02 Jan '18 15:24>
Originally posted by @whodeyHave you got a witness to what Jesus said?
Jesus never wrote about himself. This is evidence.
At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.
Wow.
Originally posted by @whodeyHave you got a witness to what Jesus said?
Jesus never wrote about himself. This is evidence.
At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.
Have you got a witness to what Jesus said?
Wow.
Originally posted by @whodeyMultiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.
As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.
Originally posted by @whodeyI agree that this is a form of evidence albeit weakened by the fact you have to be a believer to believe it.
You hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.
Originally posted by @fmfSo I guess it gets down to which witness you believe, doesn't it.
Multiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.
Originally posted by @whodeyNo. You said: “At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.”
You hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.
As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.
Originally posted by @fmfPaul is perhaps the first to have a dramatic conversion. Although he did not meet Jesus before crucified, he claims to have met him on the road to Damascus.
I agree that this is a form of evidence albeit weakened by the fact you have to be a believer to believe it.
Originally posted by @divegeesterThe gospels are either from first hand accounts or people recording it for them.
No. You said: “At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.”
What you are talking about is first hand witness evidence about a subjective experience you have had. First hand witness testimony of Jesus words would be someone who was there, first hand, and can verify what was said by whom.
What you have (and I have for that matter) in ...[text shortened]... f the words Jesus actually spoke is not permissible in a court of law as it is hearsay. At best.
Originally posted by @whodeyIt is evidence, yes. Convincing to the believer; weak or meaningless to non-believers.
So I guess it gets down to which witness you believe, doesn't it.
Nonetheless, it is evidence.
Originally posted by @fmfDepending on the change that the unbeliever sees in their life
It is evidence, yes. Convincing to the believer; weak or meaningless to non-believers.
Originally posted by @whodeyNo they are the product of decades of "oral history"/Chinese whispers and corporate Christianity's attentions. They are essentially a secondary source
The gospels are either from first hand accounts or people recording it for them.
Originally posted by @whodeyI think a change of strategy by those who ran Rome's psy-ops against the Jews could explain the change.
If the accounts of Paul are true, that he persecuted Christians and killed them, it would answer why he changed so.
Originally posted by @whodeyWell of course this is a false dilema erected in the service of propagating something you already believe.
Now what account of someone would you tend to believe the most? Is it what a person writes about themselves or what others write about them?
Originally posted by @fmfAnd I believe you believe that.
I think a change of strategy by those who ran Rome's psy-ops against the Jews could explain the change.