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?

[Divine Insight]

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

There is no question that we don't.

Not only that, but even if we had actual reports directly from people who claim to have been eyewitnesses their testimony of what Jesus might have actually said would be hearsay anyway.

The bottom line is that the Christian bible doesn't even claim to contain anything written by Jesus himself. So to claim that the Bible contains the words of Jesus is a false claim. To claim that "Jesus said this, or Jesus said that" is a false claim.

All that can be claimed is that the Gospels rumors (which are themselves hearsay) claim that Jesus made many statements. IMHO, many of those claima actually contradict themselves.

In short, not only do we have no clue whether this Jesus fellow ever existed, but even if he did exist, we certainly have no clue what his actual opinions were or what he might have actually said, or claimed.

The authors who wrote these stories also would have had to be a fly on the wall following Jesus around to have eavesdropped in on all the conversations they claim to have overheard. They even seem to have been secretly eavesdropping on the Jewish Priests, and conversations between the Jewish Priests and Pontius Pilate as well.

Whoever these evesdroppers were they must not have had anything better to do with their lives that to go around spying on all these people like as if they knew ahead of time exactly how things were going to unfold and exactly who they would need to spy on to expose this plot once it had been unfolded.

The whole thing is clearly a scam. Or at the very least, totally made up from superstitious rumors. My guess it that it is a little bit of both.

I personally believe the rumors were started, and then when religious authoritarians realized that these rumors could be made into a religion they began to collect them and organize them into what we know call the "Gospels".

We even know that historically these rumor were indeed modified, edited and added to as history marched forward.

The Gospel rumors of Jesus "evolved" over time to be sure.

What there an actual person who gave rise to these rumors? Possibly. But the idea that all these rumors are then verbatim truth, is extremely questionable.

There are rumors about Elvis Presley and Micheal Jackson too. Both of these men actually lived. Does that mean that every rumor ever told about them must be the verbatim "gospel truth"? No of course not.

This is why I wouldn't be convinced of the rumors of Jesus even if it could be proven that some guy actually argued with the Jewish Pharisees and was indeed crucified for blaspheme. All that would do is confirm that there actually was a person that sparked these rumors. It wouldn't imply in the least that every rumor told about this man must then be the absolute verbatim truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

Seems at least one of is, or that it's all the rest of us a-sufferin' it.


To me it doesn't matter if we consider someone an eyewitness or not, but can their claims be confirmed or verified.

[atheist buddy]

From the OP:

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

Seems at least one of is, or that it's all the rest of us a-sufferin' it.


To me it doesn't matter if we consider someone an eyewitness or not, but can their claims be confirmed or verified.

I completely agree.

There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of bigfoot sightings, alien abductions, Elvis post-mortem sightings. Just becuase they are "eyewitness testimonies" it doesn't mean that we take them seriously.

Eyewitness testimony is, except for hearsay testimony, the most unreliable form of evidence there is.

So, even if the Bible was an eyewitness testimony (which it most definitely isn't), it wouldn't matter, because eyewitness testimony is such un reliable form of evidence, that if it conlficts with direct empirical testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence, it gets trumped completely.

But the point of this thread is to explain that a debate on whether eyewitness testimony is or isn't trumped by empirical evidence, is a red herring.

Because there is no eyewitness tesitmony for any of the Bible stories.

It's all just hearsay. The. Single. Most. Unreliable. Form. Of. Evidence. EVER.

[Zzyzx]

.

Because there is no eyewitness tesitmony for any of the Bible stories.

It's all just hearsay. The. Single. Most. Unreliable. Form. Of. Evidence. EVER.

Organized / commercial religion has a vested interest in perpetuating the belief / myth that actual witnesses wrote account of the preaching, actions, conversations and "miracles" of Jesus (and similar gods and god-men in other religions).

Believers are taught / indoctrinated / coerced to believe their religion-promotion literature contains actual, authentic, believable accounts and stories. Perhaps there would be far fewer fervent believers / zealots / fanatics / fundamentalists is people were told the truth about the ABSENCE of witness accounts regarding ANYTHING about the life and actions of Jesus (including supposed "miracles" – and "resurrection").

Yes, the bible gospel stories CLAIM there were witnesses; however, claiming is very different from providing actual witness accounts (rather than hearsay, rumors, folklore, legends) there is no assurance that what is said is truthful and accurate.

Accounts written decades, generations or centuries after claimed events and conversations is HIGHLY suspect – except to true believers who accept as "gospel truth" what they are told by religion promoters.

[higgy1911]

I think you raise a good point. I think also that we should be equally skeptical of many purported fax from ancient history. I think historical texts are inherently unreliable. They are only useful when some other form of concrete verification is applicable. The problem with historical texts is that anyone can write anything. And the older the text the less we have to examine to confirm its veracity. Believing any text to be accurate or factual without physical verification is somewhat absurd at least up until visual recordings were invented. Any text at all is only as useful as it's ability to be verified. Because anyone can say anything about anything.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think also that we should be equally skeptical of many purported fax from ancient history. I think historical texts are inherently unreliable.

A BIG difference between religion-promotional literature (particularly the bible in the West and Koran in the Middle-East) is that ancient non-religious texts are NOT used to structure modern lives and beliefs systems.

Palaces of worship are not constructed based on characters from non-religious texts. Proponents do not acquire income or wealth solicitating donations or selling indulgences.

They are only useful when some other form of concrete verification is applicable.

Unfortunately, there is often very little corroborating evidence for ancient documents. Even such recent and famous events as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address cannot be fully authenticated.

We know that Abraham Lincoln delivered an elegant two-minute address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on Thursday, November 19, 1863. The problem is we don't know which text he used. There are five versions of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's own handwriting. All are similar, but none identical. The very last one provides the text that children memorize, the words which appear on the Lincoln Memorial. But that text wasn't created until about March 11, 1864. To know more about Lincoln's actual reading text, we need to find out when he began writing.
https://www.google.com/culturalinstitut ... w-98?hl=en

The problem with historical texts is that anyone can write anything. And the older the text the less we have to examine to confirm its veracity. Believing any text to be accurate or factual without physical verification is somewhat absurd at least up until visual recordings were invented. Any text at all is only as useful as it's ability to be verified. Because anyone can say anything about anything.

Agreed

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

Yes. That's the thing. It's absurd to believe Lincoln said exactly what I had to memorize in fifth grade. It is reasonable to believe he said something but if their are contradictory versions then we would have to start looking for reasons to pick one over the other. And even if all versions were apparently equal it gives us zero insight into the truth or sincerity of Lincoln's words.

Which is why in general, unless supported with physical evidence, historical claims are meaningless in establishing facts and are only useful in terms of the intellectual ideas they have to offer. The Gettysburg address has no more useful factual information than Leaves of Grass.

[Overcomer]

atheistbuddy wrote:

eyewitness testimony is such un reliable form of evidence,

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

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 9 by Overcomer]

Eyewitness testimony doesn't need to be excluded. If a case has no evidence other than eyewitness testimony it is likely to be dismissed. And if the witness is not available for cross examination or to have they're credibility defended then such testimony is often excluded. These safeguards are in place because even inept legislators recognize that any eyewitness testimony is potentially meaningless. Not necessarily meaningless. But to say such and such is eyewitness testimony in and if itself means nothing when not placed in a context where credibility and corroboration can be verified.