That was as confused a piece of writing as I have encountered short of Robert Byers.
1 Like
``Letâs try to back up with a definition.
Summary
*https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0hb7e2JroAhXOs54KHe1QDp4QFjABegQICxAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.simplypsychology.org%2Feyewitness-testimony.html&usg=AOvVaw2rFI5bH3edWoY9zpDTtEIa*
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term. It refers to an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. For example they may be required to give a description at a trial of a robbery or a road accident someone has seen. This includes identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
The real issue at hand is if we are hearing directly from the eye witness or not. My argument is that in both cases the information is coming indirectly from the eye witness
Your argument is wrong. Plinyâs letter, even a copy of a copy of it, fits the legal definition you quoted. What you have are Paulâs assertions that eyewitnesses existed, not even indirect (whatever you think you mean by that) information coming from the supposed witnesses, and the gospels, which donât even assert authorship or cite sources.
3 Likes
The only difference here is that Paul recorded verbal testimony of the Apostles. Paul was also a direct witness of Christ on his travels to Damascus were he was going to persecute Christians instead based on the encounter with Christ he joined them.
Who do you think wrote the Gospel attributed to Mathew? Who do you thing wrote the Gospel attributed to John?
Bless your heart, no, he didnât.
No, he had a vision.
The experts are generally agreed that we donât know, but it wasnât Matthew and it wasnât John. Who do you think? Of course you will just believe whatever fits your need.
From where do you think he learned about the life and teachings of Christ?
From Christians? Possibly from one of the gospels? How is that relevant? When a normal person says ârecorded verbal testimonyâ, it means the actual words said by a person. Thereâs none of that in what youâre calling ârecordedâ. You are very bad at communicating actual meaning. Sometimes that has the appearance of sophistry, but I think with you itâs accidental.
Its relevant because the information about Jesus life and works was given to him very soon after Christs crucification. If he got it from the earliest Gospel then that Gospel was written merely a few years after the crucifixion.
We know Paul spent 15 days with Peter and James in Jerusalem.
What, if anything, is your point? If you prefer legalisms, itâs all hearsay.
My point is there is no reason to discount Pauls writings. He was a biblical scholar so he understood the Messianic prophecies, and he had direct communication with Peter and James (eye witnesses) very soon after the Crucification.
Hearsay. Pliny, on the other hand, is eyewitness testimony. There you have it.
I agree you have established this claim.
The next step is to establish that Pliny is more reliable then Pauls writings given Pauls letters contain information exempt from the hearsay ruleâŚ
If you want to just take the first victory on differentiating Pauls letters and Pliny I will grant it to you and we can conclude here.
Wrong. There is not so much as a single word from a first hand witness.
This is a basic thing that is often misunderstood by Christians.
1 Like
Maybe the existence of an actual big fucking volcano, and the ruins of an actual city, including the bodies of actual victims, covered in actual volcanic ash at the actual location and from the actual time described by Pliny? Would that help? I wonder if such a thing existsâŚ
4 Likes
It is interesting how Atheists claim authority over Christians on Christian history. I wonder if @swamidass, @AllenWitmerMiller, @dga471, @gbrooks9 @RonSewell, @Eddie, @Chris_Falter or @cwhenderson would care to comment.
Are there 2 billion followers of this historic event who celebrate it at least twice a year?
No.
So I guess youâre saying the eruption of Vesuvius never happened, because 2 billion people donât celebrate it twice a year.
Youâve outdone yourself this time.
1 Like
Consider how long it took you to accept one simple fact. Consider that this is evidence of the strength of your cognitive bias against things you donât want to believe and in favor of things you do want to believe. Consider trying to modify your behavior in the future.
?
1 Like
If any of those folks believe there is a single example of an eyewitness of account of a single moment of Jesusâs life that is accepted as such by consensus of historians, they are mistaken. But I donât want to presume that any of the would claim it.
You, OTOH, are very welcome to provide what you believe to be examples.
1 Like