3 ms·

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone i

by nocman 12y ago

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

doublextremevil 12y ago
Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."
- apta 12y ago
  FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.
  - doublextremevil 12y ago
    Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit. 0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...
    - apta 12y ago
      Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The article references incidents like murder convictions, where it can be easy to mistake one person for another, because they both happen to be of the same race for instance. In this case; however, we're talking events like person X gave a speech and said Y. This is much more likely to have been heard by many people, so the likelihood of it have happened in the way it was relayed is much higher.
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        >Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The Torah claims a million witnesses for the revelation at Sinai. I don't see anyone rushing off to become Jewish. It occurs to me that "number of purported eye-witnesses" may not be a good evidentiary standard.
        apta 12y ago
        You are absolutely correct, it is not just about quantity, but the quality of the witnesses as well. How trustworthy are they? How good is their memory? Do they have any biases? Etc.
apta 12y ago
Genuinely curious, how do you put so much acceptance into the Bible, when all four books (John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark) have anonymous authors?
- baddox 12y ago
  Why does the anonymity of the authors matter?
  - functional_test 12y ago
    Anonymous sources of information are generally recognized as less credible (for example, they have less reason to be truthful since they have no credibility on the line). Of course, the larger problem isn't the anonymity of the authors. It's why the bible should be accepted over any other text. Perhaps it should, but that would have to be argued separately.

by nocman 12y ago

doublextremevil 12y ago

Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."

apta 12y ago
FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.
- doublextremevil 12y ago
  Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit. 0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...
  - apta 12y ago
    Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The article references incidents like murder convictions, where it can be easy to mistake one person for another, because they both happen to be of the same race for instance. In this case; however, we're talking events like person X gave a speech and said Y. This is much more likely to have been heard by many people, so the likelihood of it have happened in the way it was relayed is much higher.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >Sure, but when investigating events of a certain magnitude, you would more likely have a bigger group of individuals who have witnessed said event. The Torah claims a million witnesses for the revelation at Sinai. I don't see anyone rushing off to become Jewish. It occurs to me that "number of purported eye-witnesses" may not be a good evidentiary standard.
      - apta 12y ago
        You are absolutely correct, it is not just about quantity, but the quality of the witnesses as well. How trustworthy are they? How good is their memory? Do they have any biases? Etc.

apta 12y ago

Genuinely curious, how do you put so much acceptance into the Bible, when all four books (John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark) have anonymous authors?

baddox 12y ago
Why does the anonymity of the authors matter?
- functional_test 12y ago
  Anonymous sources of information are generally recognized as less credible (for example, they have less reason to be truthful since they have no credibility on the line). Of course, the larger problem isn't the anonymity of the authors. It's why the bible should be accepted over any other text. Perhaps it should, but that would have to be argued separately.