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?

[higgy1911]

I'm rust on history but the city of Troy was rightly considered a myth until they found it right?

I think that's how history is supposed to work. The Gettysburg address would be a meaningless document if we didn't have forensic evidence that the battle it speaks of actually happened.

I'm sure some stuff in the bible has archeological support as well. Without some kind of empirical support believing a text to be accurate is a mistake. Doesn't mean it is inaccurate. It's just that without evidence one way or the other it doesn't matter what is written because anyone can write anything.

[DanieltheDragon]

What archaeologists found was a composite of at least 3 cities that are similar to the description of Troy. The Illyad is a myth or if you will a historical fiction. Myths often have a basis in history.

The war described is also likely a composite of multiple wars. There was no Helen Paris or Odysseus those are the characters comprising the myth. There are parts of the bible that do have archaeological support, however that does not make them true stories. All that tells us is the writers of the bible existed within a time frame of these places existence. It does not tell us if they are eye witnesses, just like Homer writing the Oddessy we dont conclude Homer was an eyewitness.

What is of interest is that there are places mentioned that only came into being around 60-200 ce. To m see that would imply the writers were not eyewitnesses

[Zzyzx]

.

What archaeologists found was a composite of at least 3 cities that are similar to the description of Troy. The Illyad is a myth or if you will a historical fiction. Myths often have a basis in history.

Another example of "historical fiction" or "historical novel" is Gone With the Wind. Although it mentions real places (Richmond, Washington DC) and real people (Lincoln, Lee, Davis) the story itself is NOT historical fact and its primary characters did not exist in reality -- it is fiction. Much the same is true of many stories presented as "historical" which cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

In ancient times writers (and the few who could read) did not necessarily distinguish between fact and fiction, history and fantasy, real and imaginary.

In modern times those (few?) who read critically DO attempt to distinguish between fact and fiction, history and fantasy, real and imaginary.

However, many modern people prefer the earlier system of "believe on faith" or "take my word for it without checking."

[dianaiad]

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

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

[Danmark]

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

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

Well... yeah, except Jesus. BTW, an exception to the hearsay rule is statement made against one's interest. Such statements are admissible because they are considered reliable since the person would not have made the statement unless it was true.

Statements Jesus made indicating we was not God:

Mark 10:18 'And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."'

Matthew 19:17 “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.�

Matthew 27:46
'My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?'

Compare Hebrews 4:15 with James 1:13
'For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.'

James 1:13: 'When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.'

Mark 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Additionally God and Jesus have totally different personalities. God is always calling himself God and talking about how he created the world. Jesus never claimed to be God or to have created anything.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

Could we agree that "eyewitness account" is to be defined as: "A description of events by a person who was actually, physically present and did actually observe what happened" – i.e., a first-person account – NOT second or third hand – NOT hearsay (that heard from others) – NOT written by someone who was not present – NOT written years, decades, generations or centuries later?

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

We do not have a LIVING eyewitness account of the things you mention, but we DO have accounts written by people who were present and did witness at least some of those events. For instance, there are many personal accounts of WWI and WWII.

However, historians do not depend solely upon written accounts, but consider physical evidence to verify accounts.

In the case of Jesus, there is no physical evidence to verify that he even existed, let alone that he performed "miracles" or came back from the dead.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

The events you mention is supported by evidence OTHER than just eyewitness testimony. There is physical, archeological, forensic, scientific evidence from wide ranging sources to indicate what happened (often from very different viewpoints).

In the case of Jesus, the accounts CANNOT be shown to be from actual witnesses of his life and times. Gospels were written decades or generations (perhaps a century or more) after the supposed events and conversations – written by people who cannot even be identified, let alone credited with truthful and accurate rendition of events and conversations.

Even Paul/Saul, primary author of the NT (and primary influence in what became known as Christianity and its bible) did NOT KNOW JESUS (except in a claimed "vision" or hallucination or fantasy or whatever it was

[atheist buddy]

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

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

That is not my definition at all. You have to pay more attention to my words, since you clearly displayed a scrutinous interest in them earlier, when it was to your advantage and allowed you to stonewall a discussion of the actual evidentiary merits of your belief system.

My definition of eyewitness testimony is: When a person writes down what he saw/heard/tasted/smelled/touched

Before we do anything else, you need to explicitly acknowledge that my definition of eyewitness testimony is NOT something that I personally saw. Quite the opposite. If it's something I saw, it's not a testimony, it's a memory. Testimony is when person A tells person B what person A witnessed. Person A telling person A what person A witnessed, is not testimony.

If I saw it and I tell myself, it's not testimony, it's an experience/memory. If I saw it and tell YOU about it, it's eyewitness tesitmony. If you then go on and tell somebody else about what I saw, it's hearsay testimony.

Is this clear now? Is there any chance at all that you might get confused again in the future?

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

We definitely have lots of eyewitness testimony for several of these historical events. For others we don't.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

Of course. Why wouldn't we. I never said that we shouldn't believe a claim, just because it comes from hearsay testimony.

Quite the contrary, we should absolutely believe hearsay testimony, as long as it's not contradicted by more reliable forms of truth-gathering methods, such as eyewitness testimony, empirical evidence, common sense or logic.

[Danmark]

Before we do anything else, you need to explicitly acknowledge that my definition of eyewitness testimony is NOT something that I personally saw. Quite the opposite. If it's something I saw, it's not a testimony, it's a memory. Testimony is when person A tells person B what person A witnessed. Person A telling person A what person A witnessed, is not testimony.

Point of order here: ANYthing a person testifies to comes from his memory, whether he claims he saw it or claims he heard someone else say it. What we remember we heard someone else say is based on our senses and memory, just as what we remember what we claim to have seen. Somethings we claim to have heard others say are deemed reliable and are not excluded under the hearsay rule, but they still come from our memories. Some of those exceptions:

"Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.

ER 804: Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability."

[atheist buddy]

Before we do anything else, you need to explicitly acknowledge that my definition of eyewitness testimony is NOT something that I personally saw. Quite the opposite. If it's something I saw, it's not a testimony, it's a memory. Testimony is when person A tells person B what person A witnessed. Person A telling person A what person A witnessed, is not testimony.

Point of order here: ANYthing a person testifies to comes from his memory, whether he claims he saw it or claims he heard someone else say it. What we remember we heard someone else say is based on our senses and memory, just as what we remember what we claim to have seen. Somethings we claim to have heard others say are deemed reliable and are not excluded under the hearsay rule, but they still come from our memories. Some of those exceptions:

"Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.

ER 804: Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability."

Lol, are you a lawyer or something?

That's all slightly technical, but I think I understand.

My position is simpler and more general.

Imagine event X happens and Person A observes it happening.

If Person A doesn't tell anybody, and just uses the memory of event X to inform his beliefs, that's not testimony of any kind.

If Person A tells Person B what he saw, he just created an eyewitness testimony.

If Person B then tells Person C what Person A told him, he just created hearsay testimony.

If Person C tells Person D who then tells Person E who then tells Person F who then tells person G who then tells Person H who then writes it down, then Person H just created the now lost autograph of a Gospel.

If Person I then makes a copy of that text (adding his own ideas, making mistakes, chainging it by translating it to a different language, etc), and Person J makes a copy of Person I's text, and Person K makes a copy of that, and Person L a version of that, etc, eventually we get to Person Z. And that's the person who wrote the Bible we read today.

I'm not making any reccomendation on whether to believe the Bible on the basis of the process by which it got to us. I'm not saying you shoudn't believe it.

I just wanted to state the simple fact: There is no eyewitness testimony in the Bible.

Does anybody disagree?

[dianaiad]

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

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

That is not my definition at all. You have to pay more attention to my words, since you clearly displayed a scrutinous interest in them earlier, when it was to your advantage and allowed you to stonewall a discussion of the actual evidentiary merits of your belief system.

My definition of eyewitness testimony is: When a person writes down what he saw/heard/tasted/smelled/touched

Before we do anything else, you need to explicitly acknowledge that my definition of eyewitness testimony is NOT something that I personally saw. Quite the opposite. If it's something I saw, it's not a testimony, it's a memory. Testimony is when person A tells person B what person A witnessed. Person A telling person A what person A witnessed, is not testimony.

If I saw it and I tell myself, it's not testimony, it's an experience/memory. If I saw it and tell YOU about it, it's eyewitness tesitmony. If you then go on and tell somebody else about what I saw, it's hearsay testimony.

Is this clear now? Is there any chance at all that you might get confused again in the future?

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

We definitely have lots of eyewitness testimony for several of these historical events. For others we don't.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

Of course. Why wouldn't we. I never said that we shouldn't believe a claim, just because it comes from hearsay testimony.

Quite the contrary, we should absolutely believe hearsay testimony, as long as it's not contradicted by more reliable forms of truth-gathering methods, such as eyewitness testimony, empirical evidence, common sense or logic.

My point was that anything you do not personally witness is not eye witness testimony, but is indeed, hearsay.

That is, THEY may have witnessed it, but you have not; how do you know that the witness saw what he or she claimed he saw?

It has often been said that 'eyewitness testimony counts the most in a court of law, and should count the least." You can, I think, consider the many reasons why this would be so.

As well, let us take one of those eye witness testimonies you like. How did YOU come to know about it?

Did you hear the eyewitness tell you what he or she saw with his or her own eyes?

Or did you get that testimony from a third source, in effect, 'The National Observer reported that Nancy Snooper saw Brad Pitt wearing socks with his sandals.'

Is that eyewitness testimony?

If you can't trust that....

But what if it is the National Geographic reporting that Jane Goodall saw chimpanzees teaching their young to use tools?

Same 'degree of separation,' of sorts: publisher reports that someone saw something.

The difference is...who one trusts.
The question isn't whether there ie eyewitness testimony. NONE of us have first hand eyewitness testimony to very much at all, but we all trust sources. The question, then, is who we trust.

So you are begging the question here, atheist buddy.

BTW, I think that Brad Pitt would rather swallow glass than wear socks with his sandals, so.....