Originally Posted by Andreas83

Aha. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

These are, as far as I can tell, the only such statements to be found in the Gospels:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Not even hearsay, for the "witness" is not identified.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I think it refers to the "beloved disciple" who is otherwise unidentified.

Originally Posted by rlogan

I cannot count the number of times that Christians claim "eyewitness" testimony on behalf of their superstition.

Usually the way I see this handled is by addressing the dating of the texts, the anonymity of the authorship, the preposterousness of the event (miracles), the lack of attributed authorship, etc.

But I am interested in something else, after a very long thread of ridiculous "prove the easter bunny doesn't exist" demands from a true believer.

I do not see where the Bible itself claims any specific eyewitness accounts of any event.

Eyewitness testimony is when the author actually states that he witnessed something. I don't mean where in the opening of the fable known as "John" he says, for example:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes..."

There are a couple of elementary disqualifications here. There isn't a "we" in an eyewitness. Allowing the plural in the first place is a shifty way to pretend that "someone among us" may have seen the event in question. But that is automatically hearsay at best.

Even then though, to qualify as hearsay the actual witness still needs to be identified, and that the witness testified directly to the author. Saying that person XYZ witnessed an event is just a story without the author specifically saying that the witness gave him the testimony.

The terrible vagueness and generality of the first line also disqualifies it for any specific event insomuch as "from the beginning" would mean a person of many thousands of years age to be an eyewitness in a literal sense.

So apart from what we already know as reasonable critical thinkers knowledgeable about the history of these fables, what specific events, if any, are there where we have specific "eyewitness" testimony according to the Bible itself?

Originally Posted by Jehanne

I opened a thread on this a few weeks ago but not many “believers� were interested:

http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...er/easter.html

Originally Posted by aChristian

This article is absurd to me. The early Christians often proclaimed the resurrection and always treated it as a historical fact. There were plenty of eyewitnesses and plenty of claims to eyewitness testimony. Luke tells us that he interviewed many of them and carefully checked the facts out. Since Luke has been established as a reliable historian, his investigation carries great weight to an unbiased investigator.

Originally Posted by Toto

Smiling doesn't make it so. We don't have any really early Christian writers, but Paul is very vague about the resurrection and gives no historical details. Luke has not been established as a reliable historian, and he based most of his gospel on Mark, which is not reliable history - his gospel is reworked incidents from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Originally Posted by aChristian

You are correct when you say smiling does not make it so. History makes it so. Paul is not vague about the resurrection, read the book of 1 Corinthians. Luke has been established as a good historian, read a good Christian conservative history book. Luke did not copy Mark and Mark is reliable as well. We have historical documents to back up my statements, whereas there are only people two thousand years later picking and choosing what they want to believe to support your position.

Originally Posted by aChristian

This article is absurd to me. The early Christians often proclaimed the resurrection and always treated it as a historical fact. There were plenty of eyewitnesses and plenty of claims to eyewitness testimony. Luke tells us that he interviewed many of them and carefully checked the facts out. Since Luke has been established as a reliable historian, his investigation carries great weight to an unbiased investigator.

Originally Posted by And the dog said...

And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.