
What we have is this, the author of Matthew writes quotes this;
where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
And the author was talking about Jesus being called out of Egypt, so Jesus is taken out of Egypt, and then the author writes, 'And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son". So it is clear, the author is using this as a prophecy of Jesus. The author even leaves part of the verse out, the part which shows it's not talking about Jesus but Israel.
A blatant misquotation, now if you want to re interpret it in a way which nullifies any sort of thinking we as humans have then you can but anyone can do that with anything and make it mean anything. The verse tells us who the Son is, it's Israel, but the author of Matthew left that part of the verse out and misquoted it to apply it to Jesus.
The above has nothing to do with the differences in the Bible, that was just showing the unreliability of the authors since in his zeal he tried to use something out of context to prove a 'prophecy'.
No worries, who added it and was it inspired? And what substantiates your theory that it was more witnesses accounts?
That's one theory, what proof have you got for that theory? I would consider your theory if it was not for the fact that the changes are constant
Lol, it is most illogical to compare the Bible and the Qu'ran when speaking of evolution within the text since the Bible is a compilation of Books which were seperate and later joined, authored by different people, whereas the Qu'ran was finished and all come through Muhammad, peace be upon him.
I don't know if you are familiar with what a hadith is, if there is a supposed hadith which is put forward but it contradicts the Qu'ran then the validity of that Hadith is deemed to be false!!
The different accounts of the Gospels for examples do not differ on small details only, I am really begging to wonder how much indipendent reading you have done.
That has just confused me, I don't know what you are on about.
Seriously, don't say dont bother before you tread the issue, your explanation of the evolution in the gospels was enough to show you dont know much about it, so why dismiss it?
So for the record, if you are able plus willing to check your presumptions to try to stick to a logical discussion then we can talk, if not then I don't see much point.
See and they see not, hear and they hear not.