tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8612979049628901645..comments2024-03-18T11:13:57.904-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: The Historical Validity of the Gospels Grounding in Historical/Critical Methods, part 1Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51665622473730035732010-12-01T13:17:39.605-08:002010-12-01T13:17:39.605-08:00you are through I enjoy your posts. ordinarily I w...you are through I enjoy your posts. ordinarily I wouldn't mind them being so long but I just can't get everything I answer posted. I always lose some becuase it wont take it and I have to cut it up then wind up losing stuff at the bottom.<br /><br />Smith is not analogous to Christianity in general. It's very bad to get in the habit of arguing by analogy.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39259239062884855562010-12-01T09:55:39.550-08:002010-12-01T09:55:39.550-08:00Meta: "Brap why do you have to write so much?...Meta: "Brap why do you have to write so much?"<br /><br />For starters, I try to answer every question asked of me in discussions like this. I know people get frustrated when their questions are never answered, which usually leads to a communication breakdown. Then I have a tendency to also explain why I disagree with statements used to present the case for the opposing viewpoint, and, yeah, it does get lengthy at times.<br /><br />Rather then reply point by point to your most recent responses, I will just answer one of your questions:<br /><br />Meta: "why is Joseph Smith your standard? were you a Mormon?"<br /><br />No, I never was a Mormon, and I didn't know anything about the history of the Mormon church until two or three years ago. The reason I like to bring up Joseph Smith occasionally is that although there are significant differences between Protestantism and Mormonism, Mormonism serves as an excellent example of how an influential person or persons can fabricate stories about the divine, get people to believe it to the point where they are willing to sacrifice and even die for it, and start a movement that remains a major worldwide religion to this day.<br /><br />The holes in Mormonism are huge and easily refuted, yet Mormons are blinded by their faith and refuse to come to the logical conclusions about it. I recently came to the realization that becoming an apostate from any religion might be very similar to, or perhaps worse than, losing your closest family member. An apostate stands to lose not only his most important relationship, but also his way of life, even family and friends. I can only assume it's natural to fight such a loss with all of one's being, much like the fear of falling is hard to suppress.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60483913257976548142010-12-01T06:37:23.352-08:002010-12-01T06:37:23.352-08:00Brap why do you have to write so much? I can't...Brap why do you have to write so much? I can't get thing to post long long long deals. I lost a huge amount of this I don't want to back and back track it. I lost a lot of the stuff because it just wont post it when it's so long. even chopping it down it still just wont post certain things.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-87197988879255367772010-12-01T06:35:38.970-08:002010-12-01T06:35:38.970-08:00Meta: "why? If eye witness testimony is so we...Meta: "why? If eye witness testimony is so weak why do you need to get rid of the 500?"<br /><br /> Because people give eyewitness testimony more weight when it is corroborated. I'm suggesting it wasn't corroborated by a crowd of 500, so I have no need to claim a group hallucination occurred.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>gain saying the evidence. Paul is he source of it. Or the Pauline circle. Paul is known to have had early inside info--as his saying source. He's a good strong tie to the early chruch. he's validation for the Gospels.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Meta: "Ultimately you must be the witness. Your own existential encounter with the Divine is the only one that will convince you so you must be the witness. free your own inner witness by being open to the reality."<br /><br /> I'm open to any reality outside my mind that doesn't need my mind in order to exist. I'm not aware of any evidence of God's existence, nor any rationally warranted reason to believe in God's existence, outside the human mind.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>do you want to be? You should be. you are not listening very intently becuase I'm put down some pretty impressive stuff.<br /><br />if we were arguing about something you don't have a stack in not buying I bet I would convince you.</b><br /><br /><br />I would also suspect that physical evidence gathered at a crime scene sometimes supports and sometimes contradicts eyewitness testimony.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>the physical evidence here as I just pointed out, supports it.</b><br /><br /><br /> Brap (previously): "Regarding the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, I believe that to be just a fabricated element of the resurrection story, much like the other people who were resurrected in Matthew 27."<br />\<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Of cousre, if you didn't you have a great big hunk of cognitive dissonance to deal with. Since we know where they came from it becomes very possible they did exist. I don't see how they could have gotten the movement going without them.<br /><br />major non Christian scholars have been convenience by that.</b><br /><br /> Meta: "why? If eye witness testimony is so weak why do you need to get rid of the 500?"<br /><br /> Because people give eyewitness testimony more weight when it is corroborated. I'm suggesting it wasn't corroborated by a crowd of 500, so I have no need to claim a group hallucination occurred.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>gain saying the evidence. Paul is he source of it. Or the Pauline circle. Paul is known to have had early inside info--as his saying source. He's a good strong tie to the early chruch. he's validation for the Gospels.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Meta: "Ultimately you must be the witness. Your own existential encounter with the Divine is the only one that will convince you so you must be the witness. free your own inner witness by being open to the reality."<br /><br /> I'm open to any reality outside my mind that doesn't need my mind in order to exist. I'm not aware of any evidence of God's existence, nor any rationally warranted reason to believe in God's existence, outside the human mind.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>do you want to be? You should be. you are not listening very intently becuase I'm put down some pretty impressive stuff.<br /><br />if we were arguing about something you don't have a stack in not buying I bet I would convince you.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71609888412266497592010-12-01T06:34:38.931-08:002010-12-01T06:34:38.931-08:00"it's a basic part of our natural epistem..."it's a basic part of our natural epistemic instincts, and it's the backbone of the legal system. what you are confusing is that eye witnesses differ becuase human perceptions are subjective and differ, with the idea that it's somehow not worth using. That doesn't make it not worth anything. If so why do they still use it in courts?"<br /><br /> When that's all you have, then that's all you have. It is unfortunate that many innocent people have been sent to death row based solely on eyewitness testimony that was later proven false based on things like DNA evidence. <br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>bzzzZZZZZzzz! argument from analogy = fallacy. </b><br /><br /><br />I suspect eyewitness testimony is relied upon less when there is good video evidence of an incident.<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Naturally. where's your video evidence of Jesus not raising form the dead?<br /><br />Can't you see that trying to indict 500 eye witnesses on the basis of s standard arguments about the unreliable nature of eye witnesses is just second rate schlock? It's way beneath you. That is not a basis for doubting the res.<br /><br />If if the point was to PROVE it happened I drag in the empty tomb and the guards. That's not really the issue for me when people talk about "validation."<br /><br />But speaking of that there's more than just "people saw it" there's the concrete fact of the tomb. They take people to it they could point to it. There's the concrete fact of the guards. they knew they were there. they saw them. they new they were put there. There's probably a lot of talk because they were bribed to keep quite they probably couldn't.<br /><br />how else cold they have gotten the movement started? why didn't the get the body and show it them and say "there he is he's still dead?" Why didn't they go to a tomb, any tomb and say "it's still sealed."<br /><br />the people knew where the tomb was. they knew that particular tomb was guarded and sealed, now the its' open and empty and there are rumors the guards say the angles came down he rose.</b><br /><br /><br /> I would also suspect that physical evidence gathered at a crime scene sometimes supports and sometimes contradicts eyewitness testimony.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>the physical evidence here as I just pointed out, supports it.</b><br /><br /><br /> Brap (previously): "Regarding the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, I believe that to be just a fabricated element of the resurrection story, much like the other people who were resurrected in Matthew 27."<br />\<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Of cousre, if you didn't you have a great big hunk of cognitive dissonance to deal with. Since we know where they came from it becomes very possible they did exist. I don't see how they could have gotten the movement going without them.<br /><br />major non Christian scholars have been convenience by that.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63379203349184110092010-12-01T06:34:11.216-08:002010-12-01T06:34:11.216-08:008:13 PM
Delete
Blogger Brap Gronk said...
...8:13 PM<br /> Delete<br />Blogger Brap Gronk said...<br /><br /> Part 2 of 2:<br /><br /> Brap (previously): "And I'm sure you don't need to be convinced of the weakness of eyewitness testimony."<br /><br /> Meta: "that's a fallacy. Obviously it's not weak its the only way to know what happened;"<br /><br /> Just because it's the only way to know doesn't mean it isn't weak.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>It's not that week. A bunch of saw something, basically the same thing that's a good reason to think they saw something. You can always doubt because you didn't see it. If you did see it you would be saying something different. You would be saying "I know what I saw!"</b><br /><br /><br /> There is an entire spectrum of ways to know something, from strong to weak. If one of those at the weak end of the spectrum is the only one available for a particular event, it's still weak.<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Ok that's good. this is ONE way, this not a cut and dired It's all proved becuase of Josh McDowell. It's one aspect of the nature of belief.<br /><br />I don't even see why we need the historical anymore, except I think it's there. It's better with it. What if we didn't have any historical evidence. that would be a reason to be believed based upon my own experiences. That they line up is even better.</b><br /><br /> "it's the only way we can check our perceptions,"<br /><br /> Eyewitness testimony _is_ perception, which is modified by the mind over time. I'd prefer audio and video recording to check my perceptions, actually.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>on the net go around I'll get the apostles to take a video camera. Hey I think Matthew had one of those real thin cell phones with a camera in it. But it was one of the early ones so the picture wasn't very good.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78604495226452850482010-12-01T06:33:28.163-08:002010-12-01T06:33:28.163-08:008:13 PM
Delete
Blogger Brap Gronk said...
...8:13 PM<br /> Delete<br />Blogger Brap Gronk said...<br /><br /> Part 2 of 2:<br /><br /> Brap (previously): "And I'm sure you don't need to be convinced of the weakness of eyewitness testimony."<br /><br /> Meta: "that's a fallacy. Obviously it's not weak its the only way to know what happened;"<br /><br /> Just because it's the only way to know doesn't mean it isn't weak.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>It's not that week. A bunch of saw something, basically the same thing that's a good reason to think they saw something. You can always doubt because you didn't see it. If you did see it you would be saying something different. You would be saying "I know what I saw!"</b><br /><br /><br /> There is an entire spectrum of ways to know something, from strong to weak. If one of those at the weak end of the spectrum is the only one available for a particular event, it's still weak.<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Ok that's good. this is ONE way, this not a cut and dired It's all proved becuase of Josh McDowell. It's one aspect of the nature of belief.<br /><br />I don't even see why we need the historical anymore, except I think it's there. It's better with it. What if we didn't have any historical evidence. that would be a reason to be believed based upon my own experiences. That they line up is even better.</b><br /><br /> "it's the only way we can check our perceptions,"<br /><br /> Eyewitness testimony _is_ perception, which is modified by the mind over time. I'd prefer audio and video recording to check my perceptions, actually.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>on the net go around I'll get the apostles to take a video camera. Hey I think Matthew had one of those real thin cell phones with a camera in it. But it was one of the early ones so the picture wasn't very good.</b><br /><br /> "it's a basic part of our natural epistemic instincts, and it's the backbone of the legal system. what you are confusing is that eye witnesses differ becuase human perceptions are subjective and differ, with the idea that it's somehow not worth using. That doesn't make it not worth anything. If so why do they still use it in courts?"<br /><br /> When that's all you have, then that's all you have. It is unfortunate that many innocent people have been sent to death row based solely on eyewitness testimony that was later proven false based on things like DNA evidence. <br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>bzzzZZZZZzzz! argument from analogy = fallacy. </b><br /><br /><br />I suspect eyewitness testimony is relied upon less when there is good video evidence of an incident.<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>Naturally. where's your video evidence of Jesus not raising form the dead?<br /><br />Can't you see that trying to indict 500 eye witnesses on the basis of s standard arguments about the unreliable nature of eye witnesses is just second rate schlock? It's way beneath you. That is not a basis for doubting the res.<br /><br />If if the point was to PROVE it happened I drag in the empty tomb and the guards. That's not really the issue for me when people talk about "validation."<br /><br />But speaking of that there's more than just "people saw it" there's the concrete fact of the tomb. They take people to it they could point to it. There's the concrete fact of the guards. they knew they were there. they saw them. they new they were put there. There's probably a lot of talk because they were bribed to keep quite they probably couldn't.<br /><br />how else cold they have gotten the movement started? why didn't the get the body and show it them and say "there he is he's still dead?" Why didn't they go to a tomb, any tomb and say "it's still sealed."<br /><br />the people knew where the tomb was. they knew that particular tomb was guarded and sealed, now the its' open and empty and there are rumors the guards say the angles came down he rose.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85000836730238271092010-12-01T06:16:46.678-08:002010-12-01T06:16:46.678-08:00Meta: "why are you equating eye witnesses wit...Meta: "why are you equating eye witnesses with group think?"<br /><br /> I'm not. You claimed the power of eyewitness testimony would have prevailed in group discussions. I disagree with that, because people can easily be persuaded into believing they saw something they didn't see, or saw something slightly different, etc.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>that's an unfounded assertion. show some studies.</b><br /><br /><br /> The mind warps the perception of an event over time, filling in gaps, tweaking things here and there as the story is retold and finalized, even without outside influence.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>yes but that's not the same as saying "I saw this guy who was dead walking around alive." That's a bit of a stretch.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Imagine what the mind can do with the perception of an event in a group situation, where people are often reluctant to let it be known they are in the minority.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>what would their motive be to begin with? Why would they go on as a group? why would they want to convince anything they saw Jesus alive?<br /><br />trying to fill in gaps with psychology that's not documented not proved not based upon proven theores is jsut futile. what if everythings's a life.<br /><br />when I was an atheist I used to sit around thinking up "ways it could have hapepned." One day it occurred to me we don't need little arguments like that. I can just assert it did happen in some way but not the way the Christan's say and cut tot he chase and deny the possibility merely becuase it is Christian and that way I don't have to strain my brain about it.<br /><br />Problem is its a two edge sword. As a Christian I realized if I know that God is real and I have a relationship with God in my current beliefs then I have a reason to believe that it did happen the bible and there is a truth to it because I know there's truth on this end.<br /><br />If the historical facts coincide to some extent that makes it stronger. We are talking about validation not proof. Nothing is every going to replace leap of faith. you will have to make a leap of faith regardless.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30349968032196781932010-12-01T06:09:58.775-08:002010-12-01T06:09:58.775-08:00Blogger Brap Gronk said...
Part 1 of 2:
...Blogger Brap Gronk said...<br /><br /> Part 1 of 2:<br /><br /> Brap (previously): "where arguments for Christianity fall apart for me is when people equate the beliefs of the authors [of the gospels] with history, and consider written beliefs to be evidence for something actually occurring."<br /><br /> Meta: "They can be."<br /><br /> My point is that the gospels should be considered primarily a record of what some people believed at the time. <br /><br /><b>Meta:>>></b><br /><b>OK, that's how I see them. That doesn't mean they are not historically based.I'm arguing for the historicity of the OUTLINES not every single thing in the text.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />If additional evidence or sources can corroborate a particular story, then that story (and only that story, not the entire contents of all four gospels) moves toward the truth column.<br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>I didn't say the whole thing is proved to be historical. I said we have authority in the teachings.</b><br /><br /><br /> If Joseph Smith's golden plates were on display at the Mormon Tabernacle today, I would still only consider them to be a record of what Joseph Smith believed. (Well, at least what he wanted others to believe.)<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>why is Joseph Smith your standard? were you a Mormon?</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Meta: "For example why would people writing in 50AD believe in a flesh and blood Jesus if Doherty is right and they just started to give him a concrete history early in the second century?"<br /><br /> Agreed. I'm not a Jesus myther.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>good!</b><br /><br /><br /> Meta: "The fact that the early followers were speaking of an empty tomb just a few years after the death of Jesus might be a good indication that empty tomb did not evolve slowly as myth."<br /><br /> My theory, which is just another silly atheist hunch probably unsupported by any facts, is that the empty tomb myth (along with the resurrection myth) evolved quickly after Jesus' followers struggled to explain the meaning of his crucifixion.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta>>></b><br /><b>OK you better watch those wild speculations.</b> ;-)Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33616651761938749562010-11-30T20:15:16.856-08:002010-11-30T20:15:16.856-08:00Part 2 of 2:
Brap (previously): "And I'm...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />Brap (previously): "And I'm sure you don't need to be convinced of the weakness of eyewitness testimony."<br /><br />Meta: "that's a fallacy. Obviously it's not weak its the only way to know what happened;"<br /><br />Just because it's the only way to know doesn't mean it isn't weak. There is an entire spectrum of ways to know something, from strong to weak. If one of those at the weak end of the spectrum is the only one available for a particular event, it's still weak. <br /><br />"it's the only way we can check our perceptions,"<br /><br />Eyewitness testimony _is_ perception, which is modified by the mind over time. I'd prefer audio and video recording to check my perceptions, actually.<br /><br />"it's a basic part of our natural epistemic instincts, and it's the backbone of the legal system. what you are confusing is that eye witnesses differ becuase human perceptions are subjective and differ, with the idea that it's somehow not worth using. That doesn't make it not worth anything. If so why do they still use it in courts?"<br /><br />When that's all you have, then that's all you have. It is unfortunate that many innocent people have been sent to death row based solely on eyewitness testimony that was later proven false based on things like DNA evidence. I suspect eyewitness testimony is relied upon less when there is good video evidence of an incident. I would also suspect that physical evidence gathered at a crime scene sometimes supports and sometimes contradicts eyewitness testimony.<br /><br />Brap (previously): "Regarding the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, I believe that to be just a fabricated element of the resurrection story, much like the other people who were resurrected in Matthew 27."<br /><br />Meta: "why? If eye witness testimony is so weak why do you need to get rid of the 500?"<br /><br />Because people give eyewitness testimony more weight when it is corroborated. I'm suggesting it wasn't corroborated by a crowd of 500, so I have no need to claim a group hallucination occurred.<br /><br />Meta: "Ultimately you must be the witness. Your own existential encounter with the Divine is the only one that will convince you so you must be the witness. free your own inner witness by being open to the reality."<br /><br />I'm open to any reality outside my mind that doesn't need my mind in order to exist. I'm not aware of any evidence of God's existence, nor any rationally warranted reason to believe in God's existence, outside the human mind.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79768758577308641212010-11-30T20:13:38.235-08:002010-11-30T20:13:38.235-08:00Part 1 of 2:
Brap (previously): "where argum...Part 1 of 2:<br /><br />Brap (previously): "where arguments for Christianity fall apart for me is when people equate the beliefs of the authors [of the gospels] with history, and consider written beliefs to be evidence for something actually occurring."<br /><br />Meta: "They can be."<br /><br />My point is that the gospels should be considered primarily a record of what some people believed at the time. If additional evidence or sources can corroborate a particular story, then that story (and only that story, not the entire contents of all four gospels) moves toward the truth column. If Joseph Smith's golden plates were on display at the Mormon Tabernacle today, I would still only consider them to be a record of what Joseph Smith believed. (Well, at least what he wanted others to believe.)<br /><br />Meta: "For example why would people writing in 50AD believe in a flesh and blood Jesus if Doherty is right and they just started to give him a concrete history early in the second century?"<br /><br />Agreed. I'm not a Jesus myther.<br /><br />Meta: "The fact that the early followers were speaking of an empty tomb just a few years after the death of Jesus might be a good indication that empty tomb did not evolve slowly as myth."<br /><br />My theory, which is just another silly atheist hunch probably unsupported by any facts, is that the empty tomb myth (along with the resurrection myth) evolved quickly after Jesus' followers struggled to explain the meaning of his crucifixion.<br /><br />Meta: "why are you equating eye witnesses with group think?"<br /><br />I'm not. You claimed the power of eyewitness testimony would have prevailed in group discussions. I disagree with that, because people can easily be persuaded into believing they saw something they didn't see, or saw something slightly different, etc. The mind warps the perception of an event over time, filling in gaps, tweaking things here and there as the story is retold and finalized, even without outside influence. Imagine what the mind can do with the perception of an event in a group situation, where people are often reluctant to let it be known they are in the minority.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3381574351421556372010-11-30T05:06:43.406-08:002010-11-30T05:06:43.406-08:00Look at this watch, you are getting sleepy...sleep...Look at this watch, you are getting sleepy...sleepy,...obey the group.<br /><br />zzzzzzzzzzzzJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72863155460848914382010-11-30T05:06:02.027-08:002010-11-30T05:06:02.027-08:00Brap Gronk:
quotes me:
"I said the Gospels w...<b>Brap Gronk:</b><br /><br />quotes me:<br />"I said the Gospels were historical artifacts that testify to the beliefs of the people who wrote them."<br /><br /><b>BG:</b><br /><br />I have no difficulty agreeing with that statement, but where arguments for Christianity fall apart for me is when people equate the beliefs of the authors with history, and consider written beliefs to be evidence for something actually occurring.<br /><br /><b>They can be. For example why would people writing in 50AD believe in a flesh and blood Jesus if Doherty is right and they just started to give him a concrete history early in the second century? Obviously that destory's Doherty's time table if not his whole theory.<br /><br />The fact that the early followers were speaking of an empty tomb just a few years after the death of Jesus might be a good indication that empty tomb did not evolve slowly as myth. Granted that doesn't prove it was real but it's a step in that direction. It's part of an over all case.</b><br /><br />In fact, your community as author argument has a point I totally disagree with:<br /><br />"The force of truth, the power of the eye witnesses would have prevails in dominating the discussion."<br /><br />The power of groupthink can easily overpower the truth, especially when a few persuasive individuals dominate the discussion.<br /><br /><b>why are you equating eye witnesses with group think? Obviously there were several groups, that's why we have four different versions of the dame material. So while there undoubtedly would have been some form of "group think" (which one finds in atheism too) there were also outlets for differing views. </b><br /><br /><br /><br /> And I'm sure you don't need to be convinced of the weakness of eyewitness testimony.<br /><br /><b>that's a fallacy. Obviously it's not weak its the only way to know what happened; it's the only way we can check our perceptions, it's a basic part of our natural epistemic instincts, and it's the backbone of the legal system.<br /><br />what you are confusing is that eye witnesses differ becuase human perceptions are subjective and differ, with the idea that it's somehow not worth using. That doesn't make it not worth anything. If so why do they still use it in courts?</b><br /><br /><br /> Regarding the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, I believe that to be just a fabricated element of the resurrection story, much like the other people who were resurrected in Matthew 27.<br /><br /><b>why? If eye witness testimony is so weak why do you need to get rid of the 500?<br /><br />Ultimately you must be the witness. Your own existential encounter with the Divine is the only one that will convince you so you must be the witness.<br /><br />free your own inner witness by being open to the reality.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58683630389429765112010-11-29T20:50:58.993-08:002010-11-29T20:50:58.993-08:00"I said the Gospels were historical artifacts..."I said the Gospels were historical artifacts that testify to the beliefs of the people who wrote them."<br /><br />I have no difficulty agreeing with that statement, but where arguments for Christianity fall apart for me is when people equate the beliefs of the authors with history, and consider written beliefs to be evidence for something actually occurring.<br /><br />In fact, your community as author argument has a point I totally disagree with:<br /><br />"The force of truth, the power of the eye witnesses would have prevails in dominating the discussion."<br /><br />The power of groupthink can easily overpower the truth, especially when a few persuasive individuals dominate the discussion. And I'm sure you don't need to be convinced of the weakness of eyewitness testimony. Regarding the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, I believe that to be just a fabricated element of the resurrection story, much like the other people who were resurrected in Matthew 27.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22586012318817032232010-11-29T07:48:41.073-08:002010-11-29T07:48:41.073-08:00The impression I have been given over the years is...The impression I have been given over the years is that many people don't care about truth as long as they get their way.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64740643205960259402010-11-29T06:11:27.484-08:002010-11-29T06:11:27.484-08:00This happens to me allot, I have come to the concl...This happens to me allot, I have come to the conclusion that atheists do not want any evidence.<br /><br />Like you said "Magical King X" rides in and bails out the atheist out of any evidence put up by the Theist.<br /><br />I would rather trust the Bible on being historically correct in relation of Jesus, than many other historical sources for other key figures.SPRnoreply@blogger.com