"There were eye-witnesses"

[Zzyzx]

.
Some bible stories are claimed to be truthful "because there were eye-witnesses". Does that establish the truth of the story?

If a person claims to have run a mile in two minutes and says "there were eye-witnesses" does that establish the claim as legitimate – if the witnesses cannot be identified – if no statements from witnesses are available – if credibility of the witnesses is unknown?

If there actually was a witness report of the water-to-wine incident, is there any assurance that what they saw was not an illusion (keeping in mind that illusionists even today can perform "magical" feats that convince many observers)?

If the claim defies what we know of the real world, does witness testimony (or claim "there were witnesses") override real world considerations? Is a two-minute-mile any less believable than "arose from the dead" or "walked on water" or "calmed storms by command?"

[Danmark]

korah wrote:

I have to admit that faith was not enough for me, so I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels.

First of all, your statement suggests that the Christian faith isn't based on any evidence. But it is. Secondly, I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels -- and more -- and it is the evidence I have found that makes me such a strong follower of Christ.

I wonder where your research led you. I have found that some people feed their doubt rather than their faith by reading only those things that speak against God, the Bible and Christianity. They do not entertain the other side of the picture at all because, in reality, they don't want to believe and they go looking for excuses not to. I am not saying you are one of those because I don't know you, but I have seen numerous cases of that.

In my Post #8 I gave a link to my key post in another thread, which your Post #10 shows you did not bother to read. I kept hoping someone else would prove me wrong that no one shows any real interest in finding unbiased historical evidence for Jesus, but I guess I'm stuck with commenting on your reply here.

Knowing that you won't look at it either, here's my link to my 1970 peer-reviewed article in which I stated that I could establish sound evidence for Jesus and the gospels. It happened to take another 42 years before my research got so far that I found there are seven written eyewitness records identifiable as sources within the four gospels:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1970jan-00155
Refer to my article "Philosophy as Science" page 160 carrying into 161.

I'm surprised you would bring up that article since it meanders all over the place with obviously biased and unsubstantiated thinking that had been debunked long before it was published. Finally it concludes with racist nonsense about the superiority of Nordics and Jews and that hybrid Nordics and Jews are probably superior to all. And of course, there is nothing about "seven written eyewitness records identifiable as sources within the four gospels."

Since you claim it is 'peer reviewed,' please give us the URLs of those reviews of your work.

[Goat]

korah wrote:

I have to admit that faith was not enough for me, so I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels.

First of all, your statement suggests that the Christian faith isn't based on any evidence. But it is. Secondly, I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels -- and more -- and it is the evidence I have found that makes me such a strong follower of Christ.

I wonder where your research led you. I have found that some people feed their doubt rather than their faith by reading only those things that speak against God, the Bible and Christianity. They do not entertain the other side of the picture at all because, in reality, they don't want to believe and they go looking for excuses not to. I am not saying you are one of those because I don't know you, but I have seen numerous cases of that.

In my Post #8 I gave a link to my key post in another thread, which your Post #10 shows you did not bother to read. I kept hoping someone else would prove me wrong that no one shows any real interest in finding unbiased historical evidence for Jesus, but I guess I'm stuck with commenting on your reply here.

Knowing that you won't look at it either, here's my link to my 1970 peer-reviewed article in which I stated that I could establish sound evidence for Jesus and the gospels. It happened to take another 42 years before my research got so far that I found there are seven written eyewitness records identifiable as sources within the four gospels:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1970jan-00155
Refer to my article "Philosophy as Science" page 160 carrying into 161.

I challenge your claim that there are 'seven eyewitness accounts in the four gospels.' I challenge you to present the evidence here, and see if your claims hold up to scrutiny.

I do not find that publishing things in the 'mankind quarterly' would be a matter of academic achievement either.

[Zzyzx]

I challenge your claim that there are 'seven eyewitness accounts in the four gospels.' I challenge you to present the evidence here, and see if your claims hold up to scrutiny.

I second the challenge and I note that a claim "there were eyewitnesses" is decidedly NOT an eyewitness account. There is a great difference.

[Korah]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Actually you are the third to challenge me. Let me remind you that you posted many many times in the thread "Why are all the Scholars changing their minds on the existence of Jesus?" after I posted my #60 there. Apparently you are not seriously interested in any evidence I might have that there were seven written eyewitness records of Jesus in the four gospels.

As for Goat, he posted right before me in Post #59, so it is very likely he saw my Post #60 and its two links to two places (among others) where I have posted my arguments for eyewitness writers about Jesus. He never dared reply in the thread nor on either of the websites to which I linked.

For danmark I have more respect. He did what I in my cynicism feared, that someone would finally read my stuff if it were something I would just as soon no one ever read. Sure, there is much I would not now publish if I were restating my fundamental philosophy (an unholy mixture then of Medieval Realism, Kant, Positivism, and cynical Realism). One would hardly think that someone touting Milton Friedman then would now be a Democrat who despises the One Per Centers who gave us the Greenspan Bubble followed by the Bush Depression. I knew that it would be just my luck that someone would read my 1969 philosophy and no one would read my current Main-Line-Christianity "Case for Christ", you might say.

So here again is my link to that Post #60 that links to two websites that published my Gospel Eyewitnesses.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=50
And to danmark, let me explain that peer-reviewed does not mean reviews after publication, but that other scholars in advance read my article to check it. In my other article "Farewell to Behaviourism" in Mankind Quarterly in 1973 they made me insert most of the body of my opening paragraph comparison of Arthur R. Jensen to Copernicus because they felt several of their own Honorary Associate Editors were comparable Hereditarian precursors. It had 24 footnotes in seven pages, high by the standards of 1970 when I wrote it.
Back then articles never got reviewed, just books. I have lately seen cases where substantial articles have been reviewed in other publications, but "peer review" still in no way means that other scholars subsequently wrote about someone's article.

What is a "URL", by the way? Unpublished Review Literature? (I'm assuming you are old enough to know that there was no internet back in 1970.)

[Zzyzx]

.

Actually you are the third to challenge me.

Woopie ding ("Colloquialism from the mid- to late 60's, meaning 'big deal' or 'so what'")

Let me remind you that you posted many many times in the thread "Why are all the Scholars changing their minds on the existence of Jesus?" after I posted my #60 there. Apparently you are not seriously interested in any evidence I might have that there were seven written eyewitness records of Jesus in the four gospels.

Those who are seriously interested in presenting evidence will do so here in this debate rather than making assumptions about the level of interest of others.

What is a "URL", by the way? Unpublished Review Literature? (I'm assuming you are old enough to know that there was no internet back in 1970.)

Several of us are old enough and informed enough to realize that much significant literature produced before 1970 is available on-line (including variations of the bible). Of course, that requires that someone deems any given written material be worthy of the effort necessary to digitize it (including possibly the author).

Some of us are old enough and experienced enough to be aware that articles WERE peer reviewed before publication in scholarly journals long before 1970. Of course, articles for publication in public magazines and journals need not have been so reviewed.

In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:

 The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review�).

 These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.

 The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.

 If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it.

·     Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the standards established for a given discipline, peer-reviewed articles that are accepted for publication exemplify the best research practices in a field.
http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/content ... id=1746812

[Korah]

[Replying to post 35 by Zzyzx]
Thank you, Zzyzz,
For documenting that I was correct about what peer review meant (and still does mean).
I may be wrong in thinking I detect some sarcasm about scholarly journals as against mere magazines. Perhaps you are so very literate that you know that there is a publication called simply "Mankind", not of much consequence. However, "Mankind Quarterly" is an academic journal with professors and Ph. D.s on its board.
One further point: I do not know whom besides Lord Gayre read my manuscript before publication. Part of peer review is that the writer is not supposed to know who critiqued his work.
Dale Adams
I almost failed to notice. You note (no doubt correctly) that digitizing old stuff implies its importance, but that the author may be the inspiration for it being deemed significant. I never knew before yesterday that my two articles had been digitized, and I had no part whatever in such decisions or processing.

[Zzyzx]

.

I may be wrong in thinking I detect some sarcasm about scholarly journals as against mere magazines.

The only "sarcasm" (actually disagreement) was with a claim you made that "Back then [1970] articles never got reviewed, just books." I know from personal experience that is not true.

General circulation magazines and journals are very different from scholarly journals (which tend to be rather boring, esoteric and not at all appealing to the general public). They are intended for different audiences / readers.

"Mankind Quarterly" is an academic journal with professors and Ph. D.s on its board.

I must admit that "Mankind Quarterly" is not on my reading list (or has even risen to my awareness). However, a quick bit of research indicates that it is NOT held in high regard by the scientific community. One of the many criticisms / negative reactions I encountered summed up the consensus very well:

The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology.

It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]

Its foundation in 1960 may in part have been a response to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education which ordered the desegregation of schools in the United States.[5][6] It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics.

The founders were Robert Gayre, Henry Garrett, Roger Pearson, Corrado Gini, Ottmar von Verschuer and Reginald Ruggles Gates.

Many of those who constitute the publication's contributors, Board of Directors, and publishers are connected to the academic hereditarian tradition. The journal has been criticized by some as being political and strongly right-leaning,[7] racist or fascist.[8][9]The publisher counters that much of Anthropology is 'politicised' in the opposite way and that those who count amongst the most vocal critics of the journal often identify with the Radical tradition in Anthropology.[10] The editorial practice has been criticised as biased and misleading.[11]

During the "Bell Curve wars" of the 1990s, the journal received attention when opponents of The Bell Curve publicized the fact that some of the works cited by Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray had first been published in Mankind Quarterly.[12] In the New York Review of Books, Charles Lane referred to The Bell Curve's "tainted sources," noting that seventeen researchers cited in the book's bibliography had contributed articles to, and ten of these seventeen had also been editors of, Mankind Quarterly, "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race."[13] The journal stands by its tradition of publishing hereditarian perspective articles to this day, stating that "...this science has stood the test of time, and MQ is still prepared to publish controversial findings and theories".[14] Pearson received over a million dollars in grants from the Pioneer Fund in the eighties and the nineties.[12][15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly

If I had published an article there I'm not sure that I would announce that.

[Danmark]

For danmark I have more respect. He did what I in my cynicism feared, that someone would finally read my stuff if it were something I would just as soon no one ever read. Sure, there is much I would not now publish if I were restating my fundamental philosophy (an unholy mixture then of Medieval Realism, Kant, Positivism, and cynical Realism). One would hardly think that someone touting Milton Friedman then would now be a Democrat who despises the One Per Centers who gave us the Greenspan Bubble followed by the Bush Depression. I knew that it would be just my luck that someone would read my 1969 philosophy and no one would read my current Main-Line-Christianity "Case for Christ", you might say.

So here again is my link to that Post #60 that links to two websites that published my Gospel Eyewitnesses.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=50
And to danmark, let me explain that peer-reviewed does not mean reviews after publication, but that other scholars in advance read my article to check it. In my other article "Farewell to Behaviourism" in Mankind Quarterly in 1973 they made me insert most of the body of my opening paragraph comparison of Arthur R. Jensen to Copernicus because they felt several of their own Honorary Associate Editors were comparable Hereditarian precursors. It had 24 footnotes in seven pages, high by the standards of 1970 when I wrote it.
Back then articles never got reviewed, just books. I have lately seen cases where substantial articles have been reviewed in other publications, but "peer review" still in no way means that other scholars subsequently wrote about someone's article.

What is a "URL", by the way? Unpublished Review Literature? (I'm assuming you are old enough to know that there was no internet back in 1970.)

I am certainly old enough to know that there was no internet in 1970, the year I graduated from college. But I have tried to keep up. URL stands for 'Uniform Resource Locator' and an example is the one you posted to your article.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/p ... e&p=640586 is a URL

I'm happy to know you have grown since then. I would like to presume you no longer argue for the superiority of those who are 'half Nordic.' Tho' as one whose biological heritage is half Norwegian, half assorted Anglo Saxon, I confess to an irrational and embarrassing bias toward your original thesis.

So, since the central topic of this subtopic is the 'eyewitnesses' what is your current position and evidence for eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

[Goat]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Actually you are the third to challenge me. Let me remind you that you posted many many times in the thread "Why are all the Scholars changing their minds on the existence of Jesus?" after I posted my #60 there. Apparently you are not seriously interested in any evidence I might have that there were seven written eyewitness records of Jesus in the four gospels.

As for Goat, he posted right before me in Post #59, so it is very likely he saw my Post #60 and its two links to two places (among others) where I have posted my arguments for eyewitness writers about Jesus. He never dared reply in the thread nor on either of the websites to which I linked.

Oh, I like to a website is not debate. Extract that information. Pointing to another forum is not debating here.

You can link to a site for support, but saying 'go read this' is not support.

[Korah]

.

I may be wrong in thinking I detect some sarcasm about scholarly journals as against mere magazines.

The only "sarcasm" (actually disagreement) was with a claim you made that "Back then [1970] articles never got reviewed, just books." I know from personal experience that is not true.

I don't doubt that you know that, even though I don't remember it happening. (Perhaps you mean what did routinely occur, that in writing one's new article one happened to state at length one's opinion of someone else's article--along with similar critique of other writers and their articles.) However, your bald statement might leave some naive readers with the impression that you mean that this often occurred back in 1970, not just the rare cases you probably mean of an review focusing on one other article, and even those probably in some different type of publication.

If I had published an article there I'm not sure that I would announce that.

Well, Zzyzx,
I thought that was what I said. Unfortunately for me, I was quite correct that bloggers are only interested in tearing opponents apart, not in listening to them and perhaps even learning something. I suppose some people come to websites to learn, but I find very few people who POST on websites have any interest in truth.