Eye-witnesses? What "eye-witnesses"?

This question after I read in another thread a claim that there were many "eye-witnesses" to the supposed jesus' miracles.
Who were these many "eye-witnesses"?
Where is their testimony?
Why is such "testimony" unheard of and unknown?

The same poster also claims the existence of a perfect "original bible" from which all the now famous mis-translations appear.
Where is this "original bible"?
Where is it refered to by theology?
Where was it circulated and when?

You'd think that something peculiarly strange was going on, wouldn't you? You might even say that it stinks. Like a fish.

 

John
Matthew
Mark
( I said Timothy earlier, meant to say Mark)
Those are just three.
Eyewitnesses.
Then they recorded details.
Copies of which are available at your local library or possibly bookstore.

Next question?

 

"The same poster also claims the existence of a perfect "original bible" from which all the now famous mis-translations appear.
Where is this "original bible"?
Where is it refered to by theology?
Where was it circulated and when?"

 

Even theologists acknowledge that the books of the NT are not eye-witness accounts.
The questions stand unanswered.

 

Note: Theologians believe they are eye-witness testimonies.
You might have noticed something called Christians who believe these are first hand accounts.

The question remains answered.

Did you want more or what?

 

As usual your "answer" is vacuous. Belief does not require any facts as you so well and often demonstrate.
The "theological belief" you referr to is based upon which "facts" as outlined in the NT?
NT references in support of such "belief" are, as usual, noticeably absent. As is now tediously usual.

 

The reason I can never take you seriously Mrree is because of stupid jacked-up beliefs you believe in.

This is another example and its so bloody obvious that I marvel how you cant see the error of YOUR own ways.
Especially considering you spend most of your time 'projecting' it onto others.

Look, There is a historical document called The Book of John.
This guy John has written an eye-witness account of the life of Jesus.
Ok.
Now, surprise, surprise, a lot of people read the account and take it for what it is.
Thats entirely logical.

YOU are the one who says "I do not take this account for what it claims to be!"
Ok.
However, it has never crossed your mind that YOU need to find just as much explanation for you faith than anyone else does.

At least I can say I take John for nothing more or less than what it claims to be.
No, it does not mean I 'can prove' anything but at least I have some reason to be doing this.
Here is the claim, its written well, it has a logical sequence, it squares with other accounts, the place names, dates and references are correct that I can tell.

Where exactly is your evidence or 'reason to believe' that its a forgery and/or mistake?
So far, nowhere.
Just YOU, in your own imagination 'saying its so'.

Has it EVER crossed your mind that maybe YOU have an equal obligation to prove out YOUR belief system.
No.

Thats why I cant take you seriously - its never once even crossed your mind that you are as accountable for what 'is not' than someone claiming 'what is'.

Without a doubt, everything i just pointed out has gone 300 miles over your head and the very best you can respond with is another
'here-is-what-a-smart-sounding-rebuttal-should-look-like' response.

 

Where is the original bible?

 

stupid jacked-up beliefs you believe in
~ Attempted deflection from issue at hand ~ the issue being christian belief in the absence of empirical evidence.
~ Unsubstantiated assumption that you know my beliefs.
~ Self-righteous judgemental condemnation in the absence of any substantiation.
you cant see the error of YOUR own ways
~ Attempted deflection from issue at hand ~ the issue being christian belief in the absence of empirical evidence.
~ Unsubstantiated assumption that you know more about me than I do myself.
~ Self-righteous judgemental condemnation in the absence of the ability to intelligently argue.
Especially considering you spend most of your time 'projecting' it onto others
~ You see in other's only what exists in yourself.
Look, There is a historical document called The Book of John
~ "Historical document"? Name the date of writing and name the author.
Where exactly is your evidence or 'reason to believe' that its a forgery and/or mistake?
~ e.g. John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries in the bible!
~ One of a litany of innaccuracies - Wow! How convincing! e.g. Of all the 66 texts in the Bible, there doesn't exist one single handwritten original. We don't even have the first copies of the originals, we just have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. The writers in Antiquity also had somewhat looser standards for accuracy when writing down or copying texts
This guy John has written an eye-witness account of the life of Jesus
~ Name the date of writing and the author as attested in John's gospel.
~ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920:

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.








​

Now, surprise, surprise, a lot of people read the account and take it for what it is. Thats entirely logical


~ Belief in the absence of evidence is not "logical". Except to the likes of yourself, it seems. No surprise.
At least I can say I take John for nothing more or less than what it claims to be
Here is the claim, its written well, it has a logical sequence, it squares with other accounts, the place names, dates and references are correct that I can tell.
~ At least I can say I use rationale over indoctrination.
~ "Logical sequence" has nothing to do with authenticity.
~ "Written well"? In an era when 99% or more of the population were totally illiterate - that doesn't ring alarm bells??????
~ "Squares with other accounts" - because all other references were outlawed!
~ "Dates"? What "dates"? Nominate the historcally acknowledged "dates" that substantiate John or the NT.
No, it does not mean I 'can prove' anything
~ Is this the first truth you've ever told?
but at least I have some reason to be doing this.
~ And by inference no-one else does?
Just YOU, in your own imagination 'saying its so'.
~ Most certainly quite the reverse, as evidenced above.
YOU are the one who says "I do not take this account for what it claims to be!"
~ The point being..... ?
However, it has never crossed your mind that YOU need to find just as much explanation for you faith than anyone else does.
~ By what measure do you presume to guage and apply your ideations into my life? THAT, my boy, is projection! Just add it to your "delusions of grandeur" and "manipulator" diagnosis.
Has it EVER crossed your mind that maybe YOU have an equal obligation to prove out YOUR belief system.
~ Gee, I wonder why I initiate and discuss issues in these forums?
~ As above, projection of your outstanding fault onto me (and probably a manipulative deflection) to cover your inability to provide any substantiation at all, and your total reliance upon an adopted nefarious belief system.
Thats why I cant take you seriously
~ Your escape clause. Because I reveal everything you deem "evidence" as the deceitful manipulation it truly is, there is no contest. And you know it because you can lie yourself into a corner, but you can't lie your way out. So you need to hide from the truth.
its never once even crossed your mind that you are as accountable for what 'is not' than someone claiming 'what is'.
Without a doubt, everything i just pointed out has gone 300 miles over your head
~ Once again you deem to know what does or does not, cross my mind! Refer "delusion."
~ The obvious quite clearly is much much further than a mere 300 miles above your head!
and the very best you can respond with is another
'here-is-what-a-smart-sounding-rebuttal-should-look-like' response
~ Deflective projectional Escape clause #2. Of course you know outcomes well in advance with your exceptional delusional skills. And of course any ridiculing of your vacuous unsubstantiated arguments could never come from an intelligent person, could it now? And of course only you could deem what "is" and what "isn't" ~ that's true of all delusions.
Now run along and play

 

Do you understand and realise what is meant by:
Arguing for the sake of Arguing?

This is why you dont get a lot of interest.
You rarely discuss the actual issue at hand but respond to everything with a 'characterisation' of the argument.
Constantly trying to 'establish position' or assert the others position from an argumentative standpoint.

Do you understand what Im trying to say?
No.

I will try and get back later and address the ACTUAL points at hand and then once again you can 'describe what kind of argument' you think it being used.

In the mean time try and think through what Im telling you.

(I can hear it now... "Logical Fallacy, Deflection.. blah blha.. this is how a killer deconstruction looks like Im refuting something.. blha .. interjecting assertions..")

Yeepers!

 

Yet again you're projecting.
If your "argument" (which so far has been your projective personal attacks on me) had any substance to it, it could not be "dissembled." But your non-existant "argument" has so many manipulations in it that it can neither be accepted nor taken as any form of serious attempt at answer. You are rightly indignant at being exposed yet again. But you insist on making a mockery of yourself as identified above.

 

Hi again, Mrree.
It seems the best way to ram this through you thick skull would be hold up a mirror for you.
Watch as I go about doing a Mrree on your own post:

Dismissed:
-Attempted deflection - the issue raised being your belief in an errant Gospel.

-Incorrect assessment and false asssertion.
I have substantial reason to know some of your beliefs are stupid and jacked up.
Not All.

Inproper use of the term 'self-righteous' as well as 'Argumentum ad Ignoratiam as well as the logical fallacy of arguing Ad Hominem

You are arguing 'Ad Nauseum' which is fallacious.
Simply, repeatedly reiterating your demand the issue be changed does not logicaly mean it should

Non-sequitor.
Knowing you have fallacious reasoning or have missed a logical inference does not 'therefore' imply or insinuate that I claim to know 'more about you then you do about yourself.

-Non Sequitor Logical fallacy in which you mistakenly infer that a disagreeable judgement on my part would infer I attribute self-righteousness.
-Argumenium Ad Nauseum: Repeating an assertion makes it 'true'.
-Presumption that you are able to understand what an intelligent argument is.

So this confirms you are projecting?
- Appeal to Pop Psychology. Argument from Ridicule.
Circular Reasoning.
Ad Hominen.

Logical Fallacy. Begging the Incorrect Question.
Falsely infers that the Authors full name or a specific date has any bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, a historical document.

-Logically Unwarranted Assertion.
-False Appeal to Popularity, False Appeal to Authority.

Among textual critics, this passage is designated Pericope De Adultera and refers to the woman caught in the act of adultery. The passage has long been questioned as genuine and is omitted in a great number of manuscripts. It is, of course, removed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as well as L, N, T, W, X, Y D, Q, Y, 053, and 0141 among the uncial manuscripts. It is also missing from several of the minuscules manuscripts; 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, and 2193.

However, the passage is in numerous uncials, including Codex D (Bazae Cantabrigiensis), G, H, K, M, U, and G. Among the minuscule/cursive manuscripts it is in 28, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, and 2174. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries, as well as in the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate by Jerome.

Further, the passage is cited by a number of Church Fathers. Among them are Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (fourth century), Ambrose (fourth century), and is in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are the largest liturgical Collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD. Saint Augustine (430 AD) makes an astounding statement concerning the authenticity of this passage. After citing the forgiving phrase from Christ, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," Augustine writes:

-Copies of the orginal are historical documents.
-Contrived assertion that ancient scribes had 'looser standards for accuracy' and something you made up as you wrote it.
- Ancient Hebrew Scribes and later on, Christian Scribes notorious for intense accuracy, noted by historians finding entire handwritten pages discarded for having just one single typo.

Logical Fallacy. Begging the Incorrect Question.
Falsely infers that the Authors full name or a specific date has any bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, a historical document.

[Is this getting on your nerves yet MRee?]

There are so many logical problem and fallacious arguements on so many levels its hard to know where to start.
-Argument ad logicam supposing that if some make an incorrect supposition that the conclusion must be incorrect as well.
-Arguing 'Hasty Generalisation'
-Arguing from Ignorance.

[Getting annoyed yet?]

-Mistakenly refering to your position: 'Belief it is errant, despite substantial evidence to any rewriter, forgerer, shitty copiest.
-The book itself is evidence and taking it for what it claims to be is not illogical in itself.
This does not in any way preclude further investigation of its accuracy, truthfulness, reliability.

- Incorrect characterisation of your system of belief.

Yet, you would cite illogical sequence as evidence of inauthenticity.
You did this moments ago with the Periscopa Adultera.

-Totally Illogical and an fallacious appeal to history, authorty, popularity and appeal to incredulity.
- Innacurate representation of this Era in Jewish history.
- Fabricated statistic made up as you were writing this.

-Failure to substantiate this claim.
- Arguing from Ignorance
- Does not follow that if other references were outlawed 'therefore' permitted references are invalid.

No later than 150 AD.
P52, Earliest fragment of John:

No.

-Begging an a question which does not logically follow.

A Missing sequence in some earlier documents and a scrolling list of fallacious arguments none of which give you evidence beyond some supposition and leaps of blind faith.

- You should base that on evidence and not base it on 'Plurium interrogationum' or arguments from ignorance.

-Logical Problem assumes that if you have failed to find an explanation for your faith in an errant Gospel that 'therefore' I must be grand or have (or could) manipulate your inability to defend your position.
- Begging the wrong question.
- Incorrect use of the term 'Projection'.

- You agree you are equally obligated to prove out your belief system but you dont even share it.
So, I would like an answer to the question you asked yourself too.

- Inconsequential Comparison. Should I have an inability to substantiate my belief in John as an accurate and trustworthy account and/or project this onto you - this does not in any way lessen your obligation to substantiate your claims that John is an errant account.

-Appeal to emotion
-Assertion
-Assertion
-Assertion

-Inappropriate interpretation of Idiomatic Speech.
-Deeming to know what goes on in my mind.

-Use of the word 'Mere'
- Argument from Ridicule.
- Supposition
- Assertion

[Fuckers.. doesnt this annoy the shit out of you?]

- Escape Clause #3: Obscure Incurvation of Psychological Terminology

-Illogical supposition of the manner in which outcomes are predicted.

-Fallacious Begging of a Question.
-Assertion
-Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

- Begging the wrong question
- Assertion based on presumption
- Arguing from blah fuckety blah blah balh...

Wow!
Did you like getting a taste of your own medicine yet?
Do you see how fucking useless that is?

What did anyone learn by spending the whole reply 'characterising' each and every statement in terms and fallacy?

How fucking annoyed did you get as it took up all your time just to read through a 'Posturing' and 'Characterisations' when really the only important information could have been posted in a few sentences.

Fucking annoying.

See, you think Im critisising you MrRee for the sake of doing so but in fact Im trying to help you get your shit together so that maybe you get more replies and maybe.. just maybe you actually contribute or spark some meaningfull discussions.

You need to know its really obvious you are spending more and more time and effort constructing replies which are clearly contrived to contain all the 'trappings' of something you would see in an effective rebuttal.
Ad Hominen deflections disguised as (bogus) psychology.
Use of colourful or what are probably Thesaurus-aided words.
Often applying debate terminology even when it does not fit but sounds 'as if' you have refuted a premise.
Even more annoying is the 'referening' of thing like ISBN codes... LOL.. seriously just stop that!

So, maybe you can try spending less time researching ways to make 'arguments about the arguments'
and spend more time just laying out what you think is happening and why.

Just say: "I realise that the Gospel of John claims to be an account but I notice later copies include a passage that earlier ones do not"
or
"I believe the Gospel of Thomas is a trustworthy document and heres why.."

I think if you can spend more time doing that than trying to think of ways to make one of those 'killer deconstruction' replies you saw once on another website forum - you might just get somewhere.

 

First, if one is trying to test the credibility and validity of the bible, it is necessary to provide a non-biblic source. You can't quote the bible to prove the bible's validity. Well, you can, but MrRee, myself, and many others will not accept that as supporting evidence.
I used to think Flavius Josephus was the sole contemporary of Jesus to mention him. That, if it were true, is worth consideration. But since Josephus was born in 37AD, it is not. So, as far as I know, we have nothing. Not only do we have no non-biblical contemporary mention of Jesus, but I have yet to see any eye-witness accounts which corroborate the existence of any of his disciples, family, friends, or followers.
The fact that the Jews can find no evidence, and they were the ones who were there, is worth noting.

 

Please explain why not?

 

Monkey see monkey do. But that's all you're capable of and truly representative of action being truth. And no, it doesn't annoy the shit out of me at all. Being exposed for what you truly are annoys the shit out of you! Was that gaskets blowing that I heard all night?LOL.
Mimickery stands in the absence of substance or credibility, and simply reveals the absences in your argument or intellect. Each of your 'responses' to my post are childish retributional confabulations in the absence of any truth. All you have is personal attack and vitriol ~ Ad Hominen, and this acusation reveals your only forte ~ deceitful manipulation ~ you accuse me of doing what you are guilty of in the first instance. Feeble diversion typical of manipulators.
Manipulative deceit is your one and only method as has been repeatedly exposed by myself and several others independently. If you did something other than contort, twist, & manipulate, you might be taken seriously.
But that's the reason for your manipulation, isn't it? ~ to have a ready made escape by pointing blame away from yourself ~ the deceitful manipulative culprit. Anyone else but you is to blame when your idiocy is revealed through your own rantings but the author ~yourself. Cute but stupid.
In finishing I must thank you for following on and revealing the many inaccuracies, insertions, omissions, and overall confusion of the texts in question. You did a good job in my support. Have a cookie.

 

As you will witness and attest via the posts of erasmus70, BG13, not everyone is concerned with credibility, validity, truth, or substance. Using the bible to authenticate the bible is nonsense. Using that distorted logic, neo-nazi books prove the holocaust never happened ~ the neo-nazi books say so.
The eye-witness claims are lies, and only liars defend lies.

 

Quote:
First, if one is trying to test the credibility and validity of the bible, it is necessary to provide a non-biblic source. You can't quote the bible to prove the bible's validity.

As MrRee said, then neo nazi drivel proves there was no holocaust. If one is going to use the material in question as the evidence of its authenticity, then every single theory, no matter how bizarre or insubstantial would be proved true by its mere existence. Bible means book, and that particular book is held in a very rarified position by a great many people. This does not mean that it can then be used to validate itself. I speak the truth, and if you doubt what I say, I can prove its true. Just ask for proof, and I will offer my word as proof of my honesty.

 

I think its hilarious when people are missing something (see: previous two) but then proceed to speak with authority and 'explanation'.

But.. I gotta get some shuteye, so maybe think about what you are running with for a while.
Sure that works eh?

Will try and post tomorrow if poss.
Good luck!

 

Im not?
What an odd statement.

Errr.. No.
That doesnt work at all.
But you are accidently half-right about something here - that IS distorted logic you used as an example.

In this case you are arguing: If one eyewitness account was false once.. then no eyewitness account can be trusted.
Or
If a Nazi wrote a false account once then probably all accounts are false.

Now suppose you explain how you would know your Nazi Accounts were false anyways?
You would say that we know they are false because we have eyewitness accounts from Jews and Allies.
So those are discounted too.. after all the Nazi account (in your example) was falsified so therefore the Jewish accounts should not be taken as evidence as they are 'biased'.

Of course that is nonsense from you and BBBlake, shame on you for falling for that just because you saw something you think 'hurts Christianity' so you grabbed onto it.

Anyways, you not even doing good with finding a 'bad example' with which to wrong cancel out all similar examples.
One of the reasons we DO know what Nazis were doing is because of the very detailed and efficient reports they wrote themselves.
This is why they were entered into evidence.
By their own accounts they put themselves at the scenes of the crimes.
Some accounts were not recorded.
Again, thats not the same as 'false' reporting.

Anyways, just like the War Trials - you most definately take the firsthand, eyewitness claims of BOTH the Nazis AND the Jews into consideration.
It does not stop there.
You then start to compare them against each other, with external evidence and invite the 'second hand accounts' as well (actually very important).

But yeah, you really really fucked that one up badly.
Want to try again with some logical reasons why you dont accept the Gospels as evidence?

{btw: Here again, I saw the same strange fight from you. Whatever you are doing - you simply say the other is doing it.
If I said "You just forgot your homework" you would retort "YOU forgot YOUR homework".
Now as an adult you cant mature past this thinking and hope using more careful sentence structure and invoking more multisyllabic words, you can make it work.
No.}

This gets back to my original question/comments:
I can defiantely understand how someone can say (honestly) that they dont know if Anne Franks eyewitness account was true or not true or a bit of both.
Fair enough to start with that position.
However,
When you propose something else has happened then you have as much to explain that as those who accept the story as true.

You know these are lies how?
Do you have a reason to believe someone was lying?
What is the motive?
When did they have their opportunity?
Do you have any external evidence there were 'Liars' (meaning who or where are these people who lie?)

To my knowledge, you have insisted that you 'know something' about 'some people' and what they 'did' but you wont tell us?
Should I just take you word for it?
Is it because Davinci Code seemed 'so real' while you were reading and imagining it as a true story?

Yes, I should start providing evidence for why I believe John is writing what he believes are real things, real events, real places
But
You have the same burden for your story you believe in.
(we still dont even know what story it is??)

 

The Bible offers fulfilled prophecies as proof, and these prophecies are obvious. The Jews returning to Israel in the latter years, the Jews retaking south Israel first, Jerusalem second, their land surrounded by enemies. The fate of Jerusalem becoming the focus of world attention. All of this and more was predicted, and is offered as proof of God's existance and His ability to know the future before it happens.
Back in the 1600's and 1800's Christian men spoke with confidence that the Jews would return to their land just before Christ would return. They could speak this way because they knew the Bible was true. Yet the Bible tells us that in the last days men would not endure sound doctrine, based on the way people reject the prophecies of the Bible, I can only say the Scriptures were right again. The fact is, most people donot care if the Bible is true or not. Most love their life the way it is, and they are not seekers of God or the truth. Most people are born to go to Hell. That is the choice they are making. The Bible tells us, they will profess to be wise, but they have become fools. Jesus tells us, "how shall they neglect so great a salvation." And the Bible states that they will be saying, ''where is the promise of Christ coming, for since are fathers passed away all things remain the same.'' Christ tells us, His return will be just like Noahs flood. Everyone was eating and drinking, not concerned about the things of God. The flood came and took them all away, so shall it be at the coming of Christ. This is what Jesus has told us. Christ has stated, that most of this world is headed for Hell, and when you see how people react to Christ sacrifice on the cross, you know He was speaking the truth. Jesus Christ has said, if you are ashamed of me before men, I will be ashamed of you before My Father. There's not much more to be said. People who harden their hearts before God, and reject His words of truth, are the living damned, and now are just waiting before the Gates of Hell. And I can't even imagine the shock they will experience, when they first realize that Hell, this place of horror, is both eternal and real. And the sorrow that will over come them when they realize that they talked their way out of heaven. Thinking they were wise, they have become fools.