The Reliable Witness

[liamconnor]

An objection has come up again and again here which needs to be addressed. It is complained that all of the “witness� accounts, whether first, second, or third-hand, are from people who are Christians. It is concluded that they are obviously biased and should be dismissed as reliable. This obviously raises the question, what kind of witness should be deemed reliable. As far as I can tell, only one who:
1) Has seen the empty tomb
2) Has seen a person that looks and talks like Jesus (whom he at least encountered)
3) And who concludes that:
a. Obviously he was under a hallucination
b. He must have gotten the tomb wrong, or someone stole it
4) At any rate, he remains an unbeliever!!!!

A couple of points
1) The irony is obvious: This hypothetical witness, which skeptics require, gives exactly the kind of explanations which skeptics give! So what reason do they have to contradict him? Whatever worked for him will work for them.
2) Does anyone really think that such an event could really leave us a “passive, non-responsive� witness�? Some, “hum-didee-dum� passerby, whistling away, who says “OMG, there is that guy I knew who was killed. Look at him, walking about…I better just jot this down in my journal…� and then he goes about studying horticulture….?
But perhaps you have some other criterion. What kind of “witness� would you accept as reliable to the claimed resurrection?

[marco]

But perhaps you have some other criterion. What kind of “witness� would you accept as reliable to the claimed resurrection?

Good question. Were the witness one who could be interviewed, we'd expect consistency, clarity of reporting and details of how , what and when. In other words, a witness who supplied all the information needed to assess what was claimed. That would be a good witness.

The resurrection of 2000 years ago suffers problems regarding witnesses. We don't know them; we don't have detailed statements i.e. many pages long from each one and we cannot ask for clarification to check on consistency.

Therefore I conclude no witnesses at all would be acceptable unless the person himself who rose presented himself now and testified. This is not asking too much since the claim involves belief that such an appearance is possible. Go well.

[polonius]

. An objection has come up again and again here which needs to be addressed. It is complained that all of the “witness� accounts, whether first, second, or third-hand, are from people who are Christians. It is concluded that they are obviously biased and should be dismissed as reliable. This obviously raises the question, what kind of witness should be deemed reliable.

As far as I can tell, only one who:
1) Has seen the empty tomb

RESPONSE: Jesus had to be buried before sundown, so a borrowed tomb was used. Later, Jesus' family and friends could have moved Jesus body to his family's tomb.

2) Has seen a person that looks and talks like Jesus (whom he at least encountered)

RESPONSE: Remember, soon after Jesus' death, his brother James joined the Aposles. Given a family resemblance to Jesus and that others had not seen him before with the Apostles, James could easily have been thought to be Jesus,

3) And who concludes that:

a. Obviously he was under a hallucination
b. He must have gotten the tomb wrong, or someone stole it
4) At any rate, he remains an unbeliever!!!!

A couple of points
1) The irony is obvious: This hypothetical witness, which skeptics require, gives exactly the kind of explanations which skeptics give! So what reason do they have to contradict him? Whatever worked for him will work for them.

2) Does anyone really think that such an event could really leave us a “passive, non-responsive� witness�? Some, “hum-didee-dum� passerby, whistling away, who says “OMG, there is that guy I knew who was killed. Look at him, walking about…I better just jot this down in my journal…� and then he goes about studying horticulture….?

QUESTIONS: [/b]Could the reports of seeing Elvis from his fans following Elvis' death, be in any way similar to any reports of seeing Jesus?

When was the very first report we have of Jesus' "Resurrection" written and by whom? (55 AD or 25 years after the alleged event by a nonwitness: Paul)

When was the second report written and by whom? (By Mark a Syrian Jew about 70 A.D. again a nonwitness.

What about Paul's claim in 1 Corinthians (in 55 AD) written to Greeks living 817 miles from Jerusalem that Jesus had "appeared" to some people in Jerusalem (Christian, Jew, Romans, Gentiles?) and some Apostles? Remember, not of these witnesses or anyone they told left reports).


[quote}But perhaps you have some other criterion. What kind of “witness� would you accept as reliable to the claimed resurrection?

RESPONSE: Since there were Roman soldiers in Jersualem, their reports would probably have been more reliable. On the other hand, following orders that Jesus was to be put to death, if they had encountered someone they thought was Jesus, they would have executed him all over again!

[Inigo Montoya]

One of the blunders repeatedly overlooked in this conversation is the idea that a story classified as an eyewitness account somehow grants what was claimed to be witnessed is both possible and true.

What do you require from an Elvis or alien abduction "eyewitness account" to finally convinces you those stories are true?

Many here spend a great deal of energy arguing these stories are first hand accounts belonging in the eyewitness category, as though establishing the perspective of the writer allows the claim to slip on through with it. We have no reason to accept revived corpses walk and talk and fly off into space, so arguing the relationship of authors to 2000 year old stories about the same doesn't strike me as being as useful as theists seem to think it is.

[Zzyzx]

.

One of the blunders repeatedly overlooked in this conversation is the idea that a story classified as an eyewitness account somehow grants what was claimed to be witnessed is both possible and true.

Agreed

What do you require from an Elvis or alien abduction "eyewitness account" to finally convinces you those stories are true?

Those who are gullible, naive, and/or desperately wanting the stories to be true may be convinced by ANY stories, no matter how incredible -- then condemn others as "skeptics" for not believing.

Many here spend a great deal of energy arguing these stories are first hand accounts belonging in the eyewitness category, as though establishing the perspective of the writer allows the claim to slip on through with it. We have no reason to accept revived corpses walk and talk and fly off into space, so arguing the relationship of authors to 2000 year old stories about the same doesn't strike me as being as useful as theists seem to think it is.

An illusionist does tricks by using distraction and deception. It is still just illusion.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

An objection has come up again and again here which needs to be addressed. It is complained that all of the “witness� accounts, whether first, second, or third-hand, are from people who are Christians. It is concluded that they are obviously biased and should be dismissed as reliable. This obviously raises the question, what kind of witness should be deemed reliable. As far as I can tell, only one who:
1) Has seen the empty tomb
2) Has seen a person that looks and talks like Jesus (whom he at least encountered)
3) And who concludes that:
a. Obviously he was under a hallucination
b. He must have gotten the tomb wrong, or someone stole it
4) At any rate, he remains an unbeliever!!!!

A couple of points
1) The irony is obvious: This hypothetical witness, which skeptics require, gives exactly the kind of explanations which skeptics give! So what reason do they have to contradict him? Whatever worked for him will work for them.
2) Does anyone really think that such an event could really leave us a “passive, non-responsive� witness�? Some, “hum-didee-dum� passerby, whistling away, who says “OMG, there is that guy I knew who was killed. Look at him, walking about…I better just jot this down in my journal…� and then he goes about studying horticulture….?
But perhaps you have some other criterion. What kind of “witness� would you accept as reliable to the claimed resurrection?

Are you familiar with "The Night Ride" (Isra and Mi'raj) of Muhammad? According to the story one night in the year 621 when the prophet Muhammad was fifty years old, he traveled to heaven aboard the flying steed Buraq. He visited the seven levels of heaven while there, meeting first with Allah's other great prophets, including Jesus. Next he met with all the various angelic beings. And then finally he met with God Himself, who gave Muhammad instructions to take back to humankind. All of this was accomplished in a single night. The source for this story and these occurrences is none other than Muhammad himself, as only it could be since only he experienced them. And the Isra and Mi'raj is well known among Muslim's to have been historically valid, since it is mentioned in the holy Qur'an itself which is inerrant and therefore beyond all questioning. In fact the 17th chapter of the Qur'an, sura 17 Al-Isra , is devoted to the subject of Muhammad's "night ride."

The story of Isra and Mi'raj, Muhammad's "Night Ride" is attested to by none other than the founder of one of the words's great religions, practiced and believed with total devotion by two billion living Muslims, and billions more who are now deceased.

Is Muhammad a "reliable witness?" Is the story of the Night Ride historically valid? Could the origin of the story simply have been the result of a dream, or a hallucination? Are we forced to accept this story as undoubtedly and necessarily true?

Or is skepticism warranted?


Depiction of the flying steed Buraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

[Willum]

If Lazarus had been raised, and walking around, he would have been more well documented than Jesus.

Unless in the fiction Jesus needed to be the main event.

There is documentation of comets, wars, famines, changes of command, and so on and so on...

How about a single third party document, tabloid, play etc., about this amazing event?

There should be so much literature, true, false, tabloid, false claims, etc., etc., etc., that we should be inundated with it, even today.

Yet we have only one account.

No record of Herod meeting with Lazarus. Not record of "Lazarus, the man raised from the dead," doing a world tour, the writing of a biography, etc..

So there is no convincing me. Were it true, history would be different.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If Lazarus had been raised, and walking around, he would have been more well documented than Jesus.

Unless in the fiction Jesus needed to be the main event.

There is documentation of comets, wars, famines, changes of command, and so on and so on...

How about a single third party document, tabloid, play etc., about this amazing event?

There should be so much literature, true, false, tabloid, false claims, etc., etc., etc., that we should be inundated with it, even today.

Yet we have only one account.

No record of Herod meeting with Lazarus. Not record of "Lazarus, the man raised from the dead," doing a world tour, the writing of a biography, etc..

So there is no convincing me. Were it true, history would be different.

Luke 22:
[41] And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
[42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[43] And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[44] And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[45] And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

Matthew and Mark also have versions of this story in which Jesus go off, away from the apostles, to be alone and speak to God in private. And yet the three synoptic Gospels Matthew Mark and Luke offer us a verbatim transcript of his words at a time when he was entirely alone. Because these documents were never intended to be an actual historical biography of the life and times of Jesus. This is a scene which is seemingly taken directly from a play, in which the main character delivers a crucial soliloquy to the audience. The Gospels are not a record of events, they are an attempt to promote and sell a particular version of events.

[Furrowed Brow]

Some pertinent point have already been made by other skeptics above. I'm not sure if this adds much other than a lot more words.

It might help if Christians were more forthright in admitting the weakness in their witness statements. There are four accounts written in Greek many years after the events, with only one that shows signs of an aramaic source. There are clear signs of copying between the four accounts that Christians do themselves no favour denying how easy it is to take this to be copying - even if they wish to insist it is not copying. It is not clear how many actual witnesses these accounts are sourced from. If Christians were more honest that the number of witnesses are small, maximum four maybe less, their number and identity not known with certainty, there may be more mutual ground between skeptics and Christian.

The point is already made by another contributor above. If we decide there is some honest witness or witness on which the gospels are made this does not amount to very much. I have a friend at work who is Christian and believes he has seen real miracles at faith healing and the like. I believe him honest. I also believe him very mistaken.

Evidence from a witness that I think would quietened skeptics would be one sourced such that the evidence is not contaminated with Christian editing which invites questions of embellishment, but also means we are free of interpreting events through the Christian lens. The sort of thing that would be very telling is if someone dug up the memoirs or letters of a non Christian Roman, Arab, Persian who had visited Palestine at the time or shortly after and reported of strange doings. Merchants maybe. An account that said they had either seen or have been told the dead were roaming the streets, that a young rabbi had been executed and there were rumours he had risen from the dead. That the same young rabbi had given a sermon on the mount where he somehow managed to feed thousands with just a few baskets of food, and that folk were reporting this fellow had even walked on water.

If such an account ended up in Iran, or Iraq, or India, or anywhere its precedence is incontrovertible extra to the Christian heritage where the skeptic could not argue the story has been embellished to the Christian advantage then bingo.

Such an account would not have to be an eye witness but it would place the original Christian story in situ at the right time and allow us to give more weight to the gospels. If such a papyrus or memoir ever emerges to support the gospels including its magical elements it would not be evidence there was magic but it would likely mean that whoever wrote the gospels were responding to real concerns and that resurrections and walking on water and the saints walking the streets were not later Christian embellishments. This would be sufficient to persuade me of the sincerity of the basic account provided in the four gospels. It would not persuade me of their accuracy or whether they conveyed the reality of the events, but that at least the sources used by the authors of the gospels were likely honest much like folk who even today visit faith healers and think they have seen miracles.

As it stands I tend to believe there was an historical person not called Jesus as that is Greek, but one which is ground zero for the train of events that leads to modern Christianity. I also tend to believe this person was conceived as a miracle worker and that the working of miracles was part of the original story. There was likely casting out of demons and maybe even raising of the dead. This is easy to believe because even in more recent times people have followed Sathya Sai Baba and believe they are witnessing miracles. There is no reason to assume an audience two thousand years ago would be any less credulous. However I suspect the reality of what went on falls far short of Christian expectations. All we have is a story told from the Christian perspective thus the whole world revolves around the events that happen to their leader. But would someone visiting the region, maybe staying a few streets away, be aware of the goings on. If we read Matthew they would absolutely have had to because the dead rose out of their graves and walked the streets. No missing that one. The lack of evidence extra the Christian heritage tells me not many people noticed the early Christians. But if true it is surprising this has not turned up in the works of Hindu scholars, or even China or anywhere there was a trade route out of the Roman empire. Stories not told by Christian evangelicals but by traders, merchants, soldiers, scholars who heard the stories of people getting up out of their grave en masse and walking the streets because some great prophet had been executed. Why was the world not abuzz with these stories? Even if the rest of the world scoffed at least a scoffer would place the story of having at least reached them by the time they recorded it. But there is no evidence of the Christian story travelling anywhere faster than it cold be carried by an evangelical disciple.

Without this kind of additional support the major miracles very much look a later after thought and embellishment. You really can't mistake the graveyard opening and the dead walking the streets. That is either a fact or it is a deliberate lie, it is not "well I think they were dead". Likewise walking on water. So an authenticated extraneous non Christian witness that placed these stories in situ at the right time, would be difficult for the skeptic. And the point is that some of the miracles claimed are so gobsmacking and by the Christians now accounts must have been witnessed by hundred if not thousands, it is a reasonable expectation to think we ought to find non Christian records of them elsewhere - everywhere.

What is remarkable is how the news spread with the Christian moment and only travelled where there were Christians. A sign that there was no reason for people to have heard of the original goings on.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I confess, I am unclear as to your point:

Mine was that there should be thousands of historical documents, interviews, plays and dramas all centered about such a 'minor,' character as the man brought back from the dead.

Lazarus would have been famous, his life story a wonder, etc., we don't see this.

Jesus to would have interest from all sorts of other peoples, not just Jews and Romans.

Yet, all there are are a few redundantly over-lapping books from bias origins.

Are there any other analogies like that from history? No.