The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?
If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?
How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?
Is eye witness testimony enough?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #61
The heavens declare the glory of Humpty Dumpty; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.GADARENE wrote: "But what if he has never heard of God? How can he be expected to form a relationship with God if he doesn't know he exists?"
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge
Please explain in which way your statement about God makes more sense than my statement about humpty dumpty.
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #62If Jesus is to be believed, then with all the millions of Christians there are in this world, we should be seeing miracles being performed in or own lives, regularly. We shoud not need to be directed to websites, because we should be seeing them ourselves. They should be so common that people yawn when they hear of one. "Oh, another Christian exhibiting the power of God again. Isn't that nice?"stubbornone wrote:
Its already been answered .. not skipped. I gave you evidence of ten medically documented miracles.
But we don't even see things in churches! Not normally. I've spend over 35 years of my life in churches and always heard stories about things that took place in far away countries, but never saw anything remarkable in churches. Even at healing crusades with faith healers, there was nothing mind blowing. Nothing anywhere near it.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #63stubbornone wrote:Oh yes, Cancer magically goes into remission all by itself ... so sayth the man who is suddenly a doctor? Making claims that are totally at odds with cancer treatment.Justin108 wrote:Ummm... what? Who did I appeal to?stubbornone wrote:It interesting that you make a claim, one that is called an appeal to authority (expertise) and is fallacious.Justin108 wrote:
And these aren't even supernatural claims and still they are unreliable.
.
Cancer goes into remission. It is a perfectly natural occurrence. Show me someone who grows back a limb (unnatural) and I'd call it a miracle.stubbornone wrote:MIraculously healed cancer is not supernatural, eh? Because YOU say so? The medically documented events are unreliable because YOU say so?
And I'm confused... where is all this coming from? I haven't even addressed any claim about cancer at all. I responded to SailingCyclops' references to false eye-witness testimony. I never said a damn thing about anything to do with cancer.
By all means snake oil saleman, go around telling people not to worry about cancer because it just naturally goes into regression all the time!
DO you see now what an appeal to fallacious expertise is? You should, you are using it.
And the lengths that some atheists will take to maintain their atheism is quite remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission
And incase you were wondering what a strawman really is... you just made one. I never said it happens "all the time" . I never said cancer treatment is now obsolete. I simply said it happens. It is rare but it still happens. Something rare occurring is not miraculous.
Remission occurs in 1 in 100 000 cancers. The odds of winning the lottery is less. Are you going to tell me that winning the lottery is a miracle now?
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #64Remember how you falsely accused me of appealing to authority? (yet you failed to tell me to whom I appealed). Well if you were confused about what appealing to authority looks like (as I believe you are), you are doing it right now.stubbornone wrote:Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University and led the attack on Carston Theide's re-dating of the Jesus Papyrus. He considers the Jesus Myth crowd even more extreme as he writes in The Gospels and Jesus.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Consensus among who? Certainly not biblical scholars, who have concluded that the synoptic gospels are in all likelihood not written by eyewitnesses.stubbornone wrote:the Synoptic Gospels are eye witness statements - how then do we weight them?
And the consensus opinion is that they are accurate because that which is in them that CAN be tested HAS been tested and is accurate.
Also, you are continuing to repeat the fallacy of composition. That some parts of an account contain accurate information has no bearing on the accuracy on the other parts of that account.
Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community.
http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm
There you go, that source contains several quotes from atheist and humanist period scholars.
If you insist on going down the well worn conspiratorial track of Jesus Mythery, then please bear in mind that I am with the consensus opinion of period scholars who state:
" Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."
Having waded into that discussion before, it always ends with atheists randomly picking and choosing atheist web sites, who cannot, and indeed will not, build a compelling case ... indeed ignore Wells, the progenitor of modern Jesus Mythery, who was forced by the consensus opinion of his fully exposed trite, to back track and clam that he ONLY denies the gospel, not historical, Jesus.
In short the discussion is about how to treat eye witness statements, not about how to create entire conspiracy theories to deny eye witness statements.
If you wish to go there, you will do so alone fuzzy, as the end state, as has happened EVERY time I have engaged a Jesus Myther, is indolence resulting animosity and out right hatred that someone would dare question the Jesus Myth ... especially if that questioning is effective.
And finally, once again, declaring random fallacies where non exist is indeed a tried an true atheists tactic ... one that is, as usual, totally out of lock step with reality and problem solving.
I will leave it to you to figure out what has already been explained, wherein we get witness statement and have to check them for accuracy against what we can. And if what we CAN checks is verified, and we have multiple testaments to same basic premise ... its considered accurate ... not fallacious.
Because, though it might be true that these men are STILL lying, its extremely unlikely, and indeed they have no motive ... other apparently than sitting around and saying, "Heh Mark, watch this, this'll reallty send atheists into orbit 2,000 years for now!!!"
To assume that otherwise honest men are lying ONLY in the parts that you cannot verify is, not fallacious, its simply illogical. It caused by nothing other than your faith NEEDING other to be lying.
So, what is it about your faith choice that causes you to accuse people of being liars with absolutely no evidence whatsoever? Right, seems a downright pernicious faith choice to me.
Must be why I left it.
I'm glad I get to teach you so much

Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #65as the exorcised demoniac sat as his feet, clothed and in his right mind, so have countless broken, bruised and forgotten found peace and healing through the ages at the hands of his body of believers--mostly behind the scenes.GADARENE wrote:stubbornone wrote:SailingCyclops wrote:How about we start with the question which you completely avoided above. Jesus is claimed to have said that his followers in the future would perform greater miracles than he performed.stubbornone wrote: And what sort of evidence would you presuppose that we weigh on a internet forum?
Show me the proof. Show me greater miracles being performed by his followers today. The alternative is that Jesus did not tell the truth, or those who wrote those statements attributed to him lied. Which is it?
Its already been answered .. not skipped. I gave you evidence of ten medically documented miracles.
You are in this kick about how the evidence on an internet forum isn't compelling enough.
Well, OK then, I recommend we suspend all debate until, in line with your need for evidence of a certain magnitude, we develop technology that will allow us to magically transport people, invisibly and without the ability to interfere directly to historical events so they can witness them for themselves. Deal?
greater works than these shall ye do.
where are them greater works be a happenin? huh? lol. your fictional, invisible, domineering, greedy, phony home-boy god don't exist, do he big shot, like we been sayin all along (except when we get scaered. then it's, well maybe, who the hell knows?)
as the exorcised demoniac sat as his feet, clothed and in his right mind, so have countless broken, bruised and forgotten found peace and healing through the ages at the hands of his body of believers--mostly behind the scenes.
and the hospitals and medical centers and the thousands of doctors, nurses, respiratory, physical and occupational therapists reaching out in love and scientific expertise to heal the sick and comfort the dying.
and the hospitals and medical centers and the thousands of doctors, nurses, respiratory, physical and occupational therapists reaching out in love and scientific expertise to heal the sick and comfort the dying.
millions and millions of people from all over the world have been saved from their sins through the efforts of his body, his church.
god doesn't send anyone to hell. like the drunk said, I know there's a hell, as he points to his chest. cause I got it right here.
god doesn't make anyone put her hand on a red hot stove burner.
serving sin enslaves us. suspended between heaven and earth, blood flowing from his body, he created the path to redemption, to forgiveness, to cleansing, to be united with god in uninterrupted fellowship. sharing this message by his followers has made possible a far greater outreach than he could accomplish by himself.
- Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #66You are the one questioning the consensus of scholars that the synoptic gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, not me. Also, I request that you stop making insinuations about the Jesus Myth. There is a lot of room between "the synoptic gospels were not written by eyewitnesses" and "Jesus never existed."stubbornone wrote:#1 - when you question the consensus of scholars on the subject, what exactly do you think you are raising?Where in my post did I mention or even allude to the Jesus myth theory??? I reject the Jesus myth theory completely and have argued against it myself in the past. Please try to read more carefully.
The issue is with your claim that the synoptic gospels were written by eyewitnesses. This is not the case. They are hearsay.
The synoptic gospels are anonymous documents and do not claim authorship. I challenge you to support your claim.stubbornone wrote:#2 - You do so again when you dismiss the synoptic gospels as heresay, even though their claimed authorship clearly places them as eye witnesses and they are written in the time frame to be just that.
Even if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses (a position scholars do not generally support), they cannot be considered independent verification of the events of the life of Jesus because they are not independent documents - they copy from each other quite explicitly.stubbornone wrote:Unfortunately, there are FOUR eye witness statements that are all in agreement.
No. Anything we cannot verify in a witness statement is not assumed to be false, it is simply not verified. When you assume it to be true, you commit the fallacy of composition.stubbornone wrote:Additionally, simply screaming fallacy here does not allow us to address the issue at hand. What are we to with eye witness statements when we cannot verify the whole? Scream fallacy? We should assume that anything we cannot verufy in AN EYE WITNESS STATEMENT must be lying?You have absolutely committed the fallacy of composition.
I have not concluded, claimed or implied that they must be lies. I have concluded that we do not know whether or not the statements are true. You are committing the strawman fallacy.stubbornone wrote:Now, you get to explain why your faith drives to to conclude, without evidence, that these statements are lies.
They must be lies because your faith tell you so? Convincing, eh?
Fallacy of composition. This is not how historians deal with sources. I challenge you to show that "Harvard" or any mainstream historians do history as you describe. A source claiming the fallacy of composition to be acceptable in the analysis of historical documents would be a good start.stubbornone wrote: 1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
enough is never enough
Post #67thousands of people saw him and rejected his message. thousands of people heard him speak and rejected him. it is easy to assume if only we could have been present to see and to hear him ourselves, then we'd know whether he existed. then we'd know exactly what he had to say and if he really performed miracles. but relatively few chose to follow him back then. and it isn't surprising few follow him today, which is exactly what he said would happen. there's a price to pay, isn't there?
the images from the movie the passion probably portray fairly accurately the physical degradation he experienced at the end of his life. beaten, whipped, spat on, thorns pounded into his skull, stripped, muddied, shredded, bloodied, bruised, nailed and hung up for the masses to watch the gruesome site. even then, his true nature shone. daddy, forgive them, they don't really know what they are doing. (dear god, who is this guy?) acknowledging the thief's contrition -today my friend, paradise is yours- as his joints pulled apart gradually, and he was asphyxiated, drowned, ever so slowly from blood entering his lungs, he was so kind and unselfish, even as he bore within his body all the sin of the entire world, forcing his dad to look a way from him. broken, my god, have you forsaken me, too?
the images from the movie the passion probably portray fairly accurately the physical degradation he experienced at the end of his life. beaten, whipped, spat on, thorns pounded into his skull, stripped, muddied, shredded, bloodied, bruised, nailed and hung up for the masses to watch the gruesome site. even then, his true nature shone. daddy, forgive them, they don't really know what they are doing. (dear god, who is this guy?) acknowledging the thief's contrition -today my friend, paradise is yours- as his joints pulled apart gradually, and he was asphyxiated, drowned, ever so slowly from blood entering his lungs, he was so kind and unselfish, even as he bore within his body all the sin of the entire world, forcing his dad to look a way from him. broken, my god, have you forsaken me, too?
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #68Justin108 wrote:How do we know he performed miracles? That's the whole point of my question. Him performing miracles is based on CLAIMS by supposed eye witnesses.bjs wrote:What empirical and or/repeatable tests could be done to establish an event in the life of a historical person?playhavock wrote:Emperical evidance and/or a repeatable test or two would be a start.
If Jesus claimed divinity and done nothing miraculous (that is, did only things that can be repeated), would you thenbelieve his claim?
None of you are addressing the OP. You're all evading it by trying to turn the table. The question stands: How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?
what difference does it make? your eyewitness may not be hers. conducting a poll yields what?
what kind/how much proof do you need to gather to try to show others they don't have enough proof for you? what do you seek?
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #69"If Jesus is to be believed..." he is believed. how can it be?
Re: Is eye witness testimony enough?
Post #70Justin108 wrote: The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?
If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?
How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?
how do you decide which ones to believe, as i'm sure you must have standards in this regard?