[zeeba neighba]

Spurious and has nothing to do with the subject. What do they say in court? Have to ask Marlowe, objection sustained?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Spurious and has nothing to do with the subject."

Fine. You pretend that you didn't make a statement that you couldn't back up, and I will continue to point out that you are veracity-challenged.

"What do they say in court? Have to ask Marlowe, objection sustained?"

Yes, they would say (since it was MY objection) "Objection sustained," and they would further say "and the court fines zeeba neighba one day's attorney fees for frivolous argument."

[P-Marlowe]

All historical ducments are hearsay. Since Peter is not available to testify, even a letter written by Peter would be hearsay. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Since Mark was a scribe, any statement taken down by Mark that Peter uttered would have the same effect as a transcript of testimony. Thus that deletes any charge of double hearsay. Further as a scribe, what Mark took down would also be considered a business record as it was taken down in the course of Mark's business. There is a common law exception where a statement is admissible if the statement goes to a material fact and has probative value in that no other such evidence can be found. In this case there is no other contemporaneous evidence to exclude it.

The fact of the matter is that the testimony of the evangelists is some of the best eyewitness and secondary historical evidence of events in recorded history. It has stood the test of time. I would conclude that those who deign to question it, should be viewed as having their ownsecondary agenda.