I knew some day it would happen. One day the two would come to heavy disagreement; one day they would find themselves at odds. One would feel betrayed by the other; one would try to usurp the other. It could not be avoided. The two close friends had too many differences. One was bound to betray the other. And now, the mighty clash occurs...and it all took place because they tried to take Jesus apart... Rise Religion Majors! The history department seeks to steal our Precious Lord! (Yelled in a battle cry voice, like a Braveheart kinda deal. You may have to read it over a couple times out loud to get the right effect.)
I always thought it interesting that the Bible was not see as a historically dependable book. I understand that the purpose of its canonization was for religious rather than academic reasons, but the Gospel writings themselves, and Acts...I do not see why they are placed under such heavy doubt. Well, nevermind, I know why, but I still think that, although they are primarily seen as theological writings, they should be trusted as historically sound. Maybe I'm letting my religion cloud my judgement on this matter, but the Gospels. particularly the synoptics, are, for the most part, in agreement with each other and written at different times by different people for different audiences. How such agreement can take place- agreement that even contains subtle differences and variations, which I believes support their validity- without being seen as valid by any group outside the Christian church...I don't get it.
This is not the point I originally going to make, but since my first supporting point was rather lengthy...I digress.
Alex H.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment