A gaze is, or can be, a form of communication. If you are making a fool of yourself at a party, you look across the room and your wife catches your eye with a certain look... the message "time to go home" registers.
"In Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre,” the gaze of Mr. Rochester and the mysterious presence of Bertha Mason create a tense and eerie atmosphere." So, what?
Look up the parallel accounts of "Peters Denial". Mark's Gospel contains no such account even though it is supposed to contain the "recollections of Peter". I guess Peter forgot to tell Mark about this incident??? The accounts are contradictory and indicate that we really don't know what happened. The phrase "The Lord turned and looked upon Peter" is found only in Luke who wasn't even a disciple or around at the time. Matthew and John who were supposed to be present must have forgotten to include this story?
@@samuelewing8935 You did not address my objections. Where did "Luke" get his information? He wasn't there. He doesn't indicate where he got his information. People who were allegedly there at the time Matthew and John do not include this story. That is a problem. This is supposed to be history right?
@@tgrogan6049 Actually it does I think you are just being dense. Identical recounts are a sign of falsity of eye witness or oral retellings because they indicate after the fact corroboration whereas variation but not contradiction in detail is a mark of authenticity because different witnesses remember different information. Therefore a variation in memory is expected and normal.
@@samuelewing8935 So the places where Luke and Matthew copy Mark directly in Greek are a "sign of falsity" in your view. Apologetics applies contradictory criteria to these accounts when they agree "that is evidence they are true". When the disagree "that is ALSO evidence they are true". BTW there is zero evidence that the Gospels are based on "oral retelling" instead they are creative rewrites of the LXX, Homer and other sources.
@@tgrogan6049 You asked why a person might give different accounts than another. Independent of what one thinks of Christianity I gave a logical theory that applies both to eye witness accounts and retelling. Yes, there's lots of other things we could discuss about the historocity of scripture but please don't bring in silly ad hoc logic and then tell us all how you're so mentally superior.
