NationStates Jolt Archive

Often times in religious discussions, those who profess a faith are challenged to prove it. And often times, those of faith cite their religious texts. One example is often the gospels, which I will use here, but feel free to insert whatever religious text is appropriate.

However the comeback is often "that's not proof" or "that's not evidence" or, to be more correct "a thing can not be used to validate itself, something that claims to be true is no evidence of its truth"

However many have argued, and I have heard this argument, that the gospels are in many ways "eye witness accounts" and we allow eye witness accounts in courts of law all the time. Thus if our modern justice system allows for eye witness accounts, and considers them evidence, then surely the gospels, a form of eye witness account, is equally valid.

I feel compelled to however dismantle that claim, and here is why:

1) The gospels were originally written in a foreign language

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistancies in translation

4) the original eye witnesses are dead

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of counsil in preparing their testimony

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable

Under these situations, a court of law would NOT allow this testimony to be admitted as eye witness evidence. The rules of evidence would simply not permit it

Yes, we know that the T book is tripe, and that some ignorant bastards actually think it's a valid argument.

what else is new?

... um... it's called FAITH dude.

Yes, we know that the T book is tripe, and that some ignorant bastards actually think it's a valid argument.

what else is new?

They do? For something other then theological debate and "I believe" things? Wow.

... um... it's called FAITH dude.

Never said it wasn't. However I have heard on numerous occassions those who try to provide proof of faith claiming that the gospels are eye witness testimony to the events, and as such are as much "proof" as eye witness testimony used in courts to convict people.

This is, for the reasons I have stated, absolutly untrue.

It's fine to have faith in something, it is not fine to try and pretend that faith is based on something that it is not.

Never said it wasn't. However I have heard on numerous occassions those who try to provide proof of faith claiming that the gospels are eye witness testimony to the events, and as such are as much "proof" as eye witness testimony used in courts to convict people.

This is, for the reasons I have stated, absolutly untrue.

It's fine to have faith in something, it is not fine to try and pretend that faith is based on something that it is not.

Oh... ok then. I'll be on my way. (Cause I agree, literalists are dumb***es. I have to deal with them every school day at my private baptist school.)

Or you could've since the eyewitness him/herself is not present for clarification, it's disallowed because it's hearsay. Much more concise. That being said, I'm curious what court would allow a religious text as factual evidence.

I have my religious faith, but I'm not going to assume it's evidence of anything other than "heavy bibles kill big bugs."

This is why fiction, even possibly semi-historical fiction, is not used as evidence in a court of law.

But, as religion is largely based on circular logic to begin with (God created everything, everything exists, therefor God must have created it), the rules of evidentiary accuracy are hardly likely to apply in a religious debate. Which is why any such discussion should be held under the auspices of "metaphysical debate" and attempts at proving the veracity of biblical myth should be eyed as problematic, to say the least.

In other words, a thing cannot be used to prove itself unless God SAYS it can. :D

Or you could've since the eyewitness him/herself is not present for clarification, it's disallowed because it's hearsay.

While simple, it is not 100% accurate. Testimony admitted through depositions and the like HAVE been allowed even in instances when the original witness has died.

Also that's not hearsay, hearsay is a witness who testifies not about what he/she saw happen but what he/she was told by someone else happened.

If john the baptist claimed to have seen christ crucified, that is not hearsay. It's something he claimed he saw happen. If he gave that testimony, then died, it MIGHT be allowed, sometimes.

However given the full 11 points given, it would be totally impermissable.

Often times in religious discussions, those who profess a faith are challenged to prove it. And often times, those of faith cite their religious texts. One example is often the gospels, which I will use here, but feel free to insert whatever religious text is appropriate.

However the comeback is often "that's not proof" or "that's not evidence" or, to be more correct "a thing can not be used to validate itself, something that claims to be true is no evidence of its truth"

However many have argued, and I have heard this argument, that the gospels are in many ways "eye witness accounts" and we allow eye witness accounts in courts of law all the time. Thus if our modern justice system allows for eye witness accounts, and considers them evidence, then surely the gospels, a form of eye witness account, is equally valid.

I feel compelled to however dismantle that claim, and here is why:

1) The gospels were originally written in a foreign language

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistancies in translation

4) the original eye witnesses are dead

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of counsil in preparing their testimony

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable

Under these situations, a court of law would NOT allow this testimony to be admitted as eye witness evidence. The rules of evidence would simply not permit it


I think as far as the law goes you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

Before a person testifies in court they make him swear to tell the truth etc. followed by "so Help me God" They used to make a witness touch a Bible while swearing him in and it is still implied. This is what is known as sworn testimony and in court it outweighs anything the witness says while not under oath. Therefore as regards the law here God is that thing which validates testimomy. Testimony does neither validate nor invalidate God.

This is, for the reasons I have stated, absolutly untrue.

You can't prove its untrue anymore than anyone else can prove that it is true.

Often times in religious discussions, those who profess a faith are challenged to prove it. And often times, those of faith cite their religious texts. One example is often the gospels, which I will use here, but feel free to insert whatever religious text is appropriate.

However the comeback is often "that's not proof" or "that's not evidence" or, to be more correct "a thing can not be used to validate itself, something that claims to be true is no evidence of its truth"

However many have argued, and I have heard this argument, that the gospels are in many ways "eye witness accounts" and we allow eye witness accounts in courts of law all the time. Thus if our modern justice system allows for eye witness accounts, and considers them evidence, then surely the gospels, a form of eye witness account, is equally valid.

I feel compelled to however dismantle that claim, and here is why:

1) The gospels were originally written in a foreign language

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistancies in translation

4) the original eye witnesses are dead

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of counsil in preparing their testimony

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable

Under these situations, a court of law would NOT allow this testimony to be admitted as eye witness evidence. The rules of evidence would simply not permit it

There are many historical societies that would fit into some of these assumptions, are you going to say they never existed?

I think as far as the law goes you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

Before a person testifies in court they make him swear to tell the truth etc. followed by "so Help me God" They used to make a witness touch a Bible while swearing him in and it is still implied. This is what is known as sworn testimony and in court it outweighs anything the witness says while not under oath. Therefore as regards the law here God is that thing which validates testimomy. Testimony does neither validate nor invalidate God.


This is entirely wrong.

When a witness is "sworn in," his testimony is not 'validated' by his swearing and certainly not 'validated' by god. This would imply that god himself vouchsafes the veracity of everything said, which is absurd.

Testimony is validated, which means 'shown to be true,' by evidence.

"swearing in" lends testimony credence because in being sworn-in, a witness (for instance) places himself liability of perjury for the veracity of his statements.

The effect is achieved through the coercive effect of punishment for perjury, and in the old days it was assumed that the coercive effect of hell would be even more effective than the coercive effect of the law.

You can't prove its untrue anymore than anyone else can prove that it is true.

I have heard on numerous occassions those who try to provide proof of faith claiming that the gospels are eye witness testimony to the events, and as such are as much "proof" as eye witness testimony used in courts to convict people.

This is, for the reasons I have stated, absolutly untrue.

Context is fundamental. I did not claim the bible is untrue, I stated that any claim that they are as valid as testimony in court is invalid.

Context is fundamental. I did not claim the bible is untrue, I stated that any claim that they are as valid as testimony in court is invalid.

I agree with that, but who would use the Bible as testimony in court anyway?

There are many historical societies that would fit into some of these assumptions, are you going to say they never existed?

There are societies that leave evidence. Rome may be gone but the buildings are still there, the ORIGINAL manuscripts are still there, the art is still there.

Thus I can say it did, as fact, exist, because there is original, existing evidence.

Some say atlatis as a historical society also existed, however without evidence we can not say it did.

Additionally, a copy of a manuscript that can not be found which talks about atlantia can not be used as evidence in court that atlantis existed.

The gospels talk about things that may have happened. However the gospels are insufficient as a standard of proof to be considered valid evidence for it.

Likewise a book by plato talking about atlantis is insufficient to be considered valid evidence for atlantis existing.

There is however ample evidence for...say...babylon.

It's evidence if you beat someone over the head and kill them with it.

I agree with that, but who would use the Bible as testimony in court anyway?

These people:

http://yya.oca.org/TheHub/StudyGuides/CatechicalThemes/TheCaseForChrist/TheCaseForChristSessions/Session2.htm

Religious text are as reliable as historical texts. Both are written by people and thus may be inaccurate or purposely contain false information. Your own spiritual experience and faith is much more important.

If you could prove that God exists, no one would need to make the leap of faith.

Religious text are as reliable as historical texts.

On their face yes. Neither can be demonstrably proved as fact without supporting evidence

Often times in religious discussions, those who profess a faith are challenged to prove it. And often times, those of faith cite their religious texts. One example is often the gospels, which I will use here, but feel free to insert whatever religious text is appropriate.

However the comeback is often "that's not proof" or "that's not evidence" or, to be more correct "a thing can not be used to validate itself, something that claims to be true is no evidence of its truth"

However many have argued, and I have heard this argument, that the gospels are in many ways "eye witness accounts" and we allow eye witness accounts in courts of law all the time. Thus if our modern justice system allows for eye witness accounts, and considers them evidence, then surely the gospels, a form of eye witness account, is equally valid.

I feel compelled to however dismantle that claim, and here is why:

1) The gospels were originally written in a foreign language

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistancies in translation

4) the original eye witnesses are dead

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of counsil in preparing their testimony

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable

Under these situations, a court of law would NOT allow this testimony to be admitted as eye witness evidence. The rules of evidence would simply not permit it

the gospels were not written by eye witnesses. they were written by devout christian followers based on what they heard about what jesus did and said. they werent even written by someone named matthew mark luke or john.

as such they are hearsay.

While simple, it is not 100% accurate. Testimony admitted through depositions and the like HAVE been allowed even in instances when the original witness has died.

Ah, but testimony in depositions is given with both sides able to ask questions of the person being deposed. The person has been sworn in and informed of his or her rights. No one has the opportunity to confront the long-dead writer of a statement.

1) The US Constitution was originally written in a foreign language (to most of the people that immigrated to the US)

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead (more “thees” and “thous” and spelling back then was atrocious)

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistencies in translation (the supreme court even today is consistently and regularly found reversing previous interpretations of the US Constitution, nearly every session they reverse the previous courts interpretation at least a little, or clarify it differently etc.,)

4) the original eye witnesses are dead (All of the US forefathers are dead)

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead (Someone has to work on this life expectancy problem we seem to be having...)

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead (*dialing up the local cryogenics office to preserve the important people's minds on ICE for posterities sake)

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed (who forgot the Bible this time? We need a stinking Bible to swear in the constitutional representatives.... )

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court (We should have invited the British to send a magistrate to record our writing of the US Constitution, WTH were we thinking? No documentation to prove our authenticity?)

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer (Will Benjamin Franklin please get off his old fat ass and invent a stenograph machine for us? For crying out loud, we need an electronic version of the Constitution thingy here)

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of council in preparing their testimony (Damn straight, those old fuddy duddies, if they were counseled then they wouldn't have agreed to show up in the first place! They had no idea what they were getting themselves into!)

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable (they keep it under lock and key, the few versions of it that they produced, that Constitution is a hard thing to get a hold of, and EVERYONE suspects that the versions we are allowed to see are different from the originals they hide from us!!!11!!) :rolleyes:

the gospels were not written by eye witnesses. they were written by devout christian followers based on what they heard about what jesus did and said. they werent even written by someone named matthew mark luke or john.

as such they are hearsay.


I take this to mean that you seriously disapprove of ghost writers assisting famous old people with publishing their biographies during their retirement years of life?

And I suppose you are downright incredulous that the younger Tolkien fellow finished and published that book his father started huh?

No one should try to prove faith. It's not possible. It's faith because you believe in something without needing proof. Don't try to prove that Jesus is God or whatever else it is you believe because you can't. Just stop trying and have faith if that's what you believe.

I take this to mean that you seriously disapprove of ghost writers assisting famous old people with publishing their biographies during their retirement years of life?

And I suppose you are downright incredulous that the younger Tolkien fellow finished and published that book his father started huh?

I have absolutly no idea under what twisted logic you may assume such a thing, especially considering Tolkien's stories are never considered evidence of ANYTHING.

This post is about one thing, that religious texts rarely, if ever, meet proper standards of evidence.

What is the lord of the rings supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

I have absolutly no idea under what twisted logic you may assume such a thing, especially considering Tolkien's stories are never considered evidence of ANYTHING.

This post is about one thing, that religious texts rarely, if ever, meet proper standards of evidence.

What is the lord of the rings supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

A civil war story, published under the name of the grandson who listened and recorded the stories of his grandfather, very well could be considered testimony of events that occurred in the civil war. Does that make their evidences undeniable? No, it does not make them unquestionable. Does it make them indubitable as evidence? No it does not, they are taken for what they are, they could be the best recorded account of those events, at least the best ones available to the court, why would they simply be dismissed? Inconclusive is not reason for disallowing evidence.

i got two of books one form one gourp and other form same other gourp.
so i read both book end to end to see what both gourp were on about
an at the end i can up its all a waste of time
why you may ask
well one gourps book says one story an the other gourps book say a hole new story to the other story.
but both sides say they book is the right translate.

so if thats the hole story how it works then it cant be evidence in cout as it be all wrong
it be the case he said she said

If you get to cite the bible as evidence in court, I get to use the Koran ,Torah or any religious text of my choice. I can see how the bible-thumpers are going to love that.

Its not about "faith".

Its never been about faith. Its all about choice.

If believing in God were all about faith, no one would be born without it.
You would never question it, because you have always believed it.

You must learn to believe in God.

Once you CHOOSE to believe in God, you can then rely upon your "faith" that God will take care of you and blah, blah...

The various books in the bible(NT) were written up to 200 years after the events they speak of.
It would be a careful guess to say this is a book based upon fourth or fifth hand information.

Hearsay x 5.

Inadmissable.

I agree with that, but who would use the Bible as testimony in court anyway?

I don't think Arthais is talking about using the Bible as testimony in court (though there are some extreme fundamentalists who would like to do that).

I think he is talking about people who claim the Bible describes actual reality. They claim that it is made up of eye witness reports, and they cite that as "proof" that it is a factual account of things that really happened. And they claim that the use of eye witness accounts as evidence in court goes to show that eye witness accounts are reliable. Ergo, everything in the Bible is a literal fact.

There are, of course, major weaknesses to this argument.

1) As Arthais points out, there is no way to examine the witnesses, so there is no way to determine whether their accounts are true or not. Thus, these "eye witness accounts" would not be admissable in a court of law. Thus, they do not rise to the level of evidence.

2) The accounts in the Bible are, in fact, hearsay because they are not actually written by the witnesses themselves. They were written by believers who came after the witnesses, sometimes centuries after. A record of an account so far removed from the source of the account is not admissable in a court of law as evidence. It's a matter of "But, my good sir, you mustn't tell us what she told you. It's not evidence."

3) Even direct eye witness accounts with the witnesses themselves appearing in court to be questioned seldom stand up under scrutiny by themselves. Unless they are backed up by physical evidence, they can easily be disbelieved. Why? Because people lie. And when they don't lie, they make mistakes. Have you ever seen the movie "Roshomon"? Everyone who wants to debate about eye witness accounts should see it.

A civil war story, published under the name of the grandson who listened and recorded the stories of his grandfather, very well could be considered testimony of events that occurred in the civil war. Does that make their evidences undeniable? No, it does not make them unquestionable. Does it make them indubitable as evidence? No it does not, they are taken for what they are, they could be the best recorded account of those events, at least the best ones available to the court, why would they simply be dismissed? Inconclusive is not reason for disallowing evidence.

So on the basis of the trilogy of books alone, you would believe in the literal existence of a place called Middle Earth that was inhabited by magical beings and dragons and stuff? You would believe this without any physical evidence to back it up, such as say the magic ring itself? And you would expect others to buy into this as well?

Or are you saying that the Bible is actually fiction, just like Tolkien's books, but we should treat it as fact anyway?

Oh, and evidence which is inconclusive might be presented in court under some circumstances, but an attorney would be a damned fool to use it because nobody is going to convict on inconclusive evidence. Since it is inconclusive, it cannot be used to reach a conclusion -- i.e., it proves nothing. It is evidence of nothing.

No one should try to prove faith. It's not possible. It's faith because you believe in something without needing proof. Don't try to prove that Jesus is God or whatever else it is you believe because you can't. Just stop trying and have faith if that's what you believe.

The smartest statement on the subject so far. :)

A civil war story, published under the name of the grandson who listened and recorded the stories of his grandfather, very well could be considered testimony of events that occurred in the civil war. Does that make their evidences undeniable? No, it does not make them unquestionable. Does it make them indubitable as evidence? No it does not, they are taken for what they are, they could be the best recorded account of those events, at least the best ones available to the court, why would they simply be dismissed? Inconclusive is not reason for disallowing evidence.

So on the basis of the trilogy of books alone, you would believe in the literal existence of a place called Middle Earth that was inhabited by magical beings and dragons and stuff? You would believe this without any physical evidence to back it up, such as say the magic ring itself? And you would expect others to buy into this as well?

Or are you saying that the Bible is actually fiction, just like Tolkien's books, but we should treat it as fact anyway?

Oh, and evidence which is inconclusive might be presented in court under some circumstances, but an attorney would be a damned fool to use it because nobody is going to convict on inconclusive evidence. Since it is inconclusive, it cannot be used to reach a conclusion -- i.e., it proves nothing. It is evidence of nothing.


First off, you are the one getting your topics mixed up. I did talk about the Tolkien son printing a book his father had started, HOWEVER that wasn't in the post you quoted here...

YOU are the one that claimed to believe and worship worldly gods like trees and streams and rocks etc., why then would you be now attacking the idea's Tolkien (not I) promoted (if that's apparently how you read it)?

Interesting counter productiveness you have there.

Show me a bible entirely written on corn pone, and I'll show you a llama wearing a bunny rabbit sweater!

Now when we bring our bible to court do we also bring:

Bhagavad Gita
Bahai Texts
Buddhist Texts
Christian Fathers
Confucian Texts
Corpus Hermeticum
Dead Sea Scrolls
Divrei Torah
Enuma Elish
Ethiopian Texts
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Gnostic Texts
Hindu Texts
Islamic Texts
Jain Texts
1st and 2nd Books of Jeu
Mormon Texts
Nag Hammadi Texts
Old Testament Apocrypha
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
Pistis Sophia
New Testament Apocryphal Acts
New Testament Apocryphal Apocalypse
New Testament Apocryphal Gospels
Taoist Texts
Sepher Yetzirah
Shinto Texts
Sikh Texts
Tibetan Book of the Dead
Urantia Book
Zen Texts
Zoroastrian Texts

These all have adherant that claim that they are as much history and are as true (the word of god) as your king james bible

And the bible was used as testimony in the Scopes trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

This is why fiction, even possibly semi-historical fiction, is not used as evidence in a court of law.
:D

Though a Michael Criton novel is used as evidence in Congress. :rolleyes:

First off, you are the one getting your topics mixed up. I did talk about the Tolkien son printing a book his father had started, HOWEVER that wasn't in the post you quoted here...

YOU are the one that claimed to believe and worship worldly gods like trees and streams and rocks etc., why then would you be now attacking the idea's Tolkien (not I) promoted (if that's apparently how you read it)?

Interesting counter productiveness you have there.

First off, do not presume to characterize the content of my religion. You do not know what animist beliefs entail, and your belittling remarks exhibit nothing but your ignorance.

Second, being an animist does not make me incapable of telling fact from fiction, any more than a Christian is. I know as well as you do that there is no such thing as a Hobbit and never has been. Therefore, the mere fact that Tolkein wrote books about Hobbits cannot be cited as proof that they ever really existed. End of discussion.

You and I also both know perfectly well that you cited Tolkein's books as an example of how the existence a story in a book can be cited as proof of its own factualness. You yourself directly compared the Bible to the Ring Trilogy. Yet the Ring Trilogy makes no claim to truth. It is fiction, literature, artwork, fantasy, a work of the imagination, and that is all it was ever meant to be. Nobody has ever made a claim that it is true. So why would you use it as an example of how the Bible can be thought of as true?

The bottom line is that merely telling a story in a compelling and plausible-sounding way is not, in any way at all, proof that the said story is true.

First off, do not presume to characterize the content of my religion. You do not know what animist beliefs entail, and your belittling remarks exhibit nothing but your ignorance.

Don't you find it a little ironic that you spend so much of your time belittling my religion and yet are so easily offended about your own?

You and I also both know perfectly well that you cited Tolkein's books as an example of how the existence a story in a book can be cited as proof of its own factualness. You yourself directly compared the Bible to the Ring Trilogy. Yet the Ring Trilogy makes no claim to truth. It is fiction, literature, artwork, fantasy, a work of the imagination, and that is all it was ever meant to be. Nobody has ever made a claim that it is true. So why would you use it as an example of how the Bible can be thought of as true?

I recall off the top of my head two occasions of citing Tolkien's books. Once was about the title being changed (or not changed) if all of the books were compiled into a singular tome. The other was about the fact that Tolkien’s son is more than capable of finishing a book his father started and we can assume that the Sr. Tolkien would have approved of the product. Meaning that there was no reason to attack the Tolkien Jr., book of being an incorrect story, the SAME AS the gospels, such as Luke, were written by apprentices to the apostles, and this in itself is not a justification to claim the gospels tell the stories of the gospels incorrectly.

I do not recall writing a comparison of claiming Tolkien books were factually based on anything.

Often times in religious discussions, those who profess a faith are challenged to prove it. And often times, those of faith cite their religious texts. One example is often the gospels, which I will use here, but feel free to insert whatever religious text is appropriate.

However the comeback is often "that's not proof" or "that's not evidence" or, to be more correct "a thing can not be used to validate itself, something that claims to be true is no evidence of its truth"

However many have argued, and I have heard this argument, that the gospels are in many ways "eye witness accounts" and we allow eye witness accounts in courts of law all the time. Thus if our modern justice system allows for eye witness accounts, and considers them evidence, then surely the gospels, a form of eye witness account, is equally valid.

I feel compelled to however dismantle that claim, and here is why:

1) The gospels were originally written in a foreign language

2) The foreign language they are written in is dead

3) there are few people who can translate it, and within that group there are large inconsistancies in translation

4) the original eye witnesses are dead

5) anyone else who may corroborate what they said are dead

6) anyone who may have known the original eye witnesses are dead

7) the eye witnesses were not properly sworn in nor properly deposed

8) the giving of the eye witness testimony was not witnessed by any judge, magistrate, attorney, or any officer of the court

9) the original giving of the testimony was not recorded by any electronic media nor by any court appointed stenographer

10) the eye witnesses were not informed of their rights or given assistance of counsil in preparing their testimony

11) the original documentation of their testimony is unavailable

Under these situations, a court of law would NOT allow this testimony to be admitted as eye witness evidence. The rules of evidence would simply not permit it

I would like to point out that the New Testament was written largely in Greek, which is still spoken today by many people.

I would further point out that people generally consider the writings of Plato, Socrates, Ptolemy and many of the other Greek philosophers to be 100% valid. Yet, they are nowhere nearly as well documented, scrutinized and crosschecked as the Bible. Every part of the Bible has been crosschecked with other ancient writings of the times to insure validity. The parts that did not concur with other writings of the time were left out of the Bible compilation.

I am going to say something that may piss everyone off.

I think that the Jesus story is true.

I have my doubts as to whether or not is factual.

I will use my friend D to explain these two statements. D is a big black man who enjoys the gangster stereotype. Unfortunately, this means he acts more violent than he should. But he has a way of stopping himself from being a real asshole. He tells himself to be like Luke Skywalker, and not give in to the Dark Side.
Yes, he's a huge Star Wars fan. Now, no one would claim that the Star Wars universe is factual. D sure doesn't. But to him, it is true. It imparts information and models of behaviour to him that he can realisitically use in his daily life. To D, that is a truth he can hang his hat on.
Many good christians use the Jesus story everyday in that respect, and it works. Yes, I am redefining 'truth' to a small extent, but if we accept this definition of truth, we realise that it does not matter at all if the Jesus story is factual.

I would like to point out that the New Testament was written largely in Greek, which is still spoken today by many people.

I would further point out that people generally consider the writings of Plato, Socrates, Ptolemy and many of the other Greek philosophers to be 100% valid. Yet, they are nowhere nearly as well documented, scrutinized and crosschecked as the Bible. Every part of the Bible has been crosschecked with other ancient writings of the times to insure validity. The parts that did not concur with other writings of the time were left out of the Bible compilation.

There are no surviving writings from Socrates. All we know about him is based off writing from his contemporaries and students.

As for the bible being crosschecked and the parts that did not concur with other writings of the time being left out. I don't understand what this proves. It assumes the other writings of the time were valid and factual. The bible also includes many contradictory statements so whoever was doing the crosschecking did a poor job of it.

There are many historical societies that would fit into some of these assumptions, are you going to say they never existed?

The only historical culture that I can think of right noow that we only have alleged eyewitness accounts of without any other archeological finds would be Atlantis... you decide if that's fact or not.

There are no surviving writings from Socrates. All we know about him is based off writing from his contemporaries and students.

As for the bible being crosschecked and the parts that did not concur with other writings of the time being left out. I don't understand what this proves. It assumes the other writings of the time were valid and factual. The bible also includes many contradictory statements so whoever was doing the crosschecking did a poor job of it.

And there are serious researchers claiming that Socrates never existed but was an invention of Plato. It's a bit like the claims that Shakespeare never wrote a play but served as decoy for Francis Bacon. Not many people believe it, but some do. Neither side could really prove anything so far.

Don't you find it a little ironic that you spend so much of your time belittling my religion and yet are so easily offended about your own?
Kindly point to any post in any thread in which I belittled Christian beliefs. You can't because I don't do that and never have.

I sometimes make fun of specific posters, but only because of their immediate statements, not because of their beliefs. Never.

I also often criticize arguments that are flawed, but I do not belittle the religious beliefs of the people who make the flawed arguments.

I always challenge people who claim the right to foist their religious beliefs on me, but a refusal to conform to a religion does not amount to a belittling of that religion. Not even if you wish it did so you could get away with making such unfounded accusations against me.

The only time I have ever made a joke that in any way referenced any other person's religious beliefs is when talking about the impossibility of those beliefs ever being applied to me. Then my jokes are always about my refusal to conform and about my attitudes towards belief, not about the content of anyone else's religion.

Frankly, if you see any questioning or disagreement on matters of faith as a belittling of your religion, then you might want to consider not hanging out in debate forums where religion gets discussed.

I recall off the top of my head two occasions of citing Tolkien's books. Once was about the title being changed (or not changed) if all of the books were compiled into a singular tome. The other was about the fact that Tolkien’s son is more than capable of finishing a book his father started and we can assume that the Sr. Tolkien would have approved of the product. Meaning that there was no reason to attack the Tolkien Jr., book of being an incorrect story, the SAME AS the gospels, such as Luke, were written by apprentices to the apostles, and this in itself is not a justification to claim the gospels tell the stories of the gospels incorrectly.

I do not recall writing a comparison of claiming Tolkien books were factually based on anything.
Lucky for us it's in writing then.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11738653&postcount=24
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11738662&postcount=26
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11738684&postcount=27

To summarize the above referenced posts, you claimed that someone else writing Tolkein's books still makes them Tolkein books. This is a questionable assertion. Then Arthais challenged you as to whether you were asserting a factual basis for Tolkein's fictional stories. You answered him by describing books about civil wars being based in fact, as if implying that, yes, the books are factual.

You said all this in direct reference to the asserted factuality of the Bible. Ergo, you were using Tolkein as an example of how we should be looking at the Bible.

In addition, I would point out that, when we are discussing fact versus fiction, your use of the term "an incorrect story" is meaningless. You say there is no reason to assume that Tolkein's stories are "incorrect." How can a work of fiction be either correct or incorrect? In comparison to what source of information is it deemed correct or incorrect?

The bottomline is fiction is not fact. Even if it references factual things, it itself is not fact. Also, a ghost-written story is NOT a story written by the author whose name is on the cover. The words written by Tolkein's son were NOT written by Tolkein. And gospels written by people generations after the events were to supposed have occurred were NOT written by eyewitnesses to those events. Period.

There is nothing in the above statements that in any way suggests that the Bible is not true. All I am arguing is that you cannot use a claim of eyewitness testimony to prove the Bible is true because (A) eyewitness testimony does not automatically equal truth, and (B) the Bible is not an eyewitness account.

The Bible might as well be true, every word of it, but if you want to prove that, you're going to have to find some other evidence. Go join one of those archeological digs that are always ripping up basements in Jerusalem and find some physical evidence to back up the stories. Otherwise, simply accept that you can have faith that the Bible is true, but you cannot prov that it is.

I take this to mean that you seriously disapprove of ghost writers assisting famous old people with publishing their biographies during their retirement years of life?

And I suppose you are downright incredulous that the younger Tolkien fellow finished and published that book his father started huh?

i have no problem with the bible as written as long as its understood that no eyewitness wrote it. its is the well-after-the-fact (if there IS any fact) compilation of stories about jesus that were popular within whatever group the author of each book came from. the *words in red* are not the direct words of jesus. no one who heard him speak wrote them down.

i would never use a true autobiography nor a ghost written one as evidence in courr. its not meant to be testimony

i would also not consider anything finished by christopher tolkein to be the same as those written by his father. they arent.

I would like to point out that the New Testament was written largely in Greek, which is still spoken today by many people.

I would further point out that people generally consider the writings of Plato, Socrates, Ptolemy and many of the other Greek philosophers to be 100% valid. Yet, they are nowhere nearly as well documented, scrutinized and crosschecked as the Bible. Every part of the Bible has been crosschecked with other ancient writings of the times to insure validity. The parts that did not concur with other writings of the time were left out of the Bible compilation.

no. the bible wasnt checked to ensure validity. where did you get that idea?

most of the old testament stories are set in such ancient times that there is no way to know how historical they are. archaeology has somewhat verified some of them but even then its more of a "this could be one of the palaces of solomon" than a true proof

as to the new testament, many of the facts of the life of jesus are completely made up. there was no census, there was no star, there were no maji, there was no slaughter of the innocents.

the holy land WAS controlled by rome and there was a pontius pilate but thats about as true as it gets.

no. the bible wasnt checked to ensure validity. where did you get that idea?

most of the old testament stories are set in such ancient times that there is no way to know how historical they are. archaeology has somewhat verified some of them but even then its more of a "this could be one of the palaces of solomon" than a true proof

as to the new testament, many of the facts of the life of jesus are completely made up. there was no census, there was no star, there were no maji, there was no slaughter of the innocents.

the holy land WAS controlled by rome and there was a pontius pilate but thats about as true as it gets.

Well, Herod is accounted for as well. But that's pretty much where it ends, you're right.

And there are serious researchers claiming that Socrates never existed but was an invention of Plato. It's a bit like the claims that Shakespeare never wrote a play but served as decoy for Francis Bacon. Not many people believe it, but some do. Neither side could really prove anything so far.

if it turned out that socrates never existed, what difference would it make? some scholar somewhere would write up a paper, maybe he would get an award for it, it would be in the newspaper and nothng about our lives would change

if it turns out that alexander the great was the son of phillip of macedonia rather than the son of some greek god, what difference would that make? none.

if it turns out that jesus christ never existed and that everything about him was made up....... it would make a huge difference to alot of people. THATS why the truth of the bible is important and the truth about socrates isnt.

if it turned out that socrates never existed, what difference would it make? some scholar somewhere would write up a paper, maybe he would get an award for it, it would be in the newspaper and nothng about our lives would change

if it turns out that alexander the great was the son of phillip of macedonia rather than the son of some greek god, what difference would that make? none.

if it turns out that jesus christ never existed and that everything about him was made up....... it would make a huge difference to alot of people. THATS why the truth of the bible is important and the truth about socrates isnt.

You're right, but this is the part of the whole debate I can't wrap my brain around. Why should it make a difference whether there really was a Jesus or not? Why should it make a difference if there was a Jesus but he was just a spiritual teacher who gathered a following and then was killed, with nothing supernatural about him? Wouldn't the spiritual teachings of the religion still have meaning, regardless of who first said them? This is what Thomas Jefferson was getting at when he edited the Bible to remove all references to supernatural events or miracles and, rather presumptuously perhaps, declared it a much better book.