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?

[stubbornone]

And these aren't even supernatural claims and still they are unreliable.

Good point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Second hand hearsay recorded decades after the fact isn't!

And what sort of evidence would you presuppose that we weigh on a internet forum?

All you have is ready made excuse to avoid anything that contradicts what you already think.

After all BOOKS have the same problem do they not?

In fact, based on what you appear to be implying, nothing short of God appearing and slapping you silly until you acknowledge him will do.

Well, that isn't how it works, but seeing that demand says quite a bit more about the weight of evidence in atheism than without.

Of course, even if it DID happen to you, and you went out and told someone, no one, by your standard would or should believe you ... you are an eye witness and clearly, biased.

And so you see the problem set ... which is why we have scientific standards, historical and academic standards etc.

All of which appear to be rejected by atheism.

[SailingCyclops]

And what sort of evidence would you presuppose that we weigh on a internet forum?

How about we start with the question which you completely avoided above. Jesus is claimed to have said that his followers in the future would perform greater miracles than he performed.

Show me the proof. Show me greater miracles being performed by his followers today. The alternative is that Jesus did not tell the truth, or those who wrote those statements attributed to him lied. Which is it?

[stubbornone]

And what sort of evidence would you presuppose that we weigh on a internet forum?

How about we start with the question which you completely avoided above. Jesus is claimed to have said that his followers in the future would perform greater miracles than he performed.

Show me the proof. Show me greater miracles being performed by his followers today. The alternative is that Jesus did not tell the truth, or those who wrote those statements attributed to him lied. Which is it?

Its already been answered .. not skipped. I gave you evidence of ten medically documented miracles.

You are in this kick about how the evidence on an internet forum isn't compelling enough.

Well, OK then, I recommend we suspend all debate until, in line with your need for evidence of a certain magnitude, we develop technology that will allow us to magically transport people, invisibly and without the ability to interfere directly to historical events so they can witness them for themselves. Deal?

[Justin108]

And these aren't even supernatural claims and still they are unreliable.

It interesting that you make a claim, one that is called an appeal to authority (expertise) and is fallacious.

.

Ummm... what? Who did I appeal to?

MIraculously healed cancer is not supernatural, eh? Because YOU say so? The medically documented events are unreliable because YOU say so?

Cancer goes into remission. It is a perfectly natural occurrence. Show me someone who grows back a limb (unnatural) and I'd call it a miracle.

And I'm confused... where is all this coming from? I haven't even addressed any claim about cancer at all. I responded to SailingCyclops' references to false eye-witness testimony. I never said a damn thing about anything to do with cancer.

[Justin108]

That is simply not true. The earliest gospels occur within 20 years of Jesus's death.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

This is in line with the date of publication of many modern day memoirs. So why is this a problem 2,000 years ago? Again, the evidential consideration begins with the Pauline Epistles (which also make up the Bible), who did not see Jesus, but MOST CERTAINLY DID SEE THE OTHER APOSTLES.

How is this not the very definition of hearsay evidence? Even taking your 20 year claim (most of what I have read claims 60 hears at best) , doesn't that qualify as delayed hearsay? We now know such evidence is not evidence at all; which is in line with the OP question; Can we rely on this "eyewitness evidence"? Obviously not.

Because he is verifying the eye witness accounts, as in, "Yes, these guys existed, and they told me many of the same things."

Its a step toward, but not the sole step in what I have already explained. When someone gives an eye witness statement, NO ONE, not historians or the police, takes it as gospel do they?

They look for things to verify the events. 2,000 years after the fact, we begin with what we know is accurate, and these are the letters of Paul. So when Paul says, Mark is real ... and we have a record from Mark ... OK, that is a starting point.

That is it. Its the beginning of the process, not the end.

It is also the problem with much of the non-professional atheistic analysis of antiquity, particularly with Jesus. Its a lack of understanding in the process. Then again, I am a historian, albeit one with a broadly different time frame. I am nevertheless familiar enough with the process to know that the near unanimous position of period scholars should be taken as accurate ... over the opinion of a professor of English whose work has been scorned by those same period experts.

Again, what are you adding to the solution set that two millenia of professional historians is failing to add?

Ergo, and as it happens to be the debate, how do we use the eye witness accounts of the Bible?

So we assume that they are lying, and if so why?

Is there some particular reason why you are avoiding that question?

Even if all these Biblical characters did exist, it still would not prove they performed miracles. Saying Abraham Lincoln existed does not prove he was a vampire hunter

[SailingCyclops]

Its already been answered .. not skipped. I gave you evidence of ten medically documented miracles.

You are using Kathryn Kuhlman from the 1970s as proof that Jesus' followers of today are performing greater miracles than he did? That's it? She has been referred to as everything from a spiritist and false prophet by christians to a fraud by others.

That's about as convincing as hearsay evidence. Is that what Jesus was talking about? Is Kathryn Kuhlman the fulfillment of the Matthew claim? If so, why is she not mentioned in Matthew? Now that would be something! Are there even any religious scholars making this claim, or is this your own claim?

So, no, you have not answered the question. You can't because the things foretold by Jesus, or by those who claimed he said those things, are not taking place. If they were, we would know about them.

[SailingCyclops]

So we assume that they are lying, and if so why?

We don't have any original texts at all. What we do have are copies of copies of copies of unknown provenance. Copied (transcribed by hand) by who? Monks. Monks who had a very real social and political agenda. To convince poor ignorant peasants to obey the church. So we have a lack of first hand evidence, motive to deceive, and opportunity to do so. Sounds like the makings of a fraud to me. And you call the product of this "evidence"?

[Justin108]

So we assume that they are lying, and if so why?

Do you assume the author of the Quran was telling the truth too? If not, why would you assume he was lying?

[SailingCyclops]

Well, OK then, I recommend we suspend all debate until, in line with your need for evidence of a certain magnitude .... Deal?

No deal! As a debater, I can't let this go. Why should I?

Here is what you claim Jesus said, and was accurately transcribed:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

From your writings and your user groups, We can safely assume that YOU are a christian believer. Therefor, if that is the case (you will tell us if it's not the case, right?), YOU should be able to perform the miracles that Jesus said YOU SHALL perform (even greater ones actually). I challenge you to prove Jesus, and those who quoted him, correct and perform a miracle.

If you can't, either what was reported that Jesus said is incorrect, or Jesus was not telling the truth. I don't see how all three states can coexist. Either Jesus was accurately quoted telling the truth, or he was misquoted, or he was accurately quoted and he lied.

This has nothing to do with "history". It has to do with the accuracy and veracity of the "eye witness" testimony in the bible. My bar of evidence comes directly from the very text you call evidence. If the text is correct, and accurately transcribed, what it states will be true. If what it states is not true, we can dismiss it as evidence.

[GADARENE]

And what sort of evidence would you presuppose that we weigh on a internet forum?

How about we start with the question which you completely avoided above. Jesus is claimed to have said that his followers in the future would perform greater miracles than he performed.

Show me the proof. Show me greater miracles being performed by his followers today. The alternative is that Jesus did not tell the truth, or those who wrote those statements attributed to him lied. Which is it?

Its already been answered .. not skipped. I gave you evidence of ten medically documented miracles.

You are in this kick about how the evidence on an internet forum isn't compelling enough.

Well, OK then, I recommend we suspend all debate until, in line with your need for evidence of a certain magnitude, we develop technology that will allow us to magically transport people, invisibly and without the ability to interfere directly to historical events so they can witness them for themselves. Deal?

greater works than these shall ye do.

where are them greater works be a happenin? huh? lol. your fictional, invisible, domineering, greedy, phony home-boy god don't exist, do he big shot, like we been sayin all along (except when we get scaered. then it's, well maybe, who the hell knows?)

as the exorcised demoniac sat as his feet, clothed and in his right mind, so have countless broken, bruised and forgotten found peace and healing through the ages at the hands of his body of believers--mostly behind the scenes.


and the hospitals and medical centers and the thousands of doctors, nurses, respiratory, physical and occupational therapists reaching out in love and scientific expertise to heal the sick and comfort the dying.