"There were eye-witnesses"

[Zzyzx]

.
Some bible stories are claimed to be truthful "because there were eye-witnesses". Does that establish the truth of the story?

If a person claims to have run a mile in two minutes and says "there were eye-witnesses" does that establish the claim as legitimate – if the witnesses cannot be identified – if no statements from witnesses are available – if credibility of the witnesses is unknown?

If there actually was a witness report of the water-to-wine incident, is there any assurance that what they saw was not an illusion (keeping in mind that illusionists even today can perform "magical" feats that convince many observers)?

If the claim defies what we know of the real world, does witness testimony (or claim "there were witnesses") override real world considerations? Is a two-minute-mile any less believable than "arose from the dead" or "walked on water" or "calmed storms by command?"

[Zzyzx]

When it comes to the Bible history and theology are intertwined. They cannot be separated.

Thank you. I agree with "intertwined" and "cannot be separated."

When religious ideology is mixed into "historical account" inseparably one cannot separate religion promotion from historical information.

Therefore, claims that "this part is historical" are nothing more than a guess. The author(s) may have been using "parable" to convey a religious point rather than reporting historical events.

Perhaps you can suggest a means by which anyone can separate fact from fiction (or ideology) in bible stories?

The Bible is about God who gets involved in the history of humanity.

Perhaps it can more accurately said as "The bible is about god that some propose or believe gets involved in the history of humanity."

There is no assurance / evidence that any of the thousands of "gods" become involved in human affairs (except in the minds of worshipers).

It is grounded in history, something that cannot be said about the holy books of other religions or about Ancient Near Eastern mythologies.

There may be some difference of OPINION on this matter

And the existence of theology does NOT negate the truth of the history it contains.

Any ideology can distort "history" in its literature to favor or promote its beliefs. When theology and history are inseparable, truth cannot be assumed.

Archaeology continually supports its contents.

Kindly cite archeology support for miracle or divinity claims

It contains accounts of real people, real places, real events.

So does Gone with the Wind. Does that make it an historical document?

I also question your statement that few scholars or theologians regard the Bible as a historical document.

Perhaps you are aware (as I trust readers are) that there is a lot of disagreement among respected scholars and theologians regarding "the bible as history."

[Zzyzx]

bjs wrote:

If we are going to discount eye-witness reports then we need to discount essentially all known history. No reasonable person will do this.

You've hit the nail on the head! If we didn't use eyewitness accounts, much of history would be lost to us.

If (since) there are "eyewitness accounts" from competing religions that claim their "gods" flew through the atmosphere, came back from the dead, walked on water, were born to a virgin, etc -- shall we regard those accounts as historical?

It seems as though religionists tend to dismiss or demean accounts favoring "gods" other than their own favorite -- but maintain that THEIR claims / stories / literature should be accepted as historical.

The terms hypocrisy and inconsistency come to mind.

[Zzyzx]

Given that the gospels were written within two generations of Christ's death and resurrection, there would be all kinds of people still alive to know whether the gospel writers got it right or not. Think of the thousands of people who heard his sermon on the mount. Think of the Roman soldiers present when he was arrested, tried and crucified. Think of the people he healed and their families.

What did those people say / write about the events they are said to have witnessed? Did they see the gospel writings written decades or generations after the claimed events and conversations? Did they agree or disagree with gospel writer accounts?

[Danmark]

Once again we have a thread that comes down to little more than Z saying , “I’m a naturalist and my worldview does not allow for miracles.�

Obviously there are problems with historical accounts (eye-witness accounts and secondary sources). But that’s what we have. That’s how history works.

If we are going to discount eye-witness reports then we need to discount essentially all known history. No reasonable person will do this.

On the other hand, if we are discounting eye-witness reports because they are reports of the miraculous then we will need to have some evidence in favor of naturalism or some other worldview that precludes the miraculous.

The problem is not to wholly discount eye witness evidence. Each piece of evidence has to be evaluated individually. For example eye witness identification of strangers is among the least reliable bits of evidence.

The problem with ancient accounts of miracles is not just that they defy scientific principles, but virtually all of the contemporary reported 'miracles' have turned out to be fraudulent or otherwise false. See the thread on Darren Brown.

So we have several problems with those ancient reports, not simply that they are 'eye witness' reports. BTW, most of the reports we have in the gospels are not even eye witness accounts, but either hearsay accounts collected decades after the events or reports from people who claimed to have first hand information but did not.

Then we have people like Paul who admits he never met Jesus, except within his own mind, a report he gave after having been sick and delirious for days.

If the accounts in the gospels, and Acts did not have such a long tradition behind them; that is, if you read them freshly today, having never heard of them before, and knew the circumstances of their authorship and dates they were written it is unlikely anyone would give them a passing thought as being factual.

It is only the fact these accounts are bound in leather and venerated by the Church and frequently by one's own family traditions, learned from childhood, that gives the believer any reason to take them seriously.

[Ooberman]

Once again we have a thread that comes down to little more than Z saying , “I’m a naturalist and my worldview does not allow for miracles.�

This is called "Poisoning the Well". The Apologist, knowing they have little to offer, will do what they can to undermine the message right from the start.

Obviously there are problems with historical accounts (eye-witness accounts and secondary sources). But that’s what we have. That’s how history works.

In this part, the Apologist uses a rhetorical device to make themselves look reasonable. "Of course there are problems with X..."

They do this to warm people up for the shift:

If we are going to discount eye-witness reports then we need to discount essentially all known history. No reasonable person will do this.

Here, it the bomb: the reductio ad absurdum. If one little thing is wrong - then throw it ALL out! Throw out eyewitnesses to Kennedy's murder! Throw out all of history no less!

This is to get people to warm people up to accepting something less insane, and in this case, it takes the form of shifting the burden of proof:

On the other hand, if we are discounting eye-witness reports because they are reports of the miraculous then we will need to have some evidence in favor of naturalism or some other worldview that precludes the miraculous.

This places the burden on the naturalist to prove naturalism. It has nothing to do with supporting any single miracle or miracles in general, but punting and placing the burden back onto the person NOT making the claim of miracles.

We are to suddenly prove miracles can't happen - when they haven't even proven they can or have happened.


I have seen these tactics over and over again. I have used them. They come straight from McDowell/Strobbel-style debate tactics and it's why I loathe apologetics so much.


There is nothing in this post that even mildly attempts to address the problem of miracles, to support one miracle, or even undermine naturalism with some known fact.

[postroad]

bjs wrote:

postroad wrote:

The same readers that accepted the four gospels happily accepted many more gospels attributed to Mary and Judas,Thomas and others.

Where is your evidence for that? Those other gospels were written from the late second century to the fourth century. They weren't considered for the canon because they were not written by people who knew Jesus or by people who knew people who knew Jesus. That was the primary consideration for entry into the canon, that is, eyewitness accounts.

Several years ago, a movie came out about Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer. We know Lincoln was real. We are pretty sure he didn't hunt and kill vampires. Consider the gospels of Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc. as similar. They may have used the names of real people, but there's no indication that their audience ever thought they were the truth of God. Based on their content, it seems they were meant to entertain, not testify to the truth of God. They are all available online and, by just reading them, you can see that they are nothing like the Biblical gospels. They couldn't be considered biographies by any stretch of the imagination.

You are not getting my point. They were accepted by people who accepted the earlier gospels.

And just because you read them with the preconceived notion that they are fictional entertainment does not mean that the earlier readers did.

Is it really more difficult to believe those fanciful accounts than to believe that large amounts of people were resurrected at the moment of Jesus's death. that they waited in the shattered remnants of their tombs. And when Christ was resurrected they proceeded into Jerusalem to appear unto many?

If this account had not been recorded in one of the "official" gospels you would insist that its inclusion in some of the unofficial gospels was proof that they were not meant to be read as an historical document.

That the story is included in the Gospel of Matthew shows that the people created and embraced clearly non historical "truths"

Now before It is pointed out that because a witness makes one error in his testimony does not preclude the truth to the rest of the testimony, let me point out that if that point is a demonstrable deliberate falsehood one has every right to doubt the whole testimony because it shows the motive of the witness.

And the point is moot anyway if in fact the accounts are a literary device and not factual testimony.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 15 by Ooberman]

lol. Well done! It's funny because we tend to do these manipulative tactics without even realizing what we're doing. Those receiving it are generally even less aware of it. Your account of it reminded me a lot of "The Cage" episode of Star Trek's Original Series.

TALOSIAN: It appears, Magistrate, that the intelligence of the specimen is shockingly limited.
MAGISTRATE: This is no surprise since his vessel was baited here so easily with a simulated message. As you can read in its thoughts, it is only now beginning to suspect that the survivors and encampment were a simple illusion we placed in their minds.
PIKE: You're not speaking, yet I can hear you.
MAGISTRATE: You will note the confusion as it reads our thought transmissions.
PIKE: All right then, telepathy. You can read my mind. I can read yours. Now, unless you want my ship to consider capturing me an unfriendly act
MAGISTRATE: You now see the primitive fear threat reaction. The specimen is about to boast of his strength, the weaponry of his vessel, and so on. Next, frustrated into a need to display physical prowess, the creature will throw himself against the transparency.
PIKE: If you were in here, wouldn't you test the strength of these walls, too? There's a way out of any cage, and I'll find it.
MAGISTRATE: Despite its frustration, the creature appears more adaptable than our specimens from other planets. We can soon begin the experiment.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 15 by Ooberman]

lol. Well done! It's funny because we tend to do these manipulative tactics without even realizing what we're doing. Those receiving it are generally even less aware of it. Your account of it reminded me a lot of "The Cage" episode of Star Trek's Original Series.

TALOSIAN: It appears, Magistrate, that the intelligence of the specimen is shockingly limited.
MAGISTRATE: This is no surprise since his vessel was baited here so easily with a simulated message. As you can read in its thoughts, it is only now beginning to suspect that the survivors and encampment were a simple illusion we placed in their minds.
PIKE: You're not speaking, yet I can hear you.
MAGISTRATE: You will note the confusion as it reads our thought transmissions.
PIKE: All right then, telepathy. You can read my mind. I can read yours. Now, unless you want my ship to consider capturing me an unfriendly act
MAGISTRATE: You now see the primitive fear threat reaction. The specimen is about to boast of his strength, the weaponry of his vessel, and so on. Next, frustrated into a need to display physical prowess, the creature will throw himself against the transparency.
PIKE: If you were in here, wouldn't you test the strength of these walls, too? There's a way out of any cage, and I'll find it.
MAGISTRATE: Despite its frustration, the creature appears more adaptable than our specimens from other planets. We can soon begin the experiment.

Nice! Bonus for Star Trek reference (I also give points for Star Wars, Lord the Rings, and Monty Python references... - I'm non-denominational)


If this is a debate site, then I think pointing out debate techniques is important. It's crucial to point out red herrings and other comments that keep us from debating the points.

One read of a McDowell book, or Strobbel, or WLC will reveal the tactics they use. They are effective - until light is shone on them.




edit: BTW, sorry, I could never get into Dr. Who... Should I try again? I heard the latest is well done.

[Student]

Also bear in mind that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and the gospels are in Greek. That means that his sayings wouldn't be translated identically by everyone just as any work we might read in English that has been translated from French, Spanish or German wouldn't be identical in wording.

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists. Had each evangelist been translating independently from a common Aramaic source their Greek translations would have shown far greater divergence.

Consequently, either a particular evangelist knew of the work of another, or they were both using a common Greek source.

Why would an eye-witness rely upon a common Greek source when he would have his own Aramaic recollections? Is it likely that an eye-witness would simply copy verbatim [a translation] from someone else?

[Danmark]

Also bear in mind that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and the gospels are in Greek. That means that his sayings wouldn't be translated identically by everyone just as any work we might read in English that has been translated from French, Spanish or German wouldn't be identical in wording.

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists. Had each evangelist been translating independently from a common Aramaic source their Greek translations would have shown far greater divergence.

Consequently, either a particular evangelist knew of the work of another, or they were both using a common Greek source.

Why would an eye-witness rely upon a common Greek source when he would have his own Aramaic recollections? Is it likely that an eye-witness would simply copy verbatim [a translation] from someone else?

Excellent point!
In your reference to a common source are you referring to the so called 'Q' document? What other lost resources have scholars speculated about?