Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
"Irreconcilable" is a strong word. But there are many instances that stretch credulity. Just read Matthew and Luke's opening verses side by side and start counting cases that show harmony vs instances of disharmony (one account claiming something independent of the other)
|
The very fact that there is disharmony indicates to me multiple sources, which indicates multiple witnesses. All of which strengthens the idea that there was this guy named Jesus who really made a big impact on a lot of people at the same time.
How Judas Iscariot died and whether an angel really struck Herod's side who fell down, eaten by worms is not central to the story as I see it. So your long effort to draw out differences and find one "superior" (my terms) witness which then can be used to discredit the others seems like a double-edged sword. It is good that you can see things from another perspective and fellowship with a Jewish, atheist, or Muslim neighbor. But how to do so in a way that doesn't cause the majority of the Christian flock to become unhappy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
For example, kings from the east or shepherds coming to worship Mary's child is not an "irreconcilable" difference. Both could have happened, but taking all of these examples and summing them up leads me to the conclusions I have made.
|
Our great witness today includes the idea that we receive one another. So:
1. Try to make your point simply. Is there any one or several sections that make your case, or do you need 25 sections to infer a point which you then have to work back onto the rest of the text to come to your conclusion? Few people will grant you the grace to go that far on the journey.
2. Explain why your own personal narrative came to include this story. It is your story.
3. Put out the weaknesses and alternatives to your argument, succinctly and cogently if possible. If people see that you are open to others, they will be open to you. It is the classic "do unto others" theme here. If you concede, others will be encouraged to concede as well.
4. How does this idea have value? How does it enhance the Christian conversation? How does it enhance the Christian witness to the unbelieving world?
(note: I think you've already done points 2 and 4 pretty well. I just included them for comprehensiveness [my version, anyway - haha]).