Comment: "It doesn't say what temperature it was that day"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 8 -0 thats my expression sideways (see in situ)

"It doesn't say what temperature it was that day"

Yes, but that detail wasn't actually relevant to discuss for the gospels. The facts of who all was present in the tomb and *why*, by comparison, are clearly important. How do we know this? Because otherwise not every gospel would even cover the tomb scene.

The fact still remains that your compiled version of the accounts of all four gospels is in no way Biblical; in fact, another Christian may even disagree with you on those details. That's entirely your own work. You'd have much less work to do if only you could accept that the accounts do not all need to agree on everything. There's a reason why much that appears in John is not corroborated by the others, and trying to, say, stick elements from John in the others completely loses sight of several aspects of that narrative that are unique to it.

As for lying by omission--ever heard of Secret Mark? What about the Johannine Comma? Google 'em. I bring these up not to call doubt on the gospels, but rather to show that imperfect men were present at all phases of the scribal process to mar and maul the original works.

I actually agree with you that the lack of knowledge any of the acccounts had of the others speaks to the credibility of Matthew, Mark and Luke (though keep in mind that all of three of them source much of their material from Q), but this idea of every translated and retranslated word being inspired by god and not at all tainted by the hands of men is an absolute fairy tale to anyone who's familiar with the fallibility of the scribal process throughout man's history.