outhouse wrote:In law this hearsay actually qualifies under excited utterance.
Completely irrelevant. We don't actually have knowledge of such an "excited utterance" from said hypothetical "witnesses." If you were cross-examining yourself, before posting this stuff, wouldn't you notice something like that?
Please do try to improve the quality of your posts... you can see some examples from some of the people that you respect about how it is possible to interact with suspected "kooks" and show their errors without one-liner assertion-type posts (which don't "show" anything).
I recognize of course that not all posts are brilliant or even substantiated. It is an internet forum, and a good one for being that, but it's still that. There's certainly plenty deserving of reply here. I'm not discouraging replies; I just would like them (if possible) to say more than "wrong and yo mamma," if you see what I mean.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
outhouse wrote:In law this hearsay actually qualifies under excited utterance.
Completely irrelevant. We don't actually have knowledge of such an "excited utterance" from said hypothetical "witnesses." If you were cross-examining yourself, before posting this stuff, wouldn't you notice something like that?
Please do try to improve the quality of your posts... you can see some examples from some of the people that you respect about how it is possible to interact with suspected "kooks" and show their errors without one-liner assertion-type posts (which don't "show" anything).
I recognize of course that not all posts are brilliant or even substantiated. It is an internet forum, and a good one for being that, but it's still that. There's certainly plenty deserving of reply here. I'm not discouraging replies; I just would like them (if possible) to say more than "wrong and yo mamma," if you see what I mean.
outhouse wrote:In law this hearsay actually qualifies under excited utterance.
Completely irrelevant. We don't actually have knowledge of such an "excited utterance" from said hypothetical "witnesses." If you were cross-examining yourself, before posting this stuff, wouldn't you notice something like that?
.
I believe we do. The textual evidence has the chance of originating in this exact way. The evidence needs to be explained and examined to look at said possibilities. How can something that probably took place be viewed as irrelevant?
If a Galilean was crucified, would this have been exactly how the traditions evolved in oral transfer ?
Secret Alias wrote:The light is 'obscure' to a blind man. The right answer out of reach for a fool. Trobisch is not some 'obscure scholar.'
Taking me out of context does little here.
He is factually a small piece of the puzzle, not he largest puzzle piece.
Prices review was interesting, but does not make him he go to guy for Paul. I don't think here is a single scholar considered a go to guy for Paul. It takes knowing many to form a decent opinion.
Does, or does not the textual evidence have the chance of originating in this exact way.
To be clear in the exact way.
As a Crucified and martyred man who caused a disturbance in the temple in a time when tensions ran high. Soon after due to said martyrdom mythology and theology developed and was found popular by Hellenist in the Diaspora who may have attended and been witness to said events in some manner. Oral and visual.
YOU do not have to like it or accept it. But it factually is a possibility that currently holds the most historicity out of any hypothesis. Your job is not to attack me, but rather try and whittle away at why the hypothesis should be replaces with something more reasonable.
I guess we don't need to keep this tit-for-tat up and just have to aagree to disagree. As I already said, your way of seeing things is not necessarily wrong. However, I disagree strongly that it's somehow a given that is based on some solid proof. The ignorance of assumed genuine Pauline literature with regard to that Galilean is one aspect, the way how Mark tries to explain why we don't have any evidence is a second stumble block. That both our presumably earliest texts that are part of today's canon seem to be rather weak in the evidence department is something one can try to explain away, but that's just that, a try.
Ulan wrote:
, I disagree strongly that it's somehow a given that is based on some solid proof.
.
Not my claim.
I am certain he existed based on study which only amounts to degrees of plausibility.
the way how Mark tries to explain why we don't have any evidence is a second stumble block
It is not a stumbling block.
We have different communities in different geographic locations describing how and what the mythology and theology meant to them.
but that's just that, a try.
The evidence needs to be explained.
So far only one hypothesis is not laughable and accepted to the point of almost total consensus.
I could see your point if it was a debate say on the socioeconomics of Galilee, where its split even. Apologist tend to favor a richer Galilee and non biased academics tends to see the Aramaic peasant class separated from the Hellenist class in Sepphoris as an example. [could be argued its not an even split, but heavily debated is my point.]
You are like a broken record. As your criterion for "credible and plausible" is just your usual appeal to authority, why would I list anyone else than those you already mentioned?
