HerodionRomulus

I don't mean to hijack the thread, so no response is necessary.

A lot of good stuff has been said on here and I mostly agree with the Documentary Hypothesis so I will just finish by saying:

"We are all Kosh."

:notworthy

Doctor X

The problem comes from trying to make a multi-authored text read as if it came from a single-author. Moses is the funniest since, ala The Holy Grail, he is "giving dictation" as he dies!

To retain this assumption one has to argue for a "literal" interpretation in some places and an "allegorical" interpretation in another. By what criteria? Well . . . when it agrees with me, "literal," and where it disagrees "allegorical" in such a manner it ends up agreeing with me!

"Doubt" in the text leads to doubt in a faith based on the text. For this reason some wave their hands and just refuse to consider that doubt exists.

--J.D.

Kosh

As we Vorlons prefer to work through others.... I humbly yield the curtain call to Doctor X.

BTW - thanks for reminding me of my days on the mountain with Moses!

HerodionRomulus

"Yes"

btw are you the same Kosh from ISN News forum board? There I go by Kosh III.

HerodionRomulus

You're right on target there. IMHO, too many Christians are unwilling or unable to get beyond a simplistic understanding. Maybe they don't have the time to see the text as it is, or as you say they have such weak faith that any doubt about anything can erode their faith into nothingness.
And rather than work on it and strengthen their faith, they prefer to be defensive and rely on pat and trite answers.

Personally, my Christian faith is made stronger because I have a clearly and more analyzed faith. E.g. Recognizing that the inconsistencies between the 4 Gospel accounts is proof of validity, because if all 4 were fully harmonized then it would mean that there was clearly collusion and copying.

Hope this made sense?

Amaleq13

I don't want to write for the good Doctor but, no, that makes no sense.

Given the existence of discrepancies between accounts, exactly what is "proven" valid?

Even with the discrepancies, there is evidence of "copying" if not "collusion". Though there is debate about exactly who copied from whom (is that correct grammar?), very few believe that the accounts are entirely independent of one another.

In fact, contrary to your assertion above, if we only had one account, a significant amount of the evidence some (many?) consider to be indicative of fabrication would not exist. We would have Paul's letters and a Gospel story.

Weltall

Are you up for taking the Easter Challenge?

Kosh

But of course, they knew that you would know that total harmonization would lead to suspicion. So clearly they could not harmonize. By leaving them inconsistent, it would appear to you that the story was true, and therefore they left it that way.

Kosh

No

Ellis14

why don't you both get off your Encounter-Suited butts and do something?!