Top 3 Weak Consensus Views
OK, I’m going to get into trouble (perhaps) for linking to the same guy twice in a row, but I starred two of his posts in a row in Google reader, and that’s out of 281 subscriptions, so something must have clicked.
In any case, Doug Mangum lists three weak consensus positions, Q as the source of Matthew and Luke, the association of Khirbet Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Chicago Statement as the final word on inerrancy. Commenters have questioned all three of these, but I think the choices are fairly good.
I’d probably have put source theory of the Pentateuch (JEDP) on that list. Though I would actually favor some sort of similar scheme with a major revision of the dating, it is hardly one that should be assumed as firm. I think there is no doubt that each of these 3 (now 4) items should be questioned. The difficult question is whether they are a consensus at this time, and that depends on just who is said to form the consensus.
I think even the best consensus should be challenged from time to time, if nothing else to make folks dust off the reasons it became a consensus in the first place. Then we can examine just how well those reasons hold up.
Hi! Can someone tell me if I can start another post rather than comment on someone else’s post? If so, how do I do that? I would like to discuss the question of Holy Ghost tongues and whether we should pray in an unknown language as Christians or if it was simply something that was used as a sign in the early church for the unbelieving gentiles; and also the question of whether tithe is a new testament commandment or not.
This is my blog rather than a forum, so ordinarily users cannot make new posts. I’ll copy your comment to a new post and see what discussion arises.
Okay, I appreciate it. Would you be able to tell me which post you would copy it to, so I can check that post for any responses? Thanks.
Here it is!
Oh, Wow!! Sorry about that! Good thing it wasn’t a snake, huh?