Sojourner553

I would argue that there could be some MINOR discrepancies on historical items, but in a divinely held document...

the dogma (interpretations of these events) should be consistent between the gospel writers... if we are to assume they are divinely inspired, of course.

Once you open the door to there being errors/discrepancies, then this begs the question whether the writings are truly divine.

Doctor X

FamilyMan:

I am simply playing advocatus diaboli in that an unfavorable audience can dismiss your writing by pointing to those fallacies. That you have the evidence to back them up--a fallacy is not a fallacy if it is true . . . but then you are arguing evidence--will not matter to them. So I would recommend giving some of the evidence you have in the introduction. I received a good piece of advice from a skeptical investigator when I was writing up a test of a "chi-master." Basically, this guy was a fraud, et cetera and I wanted vey much to dissect him. The investigator stated that that would immediately shut down believers and those on the fence--not to mention feed into the fallacious practices of the fraud. He recommended rising above the emotion and stating the facts. It worked nicely--I convinced more believers and "fence-sitters" than I would have just attacking the guy. He could not respond at all--and basically refused to do so.

Good essay.

--J.D.