(October 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm)John V Wrote:You have one (alleged) second-hand account and the (alleged) first-hand one uses the other as its basis?(October 22, 2012 at 4:25 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Strange...What's strange about it?
A follower of a witness writes the first thing.
Then another witness writes another, heavily based on the first account... why didn't he write something new? Why did he base it on the other guy?
Then, years later, comes a scholar putting down hearsay and building further on top of what was already written.
Then the third account incorporates some "research", which envolves much hearsay and (considering the extra-ordinary nature of the account, likely) made up stuff.
(October 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm)John V Wrote:Oh, just something different from what already existed. Extraordinary tales were everywhere "on this time period"... on this "place period".Quote:This is not peer review: this is copy and add some bits.Again, what are your expectations for peer review for historoical accounts for this time period?
Middle East/Greece... Mesopotamia... India...
Look at it, there were some ~500~1000 years of amazing claims from every corner of that general area [way precise mapping required]. Why would these people have a problem with some new super-natural claim?
(October 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm)John V Wrote:Quote:It's right up there on the OP. Link and quote for the lazy!Where does that link indicate that "the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them...."?
Oh, sorry, that was from what someone wrote on this thread... Drich, page 1.
