Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

srabi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 2:39 am (just a few thoughts)

Welcome to the forum!

That didn't take long. Anything to keep huffing this shit.

And I'm not even charging $100 for the privilege:

viewtopic.php?t=13020

That might sound nice (idk not really) but it's been a waste of time, then, for Livesey, since Basilides (pre-135) already references Paul's letter to the Romans, showing this so-called conclusion to be just a fantasy. Another failed argument for a failed project.

I've been working on an essay investigating the proposal that Mark originally ended at 15:39. [github dot com /shogun70/Theology/blob/main/Original-Mark/index dot md] Welcome to the forum! https://github.com/shogun70/Theology/blob/main/Original-Mark/index.md You should be able to post links now.

Doherty and Carrier certainly recognize that "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets" would be incompatible with their interpretation of the letters of Paul. Others recognize it as an uncomfortable verse from the perspective of the legacy of anti-semitism in Christianity...

While I think that Livesey might be overreaching to rely on Tertullian's claim that "Marcion claimed to have "found" the Letter to the Galatians [per se]," her following propositions — According to modern epistolary theorists, the suggestion of finding a letter is what one would...

Interesting OP. Thank you!

Those who think about these problems know that there are always multiple possible accounts consistent with the facts and that multiplying hypothetical sources increases the number of such possibilities. It can only ever be a question of the more probable and less, taking into account all the availab...

To avoid confusion, I agree with Paul (regarding the minimum of coherence of using 100% or 0% probabilities within Bayesian epistemology) and obviously with Andrew (regarding what he meant). I interpret the "A or ~A" stuff as being less about a claim that Bayesian epistemology cannot ever ...