Sheshbazzar

Actually all of what you have posted should be amended. But ho hum, more of that same old-
Straw held together with slippery :horsecrap:

I've lost track of your constant 'should be amended's'.

Good thing I didn't buy your :horsecrap: in the beginning because that steaming pile has been slipping and sliding ever since.



.

Adam

You guys kept asking for more proof, and on reflection I realized that eyewitness testimony lends itself to more implications (and thus more proof). I am not limited to what verses are generally agreed are in the Passion Narrative, but I could rightfully include verses that the eyewitness of the Passion Narrative would also have witnessed.

Adam

My Post #140 is a very short sampling of eyewitness evidences, but still I get no responses? Even here no one can top the presupposition of standard scholarship that there are no eyewitnesses?

outhouse

Actually i do have backing. most modern scholarships back me.


it is you who are left short with a handful of imagination.

There is no debate at all over oral tradition in the jewish society during this period. None at all.

where does that really leave you Adam?

outhouse

false

your evidence is "ONLY" percieved

Adam

Then you will now provide the backing for your posts #121, !29, and 137?

If you are saying that Oral Tradition explains the Synoptic Problem, then you do not have scholarly support for that. That's what we're fighting about, as I understand it.

outhouse

I understand you take your own road, but its not accepted. end of story.

There is no debate that oral tradition was used alot during thi speriod of high illiteracy. Period, end of story.


Now if you can refute oral tradition, then do so. As it stands you have not nor can refute it.:constern01:

outhouse

PS ill be thinking about you when im driving through Dixon tonight.

Adam

No, the issue is you say scholarship supports you. You continue failing to give any support for your Oral Tradition to explain the Synoptic Problem.Irrelevent after being written down and subsequently translated, copied, or revised.I'll take you up on that. See my Post #140 #1 point for starters.

For verbal exactitudes that could not be oral tradition independently entering Matthew and Luke, see my Post #230 in Gospel Eyewitnesses, the first third. That disproves you. To prove my point that eyewitnesses wrote gospel accounts, these verses in what I call Q2 reveal the perspective of the writer, focussed on John the Baptist and Qumran-type apocalypticism.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306983&page=10

Sheshbazzar

Are you certain you don't want to amend these... again?

A picture is worth a thousand words; :horsecrap: