Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How much resurrection testimony in the NT is actually first-hand?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    True, hearsay evidence is not automatically excluded, even in a court of law, but to stand it must corroborated with other evidence, in a court of law particularly corroborated with objective evidence.
    Feel free to offer some legal proof for that. I don't see any evidence of that requirement at the link I proffered. I work as a paralegal, so I am not entirely ignorant in the field.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      You're free to disbelieve because you don't want to believe.
      You say so. I have not experienced that kind of freedom. I used to both believe and want to believe, but wanting to believe was not enough to keep me believing.

      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      I'm arguing that hearsay evidence is not automatically excluded, even in a court of law.
      You are correct that it is not automatic, but it is the default. The Findlaw site that you linked to lists 24 exceptions, and they are called exceptions for a reason. Hearsay is excluded, by default, unless at least one of them applies. You say that the "past recollections recorded" exception applies to the gospels, and maybe it does, but not just because you say so. A paralegal should know that.


      That noted, I am not one of those skeptics who thinks that whatever is excluded in a court of law must be excluded from any other inquiry. Courts are not concerned only with truth. They are also concerned with protecting the rights of people accused of crimes, and to protect those rights, sometimes relevant evidence must be declared inadmissible. That is not so with the present discussion. I see no reason, in this context, for any exclusionary rule.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        Yes, if we must believe church tradition. I don't see why we must.

        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        I'm not arguing that you must believe
        Maybe "must" isn't the right word. You seem to think I'm making some kind of mistake if I don't believe what church tradition says. What mistake would that be?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          That noted, I am not one of those skeptics who thinks that whatever is excluded in a court of law must be excluded from any other inquiry. Courts are not concerned only with truth. They are also concerned with protecting the rights of people accused of crimes, and to protect those rights, sometimes relevant evidence must be declared inadmissible.
          I am a paralegal too, part time, and civil lawsuits do not involve legal attempts to protect rights of the criminally accused.

          Sometimes relevant evidence is declared inadmissible in civil courts because its ability to unfairly prejudice the jury against a party outweighs its probative nature.

          Either way, the court rule most applicable to trying to prove true something written in an old document, is the authentication rule for ancient documents. Documents can be authenticated under Evidence Rule 901(B)(8) if, "evidence that a document..., in any form, (a) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (b) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (c) has been in existence twenty years or more at the time it is offered."

          That is not so with the present discussion. I see no reason, in this context, for any exclusionary rule.
          the NT documents pass the last test, but fail the first two. No court, when apprised of all the scholarly disagreement there is about whether today's greek NT accurately reflects the originals, would hold there is no suspicion about the authenticity of the NT. Nearly nothing is known of the provenance of the earliest copies of the NT we have or under what circumstances they came to be, so the court would find it impossible to say that, for example, Codex Siniaticus was "in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be". The fact that it was brought TO a church doesn't mean that's where it always was.

          Since the NT fails the first criteria miserably, Simon Greenleaf and today's apologists who employ his "legal apologetics" method are fools.

          Comment


          • #65
            To B&H:
            I'm glad that you turned out not to be a "Drive-by", but you still have not replied to my #55 on this thread nor to the thread (Skeptical response to Bart Ehrman in the historical Jesus) to which I linked in that post, in which you stated you were interested in learning about my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the canonical gospels.
            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Adam View Post
              To B&H:
              I'm glad that you turned out not to be a "Drive-by", but you still have not replied to my #55 on this thread nor to the thread (Skeptical response to Bart Ehrman in the historical Jesus) to which I linked in that post, in which you stated you were interested in learning about my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the canonical gospels.
              I did respond. I indicated that your ability to locate sections of the gospels you think were written by actual eyewitnesses did absolutely nothing toward alleviating the problem of hearsay. Either Matthew personally witnessed all events that are asserted in the gospel with his name on it, or he is reporting hearsay. The fact that you can identify some reported events as originally being written by actual eyewitnesses, does not get rid of the problem of attribution to Matthew, and thus doesn't get rid of the hearsay hurdle. You don't get rid of Matthew's connection by showing that some information he used was originally written by others. It's still a non-eyewitness through whom you get this alleged eyewitness report, so the hearsay problem cannot be overcome by your method.

              You might be able to show in a court of law that a witness's knowledge was based on what her friend, the real eyewitness, told her, but showing that would not remove this testimony from the realm of hearsay. Matthew's name eternally infects this so-called "eyewitness report" that you think his gospel contains.
              Last edited by B&H; 10-12-2014, 04:29 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Your quibbling shows that you have no interest in what really happened. Technicalities may rule in law, but they stand in the way of fairness and truth. Since you by definition reject sources in the gospels, you misstated your willingness to learn about my Thesis. You're not keeping your word.

                I have identified large segments of the four gospels that were originally written by eyewitnesses. They were preserved largely intact in our extant gospels.
                Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Adam View Post
                  you by definition reject sources in the gospels
                  B&H will speak for himself, but I'm not rejecting sources just because I reject your claim to have identified sources.

                  Originally posted by Adam View Post
                  I have identified large segments of the four gospels that were originally written by eyewitnesses.
                  So you say.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by B&H View Post
                    If a person on the witness stand says they know something is true because their friend told them, and their friend was an eyewitness, then it is true that this hearsay contains eyewitness material, but that doesn't negate the fact that it comes to us in second-hand form.

                    So the fact that you can figure out which texts in the gospels are sourced in first-hand information, does not change the fact that this information came to us in second-hand form. You are desperately trying to argue that hearsay should be given all the benefits of first-hand information if it can be shown that the hearsay contains eywitness material, but that is not the way historiography works. And you can never justify calling a skeptic a fool for outright rejection of that which is properly defined as hearsay, unless you are willing during a criminal trial to be convicted on the basis of hearsay? When its your own neck on the chopping block, then suddenly, hearsay really is as bad as skeptics say, amen?
                    Just as an aside, the Federal Rules of Evidence contain around two-dozen exceptions to the rule against hearsay. There are, in fact, so many execptions that some legal experts say that the rule is effectively non-existent. There are a lot of people who have been convicted on hearsay evidence.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by B&H View Post
                      Either way, the court rule most applicable to trying to prove true something written in an old document, is the authentication rule for ancient documents. Documents can be authenticated under Evidence Rule 901(B)(8) if, "evidence that a document..., in any form, (a) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (b) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (c) has been in existence twenty years or more at the time it is offered."

                      the NT documents pass the last test, but fail the first two. No court, when apprised of all the scholarly disagreement there is about whether today's greek NT accurately reflects the originals, would hold there is no suspicion about the authenticity of the NT. Nearly nothing is known of the provenance of the earliest copies of the NT we have or under what circumstances they came to be, so the court would find it impossible to say that, for example, Codex Siniaticus was "in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be". The fact that it was brought TO a church doesn't mean that's where it always was.
                      Your interpretation proffered here would rule out every single ancient document in existence, AFAICS. And your example is ridiculous; a copy of scripture, if authentic, would likely be found in a church.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        Maybe "must" isn't the right word. You seem to think I'm making some kind of mistake if I don't believe what church tradition says. What mistake would that be?
                        You're taking this in a direction I wasn't intending. If you want to discuss why you wanted to believe, but couldn't, I suppose we could do that elsewhere.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          If you want to discuss why you wanted to believe, but couldn't, I suppose we could do that elsewhere.
                          No, I don't want to talk about what I want to believe. I want to talk about what I should believe and why I should believe it. I think that whether I want to believe something has nothing to do with whether I should believe it.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by B&H View Post
                            You don't get rid of Matthew's connection by showing that some information he used was originally written by others.... Matthew's name eternally infects this so-called "eyewitness report" that you think his gospel contains.
                            B&H has not logged in for two weeks, so I'll take this opportunity to correct some possible confusions here. On the one hand skeptics like to argue that Matthew could not have written the gospel containing his name because he copies at Mt. 9:9 what is already in Mark 2:14 about him. However, the external testimony about the Apostle Matthew is that he wrote something that was translated by others. This is quite often identified as the Logia or Q, which is more and more agreed now to have entered into the writing of Mark. There's where the notice about "Levi" ("Matthew" in the parallel 9:9) got into Mark and thence into Matthew. Much of Q and about half of Mark (most of the rest, already in Greek, from Peter) comes into the Gospel of Matthew from him. Since this was written and merely translated, it counts as eyewitness testimony or the best class of hearsay.

                            Nor has B&H replied to my #55 on this thread.
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                              No, I don't want to talk about what I want to believe.
                              It would help if you answered the question I implied, instead of answering a different question.
                              I want to talk about what I should believe and why I should believe it. I think that whether I want to believe something has nothing to do with whether I should believe it.
                              Fine. That's not the subject of this thread, however.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Your interpretation proffered here would rule out every single ancient document in existence, AFAICS. And your example is ridiculous; a copy of scripture, if authentic, would likely be found in a church.
                                This is par for the course. The majority of skeptical arguments against the Bible apply just as readily to any other ancient document. As the saying goes, that which proves too much proves nothing.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, 01-20-2022, 01:10 PM
                                41 responses
                                220 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-09-2022, 05:51 AM
                                187 responses
                                871 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Seeker, 12-08-2021, 11:31 PM
                                474 responses
                                2,750 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                472 responses
                                3,038 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 06:21 PM
                                370 responses
                                2,268 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Working...
                                X