@Nathaniel Your question to me probably relates to the question "What could explain the tenth Egyptian plague?"
@Nathaniel I do tend to find there is often a consensus among critical scholars, because they are all looking at the same data and generally using the same hermeneutic methods, at the same time trying to keep personal religious beliefs out of it. So, from that point of view, any one question may be answerable by a (partial) consensus of scholars.
@Nathaniel OOPs I just realised you had the question about the Trinity in mind ... sorry about that :)
@Nathaniel Returning to my train of thought ... Nevertheless, I was not saying that would be the case in this instance, merely that this would be a possibility the OP could consider. I was not leading him, merely trying to explain how the site works and how he can ask a good question.
It is also possible to to ask the views of a subset of critical scholars. I (vaguely) remember a recent question about the Acts Seminar, which had only about 100 voting members.
Sorry – I gave an answer that didn't provide the resource that someone wanted, and I didn't make much of a case for the non-existence of that resource. But then I critiqued someone else's answer for doing something similar.
It seems that I'm holding myself to a lower standard of what it takes to prove a negative than others, and I'm thinking through what that standard ought to be.
@Nathaniel Oh right. So my take on that is sometimes people are asking for things that don't exist and in a lot of cases a "near miss" is actually helpful as an answer. As long as the question is specific enough so that allowing such answers doesn't mushroom into a free for all, I'd say answers that give something close (and preferably explain why only a close match is possible) is fine.
As such I think your answer is fine. The JW one is marginal, but not enough that I would mod-delete it. It's in the balpark and probably quite useful to the OP. Also since he doesn't attack the JW belief in question only show some similarities between it and something else, it seemed fine to me.
At least from a moderator perspective. Whether it deserves up or down votes I'm not sure (I've done neither yet) but it doesn't seem to need the ax.
But there is no formula for this. If it had been a Catholic question and some Protestant was trying to make a case that Lutherans were close enough to fit the bill I'd probably have brought out the delete hammer.
Beginning in 1520, right after Martin Luther's Reformation, bloody religious wars began that kept recurring almost yearly for over a century. The Reformation's rapid spread drew battle lines accross Europe as Catholic armies were fielded to crush the Protestants into submission, engulfing the con...