Is eye witness testimony enough?

[Justin108]

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?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I would not argue that there are not similarities, though if I asked you to quote something well known the chances are you would quote it like most people. For instance, "Cleanliness is..."

Such an explanation strains credibility when there are so many identical passages appearing in similar chronological order, and completely fails to take into account parenthetical comments like "let the reader understand." An accurately remembered quote from Jesus would certainly not refer to a "reader," so clearly there is a shared textual source that is being copied from.

The differences of quotation in the Gospels should also be taken into account.

This is easily done - the authors each had distinct theological beliefs and purposes, and they shaped their accounts of Jesus accordingly. Working from shared written sources, they would have seen some stories as worth emphasizing and expanding upon, and seen others as unimportant and omitted them.

All I am asking is, is it not true that both sides take for granted that what they base their faith or belief on could in fact be considered...identical? In other words, I take it on faith that the internal claims of scripture (which I have no idea why you would deny there are) are true, and those that deny it place faith in scholarly works which for some reason are supposed to be irrefutable and trustworthy, despite the fact that they are not eyewitnesses, but simply interpret the evidence.

You present a false dichotomy. The scholarly position is not that the claims are false, it is that the claims cannot be determined to be true or false. To believe the claims to be true is a leap of faith, but to reserve judgement due to lack of evidence takes no faith at all. Scholarly opinion is not considered irrefutable, but simply a conservative evaluation of the best information we have available to us at the present time.

If you are going to continue to claim that there are internal claims in the synoptic gospels to eyewitness authorship, you will have to present the passages that support your position.

[S.T. Ranger]

I would not argue that there are not similarities, though if I asked you to quote something well known the chances are you would quote it like most people. For instance, "Cleanliness is..."

Such an explanation strains credibility when there are so many identical passages appearing in similar chronological order, and completely fails to take into account parenthetical comments like "let the reader understand." An accurately remembered quote from Jesus would certainly not refer to a "reader," so clearly there is a shared textual source that is being copied from.

You still have not answered my question. You understand what I am asking, right? Both sides are not themselves witnesses, so while the charge against believers in regards to "YOu are taking another man's word for it" also apllies to the unbeliever...who also takes another man's word for it.

To simplify, by reason of the huge amount of time that has passed...there can be no eyewitness on either side.

Now tell me why your hearsay is better than that of the believer?

You are wanting to debate something that is an altogether different topic.

Just answer the question if you don't mind.

The differences of quotation in the Gospels should also be taken into account.

This is easily done - the authors each had distinct theological beliefs and purposes, and they shaped their accounts of Jesus accordingly.

While I would disagree with the writers having "distinct theological beliefs," I do agree that each had his own understanding, personality, and character, and that they wrote within those aspects.

But thanks for agreeing with me.

Working from shared written sources, they would have seen some stories as worth emphasizing and expanding upon, and seen others as unimportant and omitted them.

And that goes back to something that is on topic with what I said: scripture presents the writers as being eyewitnesses. No scholar, either believing or unbelieving...makes such a claim.

And I will provide a few verses in regards to your last statement at the end of this.

All I am asking is, is it not true that both sides take for granted that what they base their faith or belief on could in fact be considered...identical? In other words, I take it on faith that the internal claims of scripture (which I have no idea why you would deny there are) are true, and those that deny it place faith in scholarly works which for some reason are supposed to be irrefutable and trustworthy, despite the fact that they are not eyewitnesses, but simply interpret the evidence.

You present a false dichotomy.

No. I present a fact that you nor anyone else seems willing to admit: you hold your belief based upon the words of other men, just as the believers do.

Admit it...there is no shame in that. It is just the truth. You can still feel you hold the intellectually higher ground, my friend, let's just be honest about the basis for both sides beliefs.

The scholarly position is not that the claims are false, it is that the claims cannot be determined to be true or false.

I would agree with that. One either believes they are or they are not. Both sides exhibit not just faith but that faith is expressed toward something. For many that undermine the credibility of scripture, the primary reason (for those that address this issue intellectually, rather than simply emotionally based on opinion without regard to scholarly examination) for dismissing the internal claims of scripture is almost always based on the scholarly efforts.

It takes faith on both sides though. In your case...are those that deny credibility unbiased in their opinions when they present the reasons for dismissing scripture based on certain reasons. There are Christians that deny parts of the New Testament, for example, such as believing Paul's teaching should not be considered inspired. There are those that "believe" certain books of the NT were originally written in Hebrew then translated. There are many things that in examining the scriptures that are claimed, but the fact is that we have a certain amount of evidence, and that evidence is examined and interpreted.

To believe the claims to be true is a leap of faith,

Bingo.

Not sure why that is made to seem it equates to lack of intelligence, when in fact...both sides are guilty.

You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, neither of us are direct eyewitnesses to the events.

but to reserve judgement due to lack of evidence takes no faith at all.

Then one would have to claim neutrality, right? Is that what you do?

Just in the few short posts I have seen, FD, I don't see that to be the case. A neutral position would not deny the internal claims of scripture.

Scholarly opinion is not considered irrefutable, but simply a conservative evaluation of the best information we have available to us at the present time.

Agreed.

If you are going to continue to claim that there are internal claims in the synoptic gospels to eyewitness authorship, you will have to present the passages that support your position.

Here are a few, and it may sound like a cop-out, but I really do have to get going. I have already far exceeded the time I should have been here and seriously gotten behind on the caseload I have before going out of town in the morning.




2 Peter 1:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.




Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;[/size]



Luke 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;






Matthew 2

King James Version (KJV)

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,



Nehemiah 8:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:


And I will have to stop with this last one:



2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


These seem to represent internal claims to me. Whether they are true or not the fact remains that there are internal claims of both authorship as well as eyewitness testimony. One can dismiss Peter's claim as being credible, but one cannot dismiss the claim itself. One last one comes to mind:



1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


I am sure there are more which could be brought to the table, however, it is not my intent to debate this, but to point out what was presented in the question:

See the problem there? So why would your claim that...

Quote:
Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

...be considered anything more than the hearsay you charge the Biblical account to be?

Again I do appreciate your response and the response to part of this, however, I would still like to see a direct response to my question.

God bless.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

You still have not answered my question. You understand what I am asking, right? Both sides are not themselves witnesses, so while the charge against believers in regards to "YOu are taking another man's word for it" also apllies to the unbeliever...who also takes another man's word for it.

What am I taking another man's word for? What position do I hold that I am relying upon hearsay to support?

No. I present a fact that you nor anyone else seems willing to admit: you hold your belief based upon the words of other men, just as the believers do.

Admit it...there is no shame in that. It is just the truth. You can still feel you hold the intellectually higher ground, my friend, let's just be honest about the basis for both sides beliefs.

This is not the case. I do not base my beliefs on the claims of others, but on the strength of the arguments they present. When you take the word of church fathers over the word of scholars, it isn't a matter of hearsay vs. hearsay, it's a matter of empty claims vs. arguments and evidence.

To believe the claims to be true is a leap of faith,

Bingo.

Not sure why that is made to seem it equates to lack of intelligence, when in fact...both sides are guilty.

You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, neither of us are direct eyewitnesses to the events.

but to reserve judgement due to lack of evidence takes no faith at all.

Then one would have to claim neutrality, right? Is that what you do?

Just in the few short posts I have seen, FD, I don't see that to be the case. A neutral position would not deny the internal claims of scripture.

I have not denied any internal claims of claims of scripture. I consider the claims of scripture to be lacking in evidence and thus see no reason to accept them.

If you are going to continue to claim that there are internal claims in the synoptic gospels to eyewitness authorship, you will have to present the passages that support your position.

Here are a few, and it may sound like a cop-out, but I really do have to get going. I have already far exceeded the time I should have been here and seriously gotten behind on the caseload I have before going out of town in the morning.




2 Peter 1:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;[/size]

These are not internal claims from the synoptic gospels. Also could we perhaps stick with translations using modern English as opposed to the KJV? It's easier to analyze using translations into the same language we all speak on this forum today. The extra-large font is also probably not necessary.

Keep in mind that every claim to be an eyewitness only extends to the specific events which that particular writer claims to have witnessed. These various vague scraps from the epistles and whatnot are of little to no value in piecing together the life and doings of Jesus himself as they report virtually no biographical information.

Luke 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

This is not an internal claim to eyewitness authorship, it is an internal claim to have gained information from eyewitnesses (in other words, hearsay).

Matthew 2

King James Version (KJV)

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

I am not sure what this is supposed to be a claim for. This doesn't sound like the author of Matthew claiming to be an eyewitness of anything.

Nehemiah 8:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:


And I will have to stop with this last one:



2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

These are also not from the synoptic gospels. Nehemiah is not even in the NT, and your passage from 2nd Peter makes no claim to have personally witnessed anything. I'm not sure what you're getting at with some of these passages.

These seem to represent internal claims to me. Whether they are true or not the fact remains that there are internal claims of both authorship as well as eyewitness testimony. One can dismiss Peter's claim as being credible, but one cannot dismiss the claim itself. One last one comes to mind:

1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

This is clearly hearsay, not a claim by the author by an eyewitness (stuff happened and other people saw it). Also, not from the synoptic gospels.

I am sure there are more which could be brought to the table, however, it is not my intent to debate this, but to point out what was presented in the question:

See the problem there? So why would your claim that...

Quote:
Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

...be considered anything more than the hearsay you charge the Biblical account to be?

This was not my claim. We do know who wrote some NT documents with relative certainty (ie those letters attributed to Paul that have been deemed authentic). But what "eyewitness testimony" that exists is of little to no relevance for the life of Jesus. Most everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, which were in all likelihood not written by eyewitnesses. The synoptic Gospels make no internal claims to have witnessed the events which they report, and John is only slightly more arguable. Even if John were granted, it clearly contains much information that the author could not possibly have witnessed so it would have to be taken into account not wholesale but with a critical eye.

[S.T. Ranger]

You still have not answered my question. You understand what I am asking, right? Both sides are not themselves witnesses, so while the charge against believers in regards to "YOu are taking another man's word for it" also apllies to the unbeliever...who also takes another man's word for it.

What am I taking another man's word for? What position do I hold that I am relying upon hearsay to support?

Hello FD, there are a number of things relevant to this particular conversation that I would view as having a need to rely upon the work of someone else. Concerning Biblical views there are going to be opposing views concerning the texts and this in large part can be viewed to be based upon the faith of the scholar. If one embraces scripture as the word of God, there will be a different perspective from that of the scholar that believes scripture to be merely the work of men separate from divine assistance or direction. There are many scholars that take the latter view who cast aspersion not only scripture as a whole but have gone to great lengths to present arguments which undermine the internal witness of scripture.

As far as the details of what it is you place your faith in, we have not spoken enough to look at those, however, on this topic you still to overlook the reason why I got involved in this thread, which was a inquiry posed to Goat concerning his denial of internal witnes, which you now have sharpened the focus upon the Gospels, which may be the topic of the thread, but not the issue I responded to.

Here it is again:

I am sure there are more which could be brought to the table, however, it is not my intent to debate this, but to point out what was presented in the question:

See the problem there? So why would your claim that...

Quote:
Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

...be considered anything more than the hearsay you charge the Biblical account to be?

This was not secluded to the Gospel accounts but to the entirety of the New Testament, which is in error. That is what my responses have been directed at.

No. I present a fact that you nor anyone else seems willing to admit: you hold your belief based upon the words of other men, just as the believers do.

Admit it...there is no shame in that. It is just the truth. You can still feel you hold the intellectually higher ground, my friend, let's just be honest about the basis for both sides beliefs.

This is not the case. I do not base my beliefs on the claims of others, but on the strength of the arguments they present.

Even in this answer you show that your beliefs are nased upon their arguments.

Again, not only is it understandable...it is impossible for you to base your beliefs on anything else: because neither you nor I were actual witnesses.

You base the beliefs you have on the arguments presented by others...so do we.

When you take the word of church fathers over the word of scholars, it isn't a matter of hearsay vs. hearsay, it's a matter of empty claims vs. arguments and evidence.

You believe scholars are more credible than the Early Church Fathers, without recognizing that many ealry Church Fathers on through the history of the Church...were at the top concerning scholarship in those times. Take expertise in language, for instance: they actually spoke the language of the day...they didn't have the limitations faced by modern scholars. They had knowledge of the culture, conditions, and people. They were not as displaced as modern scholars are today.

It might interest you to look at some of the accomplishments of many of those that are considered greats in the Church, it might surprise you just how educated many of them were. And while we could also look to advancements in science as a point of superiority over those in ancient times, we cannot overlook the fact that there would have been a familiarity in the early Church which would have been a decided advantage for early Church Fathers which simply does not exist among modern scholars.

To believe the claims to be true is a leap of faith,

Bingo.

Not sure why that is made to seem it equates to lack of intelligence, when in fact...both sides are guilty.

You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, neither of us are direct eyewitnesses to the events.

but to reserve judgement due to lack of evidence takes no faith at all.

Then one would have to claim neutrality, right? Is that what you do?

Just in the few short posts I have seen, FD, I don't see that to be the case. A neutral position would not deny the internal claims of scripture.

I have not denied any internal claims of claims of scripture. I consider the claims of scripture to be lacking in evidence and thus see no reason to accept them.

If you are going to continue to claim that there are internal claims in the synoptic gospels to eyewitness authorship, you will have to present the passages that support your position.

Here are a few, and it may sound like a cop-out, but I really do have to get going. I have already far exceeded the time I should have been here and seriously gotten behind on the caseload I have before going out of town in the morning.




2 Peter 1:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

These are not internal claims from the synoptic gospels.

First let me address this:

If you are going to continue to claim that there are internal claims in the synoptic gospels to eyewitness authorship, you will have to present the passages that support your position.

Again I will point out that my intent was not to argue that the Gospels have John saying "I John wrote this" in the Gospel of John, for instance, as he did in the first epistle he penned (which was excepted to have been written by the Apostle John by the early Church), or in Revelation, where John says "I John" three times, however, we do see this in the Gospel of John:



John 21:20-24

New American Standard Bible (NASB)


20 Peter, turning around, *saw the (A)disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had (B)leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?�

21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?�

22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain (C)until I come, what is that to you? You (D)follow Me!�

23 Therefore this saying went out among (E)the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain (F)until I come, what is that to you?�

24 This is the disciple who (G)is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.


(note-I have supplied the NASB at your request, though the enlargement is just something I do to make the text easier to read, and distinguishes clearly between the scripture and what I say. When it is not distinguished it sometimes becomes unclear who said what)

This is seen by most as a reference to John:



John 13:21-25

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Jesus Predicts His Betrayal

21 When Jesus had said this, He (A)became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that (B)one of you will [a]betray Me.�

22 The disciples began looking at one another, (C)at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.

23 There was reclining on (D)Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, (E)whom Jesus loved.

24 So Simon Peter *gestured to him, and *said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.� 25 He, (F)leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, *said to Him, “Lord, who is it?�


The thought is that it is modesty which causes John to write in the third person of himself. Given the use of amanuenses throughout scripture, I can look at this and see no issue with the recording of scriptural events by someone secondary to the actual witness or writer themselves. However, John can be seen here to be claiming and to be seen as the writer of this Gospel. If one takes on faith the arguments presented to deny his authorship, we again get back to the point I made earlier that both of us, FD, express faith in the testimony of someone else.

Also could we perhaps stick with translations using modern English as opposed to the KJV? It's easier to analyze using translations into the same language we all speak on this forum today.

A reasonable request concerning the former, but I will have to decline on the latter, as it is important to me to make sure that scripture is distinguished from my own words and thoughts. I hope you can understand that.

I will just say that the English employed in the KJV should not be a hindrance to enjoying what I believe to be a fantastic translation which shows the theological understanding of the KJV translators. There are aspects to this translation which indicate their understanding which I believe was a very sound grasp of the intent of scripture. I am not a KJVonlyist, and have no problem recommending newer translations which can help those not aquainted with some of the terminology employed.

However, the KJV is my choice when discussing scripture. I will, however, try to remember your request and honor that.

The extra-large font is also probably not necessary.

I believe it is. It also helps when key statements in the text are emphacized.

Keep in mind that every claim to be an eyewitness only extends to the specific events which that particular writer claims to have witnessed.

Yet it is an internal claim of eyewitness testimony.

Whether one accepts that or not does not negate the presence of it in scripture.

These various vague scraps from the epistles and whatnot are of little to no value in piecing together the life and doings of Jesus himself as they report virtually no biographical information.

Scripture focuses on the Ministry of Christ. We see in the Gospels different perspectives, such as John's emphasis on Christ's deity, light and darkness, eternal life versus everlasting condemnation.

What is revealed about Christ's life before His ministry we take on faith that it is what the Lord meant to be revealed. This leaves room for much speculation and the arguments presented today by certain scholars takes much more faith to embrace than that which is given the believer in scripture itself. The primary reason: it contradicts what we read in scripture concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

And while I have no intent in getting into discussions which can both be seen as matters of faith on the parts of both sides, I will say that many today base their understanding of Christ on the speculations presented by men who are obviously bent on undermining Christ. In other words, many have their beliefs based upon modern media rather than actual scholarship.

Luke 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

This is not an internal claim to eyewitness authorship, it is an internal claim to have gained information from eyewitnesses (in other words, hearsay).

I agree. However, it testifies that there were eyewitnesses to the events recorded in the Gospels.

Matthew 2

King James Version (KJV)

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

I am not sure what this is supposed to be a claim for.

It goes back to Goat's statement and is given as evidence of not only internal witness in the New Testament but a pointed witness to the Prophets of the Old.

This doesn't sound like the author of Matthew claiming to be an eyewitness of anything.

It isn't: it is an internal claim in the Bible that points to the testimony of Herod, the Magi, and the Prophets.

Nehemiah 8:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:


And I will have to stop with this last one:



2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

These are also not from the synoptic gospels.

No, but Both Nehemiah and Peter (a key figure in Gospel events) testify of scripture itself.

Nehemiah is not even in the NT,

No but this is internal witness of scripture.

and your passage from 2nd Peter makes no claim to have personally witnessed anything.

No, but he testifies of Paul's writing. Again, internal witness which was denied by Goat.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with some of these passages.

Same thing I was getting at with my initial response in this thread...the internal witness found in scripture concerning an eyewitness account. It could be considered circular reasoning that Peter would testify of what he saw, and I understand that. However, this is an internal witness to events and the credibility of others who claim to be conveying information.

These seem to represent internal claims to me. Whether they are true or not the fact remains that there are internal claims of both authorship as well as eyewitness testimony. One can dismiss Peter's claim as being credible, but one cannot dismiss the claim itself. One last one comes to mind:

1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

This is clearly hearsay, not a claim by the author by an eyewitness (stuff happened and other people saw it).

But it does point to an account of those said to be eyewitness.

Again, not a direct eyewitness account, but as I pointed out clearly falling into the category of internal claim.

Also, not from the synoptic gospels.

I am sure there are more which could be brought to the table, however, it is not my intent to debate this, but to point out what was presented in the question:

See the problem there? So why would your claim that...

Quote:
Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

...be considered anything more than the hearsay you charge the Biblical account to be?

This was not my claim.

I never said it was, which is why I posted this again to show the direction of my question.

none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

This is just a statement which is from a biblical account in error. That he believes what he says here...is based only upon the claims of others.

Which goes back to my point that both sides here are forced...to have faith that the basis of their belief is credible. For us, it is scripture's internal claims. I would have to speculate upon the basis of his statement but if I did, I would think that it is the word of modern scholars which motivates the statement.

One has to have accept the external claims just as much as we accept the internal claims. One has to cede faith in the claims of others or admit they simply are maikng it up and basing what they claim upon nothing, which is doubtful, and brings us again to what it is based upon...which is not their own eyewitness but the claims of again, a third party.

We do know who wrote some NT documents with relative certainty (ie those letters attributed to Paul that have been deemed authentic).

And who are the scholars that claim certain books are not authentic? What do they base their claim upon? Eyewitness testimony? No, on examination of the information.

And again, one is either neutral, believes the internal claims of scripture, or believes the external claims of scholars.

The question is...is belief in scholarship which falls outside of faith credible? Would we not determine bias on their part just as we do those that are of the faith and believe the internal claims?

The obvious answer is yes, and we attribute faith is someone other than ourselves, our direct eyewitness...to both sides. That is the point I seek to make.

But what "eyewitness testimony" that exists is of little to no relevance for the life of Jesus.

But is critical to the Ministry of Christ.

You may not be interested, but the Gospels present Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy concerning Messiah. In His earthly ministry, He said He was "sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel," which while we know His ministry takes on a larger scope in relation to atonement for sin, we do not overlook the significance of Christ's ministry specifically to Israel in fulfillment of prophecy.

One aspect of the Gospels which is not always considered is that even Christ's closest disciples did not understand (or in fact embrace, as in the case of Peter) Christ's ministry concerning atonement. Peter rebuked Chrsit for suggesting He would die, for which he himself was rebuked. When the Lord ascended, returned to Heaven from whence He came, even at that time the disciples inquired of the promised Kingdom which would see Israel restored.

But I stray from the topic.

Most everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, which were in all likelihood not written by eyewitnesses.

Yet we see in several places where it is clear that there were eyewitnesses. That personal information concerning Christ outside of His ministry is limited should not be thought to be strange, as the focus is specifically on His ministry.

As far as "Most everything we know about Jesus comes from the gospels," I cannot agree with that myself, however, I tend to look at the ministry of Christ as taking precedence over personal details. It is not strange to me that there are so few. Just as one Gospel presents Christ as the promised King, and another as the Son of God, even so the Gospels in large part focus on His ministry, rather than His life before He began to minister.

The synoptic Gospels make no internal claims to have witnessed the events which they report, and John is only slightly more arguable.

And I would not argue this. It is not my intention to try to prove the veracity of the Gospels to someone...I can't do that.

I can understand why this might seem important to someone, yet at the same time I also see this as not much different from the approach many take concerning scripture, which is to try to prove what they believe using scripture, rather than simply seeking to understand what is given us in scripture.

I have no intention in getting into a debate in regards to what is not in there, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Even if John were granted, it clearly contains much information that the author could not possibly have witnessed so it would have to be taken into account not wholesale but with a critical eye.

I can understand that.

However, coming from a perspective which takes into consideration that what is given us in scripture has been revealed by God and in particular concerning the Apostles that this is through the Holy Spirit, What is revealed by John is considered to be given to him by God Himself.

John was not a witness to the Son of God creating the world, for example, and it is by faith that I believe God reveals this through John to us. John claims to have been caught up to Heaven in Revelation, which is an internal claim of the very one said to write the Book, and either one believes he is telling the truth or they view it as false witness. Embracing it as a legitimate account is for those that take it on faith that it is true, and rejecting it is also demanding of faith.

My primary point in all of this, FD, is simply to examine the basis for both sides, which while it may not be admitted to, have both expressing faith in someone else. That is the only option, as no-one will claim they just simply know. So the question is, is the source of faith that scripture is simply a collection of man-made stories any less reliant on faith in the testimony of others or one's own self as a reasonable critic of the information available?

And with that, I think I will bow out of this discussion.

God bless.

[puddleglum]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

This should be enough since all of us alive today are eye witnesses. What I mean is the we are can see Biblical prophesies being fulfilled.

God often warned the Jews that if they sinned they would be scattered among all the nations. That happened after they refused to acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the Jews were forced to leave their land.

But he also promised that they would return to their own land. During their time of exile he enabled them to preserve their language and culture and kept them from being assimilated into the nations where they lived. The beginning of the 20th century saw the beginning of the Zionist movement and in 1948 the Jews once again had a nation of their own.

In addition to this Daniel 12:4 contains a specific prophecy about the time of the end.

But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

It is obvious to everyone that knowledge is increasing at a faster rate than at any time in history. The statement that many will run to and fro is being fulfilled by the existence of rapid methods of transportation. When Daniel wrote his book the fastest method of transportation was by horseback and this continued to be true until the invention of the steam engine and the locomotive in the first part of the 19th century. Now it is possible to travel to any part of the world in a few hours.

Here is an article that shows how we now have the technology necessary for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.

http://www.raptureready.com/soap/wood5.html

[Goat]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

This should be enough since all of us alive today are eye witnesses. What I mean is the we are can see Biblical prophesies being fulfilled.

Is that true?? or is that wishful thinking? I don't think there has been a generation since the bible was written that didn't think they were seeing the second coming of Jesus in their time.

God often warned the Jews that if they sinned they would be scattered among all the nations. That happened after they refused to acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the Jews were forced to leave their land.

Isn't after the fact writing of things so GREAT for prediction?

But he also promised that they would return to their own land. During their time of exile he enabled them to preserve their language and culture and kept them from being assimilated into the nations where they lived. The beginning of the 20th century saw the beginning of the Zionist movement and in 1948 the Jews once again had a nation of their own.

Yes, and some have.. however, the secular state of Israel is not the kingdom of Isreal. The secular state of Israel does not have the King, it does not have the Torah at the center, nor does it have a temple.

In addition to this Daniel 12:4 contains a specific prophecy about the time of the end.

But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

It is obvious to everyone that knowledge is increasing at a faster rate than at any time in history. The statement that many will run to and fro is being fulfilled by the existence of rapid methods of transportation. When Daniel wrote his book the fastest method of transportation was by horseback and this continued to be true until the invention of the steam engine and the locomotive in the first part of the 19th century. Now it is possible to travel to any part of the world in a few hours.

Here is an article that shows how we now have the technology necessary for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.

http://www.raptureready.com/soap/wood5.html

Oh gosh.. twisting the words of Daniel like that to get 'specific details' of the end, that is just plain out there. You have to wade through a LOT of symbolism and make assumption. I find that particular line of reasoning to be wishful thinking and projection.. and a lot of reading into vague symbolism.

[Hawkins]

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?

It is more about what alternative do you have.

Of course first of all, the nature of human witnessing must be understood. Faith through human witnessing by far is the most efficient way to approach a truth in this reality. It is also the most employed way to approach a truth in this reality.

However, people are living under the Tree of Knowledge to think that they can judge correctly about good from evil, right from wrong. They are educated to be delusional to think that humans should rely on EVIDENCE to decide whether to believe.

In the very contrary, most things humans choose to believe is never evidenced. This is specially true before the creation of videos.

Humans get to know the world since their childhood from books written by other humans. They gain knowledge through books written by others. This is a process of human witnessing. Even today humans rely heavily (like more than 90%) on human witnessing to approach the reality, not evidence. The creation of TVs and videos only make human witnessing more powerful. Humans choose to believe the media of which the reporters act as human witnesses to report what our daily world is and or other humans to choose to believe.

History is never evidenced. This is the nature of what history is. The more distant the history is, the more impossible for humans to dig up the evidence. History again by nature is a product of human witnessing. Humans in majority in their life time almost never examine evidence of history. Instead, they choose to believe or disbelieve what was written by the historians (they are human witnesses of history).

To ask evidence of history (especially the distant ones) makes not much difference to asking a male to give birth to a child. It is because in nature male humans don't give birth to children. And in nature, history is not evidenced.

At last but not least, even science exists in the form of human witnessing. Is the earth really revolving around the sun. Humans in majority don't actually acquire evidence about it. They rely on what is written and said by the scientists (they are the human witnesses in this case). By the way, you need an extremely good telescope and other precision equipment for "earth running around the sun" to be evidenced to you.

So it is a joke, it is a delusion in reality to think that humans are actually relying on evidence to approach to the truth of this reality. In contrary, humans need faith all the times.


To put it another way, if event "A" truly occurred 2000 years ago (an assumed truth in history), what can be done for this truth to be carried forward to today's humans ?

1) A witness will have to write it down
2) this witness is willing to die for what he has written down

That's already the best way the truth to be conveyed. This approach is the same human witnessing approach mentioned above.

The gods of other religions never understand the nature of human witnessing. Only the Bible God put emphasis on human witnessing! As a result, only the Bible God can be a true God. It is thus very reasonable to believe that He's the only true God.


Now what alternative do you have ? Is evidence an alternative ? Definitely, however it's not an efficient way to approach a historical truth, as in nature history doesn't have evidence. In nature humans get to know history through human witnessing.

Now aliens and bigfoots. Again, it's about an alternative. Is it an alternative to reject aliens and bigfoot. Of course, you can always put them into an ignore, because they don't concern your life.

How about religion ? Do you have an alternative to reject a religion ?

May be to your surprise, the answer is NO. You don't seem to have an alternative to reject a religion. Your alternative is to choose one out of the many.

How come so?

When an old man (atheist) laying on the bed in the hospital, he's dying of old age. The doc told him that he's going to die in c couple days. The old man is well prepared for his dead. He thinks that he lived long enough and hasn't any regret. He's in peace now.

He's in peace now. The question is, is it because he has no religion or is it because he has faith that nothing would happen after death ? The chances are, he has faith that nothing would happen after death which allows him to die with peace. Most likely he builds his this faith sub-consciously based on a fallacy! The fallacy that the absence of evidence becomes the evidence of absence upon which his faith is built.

So possibly to each human, the only alternative is that, either to choose consciously a religion from the many, or to build the faith (his own religion) upon a fallacy!

[puddleglum]

The secular state of Israel is not the kingdom of Isreal. The secular state of Israel does not have the King, it does not have the Torah at the center, nor does it have a temple.

The restoration of the kingdom of Israel is to take place in two stages.

So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them.

Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.� So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
(Ezekiel 37:7-10 ESV)

The first is the establishment of a nation which is still spiritually dead because it hasn't yet returned to worshipping God. That is what has already happened.

The nation will be fully restored when it returns to God by acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. That will happen when Christ returns.

[PhiloKGB]

The nation will be fully restored when it returns to God by acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. That will happen when Christ returns.

Nations are not independent entities with beliefs. Are you saying that every person in Israel will acknowledge Jesus? When have all members of any large group ever so agreed?

[Goat]

The secular state of Israel is not the kingdom of Isreal. The secular state of Israel does not have the King, it does not have the Torah at the center, nor does it have a temple.

The restoration of the kingdom of Israel is to take place in two stages.

So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them.

Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.� So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
(Ezekiel 37:7-10 ESV)

The first is the establishment of a nation which is still spiritually dead because it hasn't yet returned to worshipping God. That is what has already happened.

The nation will be fully restored when it returns to God by acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. That will happen when Christ returns.

IN other words, it's a quarter of a prophecy.. a self fulfilling one at that. .. and it has to be mangled beyond all characteristics to even fit that. And the rest is 'gonna happen.

Sorry, I don't buy that .