• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

reliable witnesses?

Riddick

Banned
R
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
854
why are the witnesses to jason giambi's incident reliable in contrast to the witnesses of jesus miracles?

There was an incident, described in this article, where a fan threw a cup of beer at a NY Yankees baseball player Jason Giambi.

Giambi said after the May 14 incident that he wasn't interested in pursuing charges against the man, but prosecutors went ahead with the case.

"We have enough other witnesses to proceed with the case," Deputy District Attorney Paul Pinney said.
Click to expand...
It occurred to me that, there were witnesses to Jesus miracles that he performed while on earth.

Now, why are the witnesses in the Gimabi incident judged to be reputable, while the witnesses to Jesus miracles are judged as unreliable or make believe.

Why are the witnesses in Giambi's case accepted without question?

Will the Giambi incident witnesses be viewed as unreliable or just "never did exist" at some point in the future? How do we go about discarding the truths they witnessed?
 
They are not automatically considered to be reliable. The defense attorney will have the opportunity to cross-examine them with the intention of discrediting them. He will also present his own witnesses that the prosecutor will try to discredit. The jury will determine for itself which witnesses they feel are reliable.

Third-party or "hear-say" testimony is not allowed because it cannot be tested in this manner. Neither can one-sided testimony recorded hundreds of years ago. This does not in itself mean that the testimony is unreliable, but it is impossible to examine the character of the author or his consistancy under close scrutiny using the cross-examination method.

Furthermore, the more extraordinary the claim, the more intense the scrutiny under which the claimant must bear up .
 
Riddick, you've reached the very heart of the issue, although perhaps not in the maner that it appears you'd intended.

The problem is the monumental lack of evidence that Jesus performed any miracles -- or that an influential rabbi named Jesus of Nazereth existed at all, supernal or not.

The only existing accounts that Jesus performed any miracles are those in Gospels (Cannonical or otherwise) written decades after Jesus Christ is said to have lived. Not even the Epistles of Paul (written before the Gospels) make any mention of miracles, although they are enormously detailed in disscussing the primary elements of Christian docterine and practice.

Hebraic records contain numeraous accounts of sects lead by messianic claimants of varying degrees of popularity, but if one of them were performing actual miracles in front of hundreds or thousands of people then that should have garnered enormous amounts of attention, so where is it?

As it is, what little evidence there is that Jesus Christ even existed as a living person is highly suspect. I'm ill-equiped to handle this question myself, so I'm retiring it to a few representative arguments to chew on as you will:

Interpreting the evidence as in favor of a historical Jesus:
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Interpreting the evidence as opposed to a historical Jesus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
 
Go to the next Benny Hinn Healing Crusade and talk to "witnesses" after the show is over. You'll get resounding testimony that Hinn performed miracles.
And hec, this is modern day.

Take into account that fact that Jesus may never have existed at all, the length of time that has passed, the motives for creating Christian mythology, and all this talk of witnesses is pretty pointless and ultimately proves nothing.
 
KelvinG said:
Go to the next Benny Hinn Healing Crusade and talk to "witnesses" after the show is over. You'll get resounding testimony that Hinn performed miracles.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then have someone like Randi cross examine them in a legal forum where purgery could potentially put them in jail and he can present evidence to show that they are wrong.

I don't like testimony but the ability to cross-examine leaves me a bit more confident in the system. Their really is no reason to believe the "witnesses" in the bible because there is little or no reason to believe the witnesses testimony is even their testimony. We have to assume that it is. It's not evidence of anything other than someone thought or said something at sometime.
 
RandFan said:
Yes, but then have someone like Randi cross examine them in a legal forum where purgery could potentially put them in jail and he can present evidence to show that they are wrong.

I don't like testimony but the ability to cross-examine leaves me a bit more confident in the system. Their really is no reason to believe the "witnesses" in the bible because there is little or no reason to believe the witnesses testimony is even their testimony. We have to assume that it is. It's not evidence of anything other than someone thought or said something at sometime.
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, someone like Benny Hinn would be easy to test in controlled conditions. Of course, he would never agree to that.

My point was that if we take witnesses at a Benny Hinn crusade strictly at their word (with no cross examination, and no other evidence explored) then an irrational mind could draw the conclusion "Benny Hinn truly does heal people using the power of God."
It seems Riddick (who started this thread) wants this same relaxed level of proof applied to Jesus.
In fact, you have to relax the level of proof even more with Jesus. We don't even know for sure if Jesus existed. We do know that Benny Hinn exists.
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
There are stories told by witnesses. And there are stories told about witnesses.
Click to expand...

Good point. And furthermore, these are stories told about witnesses by people whose indentity we don't even know.
 
KelvinG,
Yes, of course you're right. The opening post in this thread reminded me of a letter written about twenty years ago to the Glasgow Herald, in which an earnest student of the Bible maintained that there could be no reasonable doubt about the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes: it had been witnessed by five thousand people!
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
KelvinG,
Yes, of course you're right. The opening post in this thread reminded me of a letter written about twenty years ago to the Glasgow Herald, in which an earnest student of the Bible maintained that there could be no reasonable doubt about the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes: it had been witnessed by five thousand people!
Click to expand...

And I'm willing to bet that if you say to them "Well, how do you know that story isn't just made up?" they'll look at you like your crazy!!
 
'And I'm willing to bet that if you say to them "Well, how do you know that story isn't just made up?" they'll look at you like your crazy!!'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check! as we say here.
Regards,
LMoG
 
KelvinG said:
I agree. Also, someone like Benny Hinn would be easy to test in controlled conditions. Of course, he would never agree to that.

My point was that if we take witnesses at a Benny Hinn crusade strictly at their word (with no cross examination, and no other evidence explored) then an irrational mind could draw the conclusion "Benny Hinn truly does heal people using the power of God."
It seems Riddick (who started this thread) wants this same relaxed level of proof applied to Jesus.
In fact, you have to relax the level of proof even more with Jesus. We don't even know for sure if Jesus existed. We do know that Benny Hinn exists.
Click to expand...
We are completly in agreement.
 
Moderators, please lock this thread. Everyone is in 100% agreement. A rare occurence at JREF and worth preserving.;)
 
the moderators, in their savvy, have already seen that "locking the thread" would be redundant, considering the mind-sets exhibited ;)
 
Riddick said:
the moderators, in their savvy, have already seen that "locking the thread" would be redundant, considering the mind-sets exhibited ;)
Click to expand...

Gonna do some hopping and add a Neener Neener! at the end of that for good measure?
 
Riddick said:
the moderators, in their savvy, have already seen that "locking the thread" would be redundant, considering the mind-sets exhibited ;)
Click to expand...

You haven't done much to counter anything that's been said in this thread. If you have a problem with the "mind-sets exhibited" feel free to offer a rebuttal and point out the error in our ways.

I think some excellent points have been made. Care to tell us why you think otherwise, if you do in fact think otherwise.
 
KelvinG said:
1You haven't done much to counter anything that's been said in this thread. 2If you have a problem with the "mind-sets exhibited" feel free to offer a rebuttal and point out the error in our ways.
Click to expand...
1does the OP count? i am under no burden to you or anyone else. 2if you all want to skepticize, criticize, and matasticize, you're all certainly welcome to do so. that no one else at jref has taken the position of the op is somewhat suspect. the free thinkers appear to be throttled.

]I think some excellent points have been made. Care to tell us why you think otherwise, if you do in fact think otherwise.
Click to expand...
i guess you had difficulty discerning the OP?
 
Gwyn ap Nudd said:
1They are not automatically considered to be reliable. The defense attorney will have the opportunity to cross-examine them with the intention of discrediting them. 2He will also present his own witnesses that the prosecutor will try to discredit. The jury will determine for itself which witnesses they feel are reliable.

3Third-party or "hear-say" testimony is not allowed because it cannot be tested in this manner. 4Neither can one-sided testimony recorded hundreds of years ago. 5This does not in itself mean that the testimony is unreliable, but it is impossible to examine the character of the author or his consistancy under close scrutiny using the cross-examination method.

Furthermore, the more extraordinary the claim, the more intense the scrutiny under which the claimant must bear up .
Click to expand...
1) if they weren't reliable, the DA wouldn't count on them to back his case. you don't go to trial if you don't have witnesses. DAs are usually pretty smart cookies, they usually don't pursue an avenue without just cause.
2) i see, so there will be people there who will say, "he didn't throw that beer!"? again, in this case, why would the DA bother going to trial? i guess you guys don't know squat about the courts.
3they wouldn't be witnesses, no trial, end of story
4somebody witnessed the wright brothers first flight. are they one-sided, too? how about sir edmond hilary topping everest? one-sided testimony no good?
5so all those guys without internet were a bunch of half-wits? what makes you think you are smarter than everyone else who lived 2,000 years ago? they weren't reliable witnesses? when did they become reliable, in the 1800s? 1600s? or was it at the invention of the electric razor, that all witnesses became reliable? tell me you people are not that retarted.
 
Riddick,
You said:
" 2if you all want to skepticize, criticize, and matasticize, you're all certainly welcome to do so." Matasticize? If you mean metastasize (flit rhetorically from one point to another), you might explain who has done this and where.

Regards,
LMoG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom