A really, really, REALLY simple concept

[atheist buddy]

Eyewitness testimony: When a person writes down what he saw/heard/tasted/smelled/touched

Hearsay testimony: When a person writes down what another person told him


Here's an example of eyewitness testimony: "I heard the thunderstorm last night"

Here's an example of hearsay tesitmony: "My wife tells me there was a thunderstorm last night, although I slept through it and didn't hear anything".


Eyewitness testimony: I saw Steve kill Joe

Hearsay: When we talked to Steve, he told us that he killed Joe


Eyewitness: I went to Jesus's tomb and it was empty

Hearsay: Somebody told me that he went to Jesus's tomb and it was empty


Eyewitness: This book is an original document in which I wrote what I saw and heard

Hearsay: This book is a copy of a document in which somebody else wrote what they saw and heard. You cannot see the original, but trust me (even though you don't know who I am), it's pretty much the same as the original.


Question for debate: Is anybody even slightly confused about the fact that we have no eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING relating to Jesus's life?

[Zzyzx]

.

Does that mean we should exclude eye witness testimonies from court trials?

Perhaps eyewitness testimony should be more carefully used / interpreted / considered – and should NOT be used to convict anyone without strong supporting / corroborating evidence – because:

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions later overturned through DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bod ... 38023.html

See also

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitn ... d=noscript
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm
http://www.innocenceproject.org/underst ... cation.php

Or Internet search "unreliability of eyewitnesses"


As related to these discussions the supposed "witness accounts" are HIGHLY questionable because:

1) Witnesses did not leave writings detailing what they observed
2) Identity of witnesses is unknown
3) No claimed witnesses can be shown to have actually been present at events
4) Accounts available are copies of copies of copies by unknown scribes and editors
5) Decades, generations or centuries separate the claimed events and the earliest recording (by unknown people from unknown sources).
6) A "witness account" written by someone else is HEARSAY – that heard from others – and is not a witness account at all.
7) Claims that "there were witnesses" are NOT witness accounts and are not credible

[atheist buddy]

atheistbuddy wrote:

eyewitness testimony is such un reliable form of evidence,

Does that mean we should exclude eye witness testimonies from court trials?

No, but if an eyewitness testimony is contradicted by empirical evidence, we should believe the empirical evidence becuase it is more reliable.

For example if an eyewitness claims that Joe raped Anne, but empirical evidence in the form of DNA samples says that Joe didn't rape Anne, then we should conclude Joe didn't rape Anne because , say it with me, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS MORE RELIABLE.


For another example, if eyewitness testimony says that SaiBaba magically materialized a golden necklece, but empirical evidence in the form of video footage shows that it's actually a trick, then we should believe that it was just a trick because, say it with me, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS MORE RELIABLE.

Lastly, if eyewitness testimony say a guy turned water into wine, but empirical evidence in the form of the laws of physics shows that it's actually a myth, then we should believe that it was just a myth because, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS MORE RELIABLE.


Got it?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 5 by Zzyzx]

There's no reason to be so doubtful of the evidence for Jesus in the Bible. It's only ever been each individuals' personal desire to weigh the evidence we have according to their desire to accept or reject the Bible. But the Bible has always claimed to be eye witness testimony.

From: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/ho ... el-record/

It points to verses such as the following that indicate eye witness testimony is part of the New Testament.

1 Peter 5:1 - Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…
2 Peter 1:16-17 - For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
1 John 1:1-3 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

No what that points to is that the anonymous writers wrote down a quote from someone who claims to have been an eye witness. Also they could very well be talking metaphorically.

the word translated to witness in Peter for example is Marus

which means

1) a witness
1a) in a legal sense
1b) an historical sense
1b1) one who is a spectator of anything, e.g. of a contest
1c) in an ethical sense
1c1) those who after his example have proved the strength and
genuineness of their faith in Christ by undergoing a
violent death


It is not necessarily saying they are literal witness's but instead a living example of the sufferings of the christ. It is not necessarily the same as how you or I read witness. As with all things especially translations context is important. Also 1 Peter was written 80-140 CE so it is not likely that anyone who would have written peter would have been alive during the life of Jesus.

The evidence points to it not being an eye witness testimony. Additionally the last definition makes the most sense that given the earliest date we have for 1 Peter is around 80 CE this is about the same time that christian persecutions really started. So it makes sense in that historical context. Also we don't really know who wrote it:
" Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language."


Additionally Peter refers to Paul also suggesting that the writer of Peter was a contemporary of Paul and not a contemporary of Jesus.


Finally I will leave you with a quote from Luke which pretty much explains that they are not eyewitness's but are taking accounts from various eye witness's

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

In the opening lines of Luke he explains that he has investigated the eye-witness testimonies and writing to Theophilus attempts to set the record straight.

This does 2 things

1. It suggests that Luke and his contemporaries were not eye-witnesses but have learned from eye witnesses

2. It also suggests that there appears to be conflicting stories among the eye-witnesses as Luke feels the need to write an orderly account so that the reader can understand with certainty which is correct.

there is a possible 3rd inference and that is that Luke is the most accurate gospel as he is the only one that has claimed to carefully investigate the account. This puts his account at odds against other accounts when differences arise.


P.S.


Another reason to take eye-witness testimony with a grain of salt is found strangely enough in the recent Micheal Brown shooting.

There are at least 5 different eye-witnesses and all claim to have seen similar but different things. From the number of shots to the events of what transpired and to whether or not the kid was surrendering or charging. Clearly eye witness testimony is not remotely reliable. At best eye-witness testimony gives us a general sense of what occurred and not an accurate sense of what occurred. This only gets worse over time as well. Given the time between when the first gospels are written and the death of Jesus we are talking about decades not hours or minutes before the first events are written down.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by Wootah]

I also don't find very good scholarship in the author you submitted.

Unlike spontaneous, unprepared witnesses of a crime, the disciples were desperately attentive to the words and actions of Jesus, and I imagine their attention to detail became even more focused with each miraculous event. For this reason, the authors of the gospels became excellent eyewitnesses and recognized the importance of their testimony very early.

Here he is making multiple pre-suppositions about the writers of the gospels outside of historical context. Which is fine for a layman but it does not appear he has investigated the context of the gospels archeologically or historically.

Luke Paul and the writer of Peter were not likely disciples of Jesus as they came long after the aprox death of Jesus. Additionally he is assuming miraculous events occurred we have no evidence to suggest this is actually the case. As a homicide investigator he should know that what a person claims while being truthful might not correspond to the events that transpired. It really reads like the author here wanted to make a quick buck by preying on the beliefs of others. I would expect better out of a homicide investigator.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 5 by Zzyzx]

There's no reason to be so doubtful of the evidence for Jesus in the Bible. It's only ever been each individuals' personal desire to weigh the evidence we have according to their desire to accept or reject the Bible. But the Bible has always claimed to be eye witness testimony.

I understand that the Bible reads like it was eyewitness testimony. That doesn't mean that it actually is.

The novel Bridget Jones's Diary reads like a diary. That doesn't mean it's an actual diary.

As somebody else pointed out, there are dialogues between parties that could not POSSIBLY have been overheard by the alleged authors of the Bible.

But even without that, we don't have the autographs. What we have is copies of copies. (of copies of copies of copies of copies). Somebody wrote something, which inspired somebody to write something, which inspired somebody to write something, etc. That's what hearsay is.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 16 by atheist buddy]

Yes but that is your dilemma not mine. You are now in the position of having no historical knowledge.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 16 by atheist buddy]

Yes but that is your dilemma not mine. You are now in the position of having no historical knowledge.

I'm sorry Wootah, I understand the definition of each of the words you wrote, but for the life of me cannot fathom why you would type them in that specific order.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you kindly rephrase?

[Wootah]

[Replying to atheist buddy]

You wrote that you understood the Bible reads like eye witness testimony but that doesn't mean it is. So how do you evaluate other historical documents such that you exclude the bible but not some piece of Roman history for instance?

What piece of ancient historical text do you believe is real?

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to atheist buddy]

You wrote that you understood the Bible reads like eye witness testimony but that doesn't mean it is. So how do you evaluate other historical documents such that you exclude the bible but not some piece of Roman history for instance?

What piece of ancient historical text do you believe is real?

I never said I include/exclude the Bible. I never said that I include/exclude any other piece of history. I never said that the Bible, as an ancient historical text, is not real. I didn't make any example of other documents which are real.

That entire conversation was happening exclusively inside your head.

All I said was that the Bible is hearsay testimony. Relax, that's no big deal. It's totally fine. It doesn't necessarily mean we ignore it. Obviously we still take that hearsay evidence into consideration.

I agree that the Bible is historical evidence. All I was saying is that, like many other pieces of historical evidence, it's hearsay evidence, not eyewitness, and not empirical.

That's all.

Do you agree?