reliable witnesses?

[H'ethetheth]

And of course, who's going to write down lots of stories about that guy they heard of, who, on the same day, turned water into water and didn't walk on water, let the sick be sick, and when he died he stayed dead. Those are not the stories that anyone is interested in after a hundred years, let alone 2000. There's a reason why fiction is more popular than history.

 

[Riddick]

Riddick, you've reached the very heart of the issue, although perhaps not in the maner that it appears you'd intended.

oh my, i have been goofed on by a jrefer :shame:

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.

yes, i hear you claiming there is a "monumental lack of evidence" of jesus miracles. have you convinced yourself to believe that your position is true? the thing is, the more you try to build your case for "no evidence," the less of a case you have.

1The 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[discussing] the primary elements of Christian docterine[doctrine] and practice.
1so if there were a cliffs notes on jesus' miracles, then, and only then would they be reliable? or perhaps on dvd? when, exactly, do accounts become reliable? once?...twice?...three times a lady...

you can't even freaking spell, so you're immediately discredited by about 90%. if you can't spell right, what makes you right?

Hebraic records contain numeraous[numerous] accounts of sects lead by messianic claimants of varying degrees of popularity, but if one of them were performing 1actual miracles in front of hundreds or thousands of people 2then that should have garnered enormous amounts of attention, so where is it?

1well, for starters, the italics weren't convincing. had you increased the font size, then you would really have had a powerful advantage.

2for starters, the mission (!) of the jref community is to share their angst for christianity. jrefer younglings give christianity/miracles an enormous amt of attention.

1As it is, what little evidence there is that Jesus Christ even existed as a living person is highly suspect. 2I'm ill-equiped[equipped] 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 [/B]

1your existence present day will be highly suspect in 4005. how do you feel about that?
2thank you for the complimentary links. here's one for you

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

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.

1) I did not say that they were inherently unreliable, I said that the jury, after hearing the witnesses on both sides, and observing their reactions under hostile cross-examination makes up their own mind as to which witnesses were more reliable.

2) There are many cases where the prosecutor (or the defendant)does not go to trial, because although he is convinced of the truth of his case, he knows or believes that the jury will be convinced by the other side's witnesses. Sometimes neither side is sure of the jury, and they agree to a plea bargain.

3) I'm not sure how you intend this statement to refute the statement of mine you attached it to. It seems to further my point rather than counter it.

4) I did not say that their statements are "no good." I said that they can't be tested under courtroom conditions.

5) I agreed that a written record is not by necessity unreliable just because it is old or just because it can't be cross-examined. In that case, however, you have to try to determine its reliability by more indirect means.

You have to ask if the written record is by the original witness. (Some statements by Paul in his letters and parts of the latter half of the Acts of the Apostles seem to be direct reporting of events witnessed by Paul and Luke*, respectively. Most of the rest are second or third hand at best)

You have to examine evidence that the author may have had an ulterior motive. A stong motive would not negate a record's truthfulness, but it might mean that there might have been a temptation to "help" the facts line up more exactly with that motive than a more disinterested observer would have felt.

You have to compare it to other similar records from similar times and places. The myths of Osiris, Adonis/Tammuz, Mithras have much in common with the Jesus miracle stories. The childood legends of Jesus, Moses, Hercules, Hermes, and Gilgamesh have some common threads, etc.

Finally, there is the point that the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed to "prove" its reliability. The beer-dumping incident is something that can be expected to have occured in a large percentage of rowdy occassion with drunken revelers. The only extraordinary factor is the identity of the victim. The water-into-wine incident is extraordinary on its face.



*The only miracles reported in these incidents (which occured several years after the Crucifixion) are the Damascus experience and the earthquake in Philippi, both of which can be claimed to
have natural explanations.

 

[KelvinG]

1does the OP count? i am under no burden to you or anyone else.

No, you are certainly not under any burden to participate in this thread. But, here you are nonetheless.

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.

No one has come out and said "It's impossible that Jesus ever performed miracles, and he didn't even exist anyway, so it doesn't matter."
Just because the opinions in this thread don't jive with your unbending dogma is no reason to conclude that they must be ignored.

Tell me Riddick. Do you think it's possible Jesus didn't perform miracles? Do you think it's possible he didn't even exist?
The supposed "historical record" of the Bible is so incredibly suspect that it would be foolish to try and use it as the sole determining factor. Do you consider the alternative to the stories in the bible, or are they the ultimate truth for you?

i guess you had difficulty discerning the OP?

Yes, that's it.

 

[Vim Razz]

oh my, i have been goofed on by a jrefer :shame:

You were not "goofed", Riddick, your OP implies an injustice in way that witnesess to Jesus's miracles are treated compared to those of the Jason Giambi incident. It appears that you intended to draw this corelation in order to illustrate the validity of Gospel testimony. As I am incapable of reading your mind for confirmation, I qualified this assumption with a "perhaps."

You have implied that the testimonies to Giambi's beer afair and Jesus's miracles are similar in nature and therefore carry similar weight. They are, however, not similar in nature therefore your correlation falls flat and your intended pupose fails.

yes, i hear you claiming there is a "monumental lack of evidence" of jesus miracles. have you convinced yourself to believe that your position is true? the thing is, the more you try to build your case for "no evidence," the less of a case you have.

There is a very simple way to refute this case: provide reliable evidence. I have no personal attachment to my postion and would actualy be quite happy for the sake of my Christian friends and family members if I were shown to be wrong.

Until then, your premise that building a case for "no evidence" is invalid is false. We're not talking about Joe Blow who weaves sandles for a living; Jesus is the single most influential character in western culture for the last two millenia. He is said to have inspired thousands of people during his own lifetime in addition to those who came after. At least some of those people were literate; why would they not document -- even if just for personal reasons -- what must have been the most miraculous and astonishing events since the age of Moses? They didn't seem to balk at recording less important things. There should be more evidence then a handful of books written decades later and hundreds of miles away to show for Jesus's influence.

Even if references and teachings were deliberately purged within the Jewish community, like those of the apostate heretic Elisha ben Avuyah (who is only refered to within the Torah as "aher" -- "the other" or "the stranger"), there would have been people who wrote about him if only to prevent his influence from spreading.

If there is evidence which has yet to be found or that has been found that I am not currently aware of then that may eventualy shift the ballance of the discussion. Not being omnicient or clairvoyant, however, I can only work with what has been presented.

so if there were a cliffs notes on jesus' miracles, then, and only then would they be reliable? or perhaps on dvd? when, exactly, do accounts become reliable? once?...twice?...three times a lady...

When there is sufficient coroberating evidence from independant sources to demonstrate their reliability. Hearsay accounts from people who have vested interests in the outcome -- in the absence of any other suporting evidence -- do not qualify.

you can't even freaking spell, so you're immediately discredited by about 90%. if you can't spell right, what makes you right?
...
well, for starters, the italics weren't convincing. had you increased the font size, then you would really have had a powerful advantage.

ad hominum, ad hominum, ad hominum, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

It's unfortunate if sleepy typing, quick proofreading, and quirky boredom with plain text at one'o'clock in the morning have "immediately discredited" 90% of my statement, but even if they do that still leaves me with about 10%.

You, on the other hand, have presented nothing, and 100% of zero is still zero.

for starters, the mission (!) of the jref community is to share their angst for christianity. jrefer younglings give christianity/miracles an enormous amt of attention.

Nope. The mission of the JREF community is promote education about fraud, delusion, and misconception. The "miracles" generaly discussed here forged by charlatans like Benny Hinn or John of God to exploit religious faith and trust for personal gain are a problem to everyone.

Some individuals have personal axes to grind, but (vocal as they may be) those are their issues, not mine, nor are they necessarily representative of the general community.

your existence present day will be highly suspect in 4005. how do you feel about that?

It's entirely irelevant. I do not walk on water. Crowds of people do not pave the streets with palms when I enter a town. Civic authorites do not seek me out for my teachings. I am not direct kin to the creator of heaven and earth. People will not spend the next two thousand years fighting over their interpretations of my words.

I make small ripples in the world because I make a small splash.

Jesus makes big ripples. There should be evidence of a big splash; I've yet to see any.

thank you for the complimentary links.

Yer welcome.

here's one for you

Ms Jones makes for spunky reading but I fail to see your point.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Did I miss where someone pointed out that the Giambi incident was captured on Video?


Was it?

 

[Beleth]

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

Because they aren't claiming to have done anything supernatural? Anyone can throw a beer.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Curious

Did Moses exist?

or Noah?

Job, Joshua?

What about Esther?

I dont know, what documentation is around for them.?

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: reliable witnesses?

Because they aren't claiming to have done anything supernatural? Anyone can throw a beer.

Can Jesus throw a beer? What would Jesus do .. when confronted with the eternal shame that is Giambi? Jesus was never been witnessed to throw beer. Nor is there any evidence that beer existed in Jesus' time and place.