Aquitania

Why do skeptics discredit the credibility of witnesses in the Bible (such as the Resurrection), when we rely on ancient writings and eyewitnesses to study history?

I understand that there are many witnesses to miracles and paranormal events throughout history. But the problem with argument from personal experience is that it is not falsifiable and cannot be empirically tested.

However, the paragraph above still doesn't answer my question.

Toto

We do not in fact accept ancient writings uncritically (or modern writings, for that matter.) We do not accept Homer's witness for the existence of the goddess Athena.

The "witnesses" in the Bible were not under oath, usually cannot be identified, and lack any credibility.

dog-on

The issue is actually not the credibility of eyewitnesses per se, it is actually the claim of eyewitness testimony, itself, (the first hurdle, if you will), that in this case has been called into serious question.

Atheos

Agreed with both of the above. Historical documents are used as tools to piece together what may have happened in the past. But there's an old saying: "History books are written by the victors." Any historian worth his or her salt knows better than to take a historical account at pure face value without considering the context in which it was written.

Or do you honestly think that 2000 years from now accounts of alien abductions complete with anal probes will be considered every bit as reliable as accounts of tedious debate in congress over economic policy?

Applying this to the bible we come up with the following rational approach:

• Was there an itinerant preacher named Jesus who gathered a modest following of disciples, stirred up some trouble with Jewish leaders and got his ass crucified for his efforts? Very Possible
• Was this person menaced by Herod the Great in an effort to have him killed as a baby by having every boy under the age of 2 years "throughout the coasts" put to death? Extremely unlikely - no historical evidence for this extraordinary claim
• Was this person born to a virgin mother? Did this person walk on water, heal blindness, leprosy, palsy, deafness, withered appendages and even raise people from the grave? Did this person himself rise up from death and float off to the sky? Impossible

Historians, just like normal people, rationally separate the mundane from the extraordinary and require differing levels of evidence for each one.

Just to belabor the point, imagine an acquaintance is talking with you at the water cooler one morning and says,

"I swear, I had a dollar bill in my pocket this morning but now it's gone. I can't for the life of me remember what I might have spent it on."

Mundane. Not hard to believe.

How about this:

"I swear, I had $100,000 in small bills in this briefcase this morning, but now it's all gone. I can't for the life of me remember what I might have spent it on."

Not so mundane, and you're unlikely to believe it without some extraordinary evidence.

Why should the bible get a pass on this principle? :huh:

OLDMAN

There are also major problems with the bible as a crediable source overall.
It tells us the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years, when it would take about 10 days to cross this desert, if you weren't being chased by someone. So is the account reliable? Based on what we know today, it doesn't sound reasonable.

aa5874

It is ALSO very possible that there was NO itinerant preacher named Jesus.

It is just so basic.

Even with ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES, FINGERPRINTS, Matching DNA evidence, the Murder weapon, and with a written CONFESSION some EXPERTS at LAW still disagree about who committed the crime.

Now, even though EXPERTS at LAW may disagree about who committed a crime they ALL invariably REJECT UNRELIABLE sources and witnesses and especially those who they know will PERJURE themselves and destroy their case.

Once it can be shown that the NT is FUNDAMENTALLY an UNRELIABLE source for the Jesus character then it simply cannot be used as historical evidence for Jesus.

For example, if gMatthew was brought into evidence then it would be shown that he TESTIFIED that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18-20

Any attempt to use gMatthew as evidence to show that Jesus was an ordinary man may result in PERJURY or Tampering with the written evidence which may also be considered a crime.

It is unheard of where ONLY UNRELIABLE sources are used to determine the history of an UNKNOWN character.

Juststeve

I think Toto and Dog-on have said it well but I do want to expand on Dog-on's comment.

Even eye witnesses were there any can be mistaken, deluded or lying. Therefore in evaluating the claim of an eye-witness, particularly and extraordinary claim such as that of the resurrection, one must ask whether it is more likely that the witness was mistaken, deluded or lying or that a dead person came back to life and ate grilled fish with his friends. You can guess where I come down on that.

By way of analogy I was in Chicago week before last on business. I called home to Dallas and spoke to my wife. She told me the weather in Dallas was hot as hell and dry. I believed her immediately. Had she told me that Dallas was in the grips of a blizzard with three feet of blowing snow on the ground I would not have believed her. What's the difference? Same witness but different accounts. One account is very plausible, the other is not. The resurrection is like the July blizzard in Dallas. It takes a lot more proving than a witnesses say so.

Steve

Evad

I'm always skeptical of the skeptical.

The desert? What Biblical evidence of this is there and how do you know it would only take 10 days?

Keith&Co.

Part of the 'rely' for a historical document involves knowing who wrote it, when they wrote it and why.

As mentioned, the victors write histories of battles and wars. We take it with a grain of salt when they describe that history. If we have descriptions from both sides of a battle, or from a disinterested observer, that allows us to compare and try to guess what 'really' happened.

Writers working two or three generations after an event cannot be considered eyewitnesses.

Many of the books of The Books are attributed to people that could not have written them. The description of MOses' funeral in a book traditionally held to be written by Moses comes quickly to mind.

We don't have a solid lock on who wrote the books of The Books. We don't know when they were written. We don't know why they were written.

ANd there is a dearth of disinterested corroboration.

So historically, it's not all that useful.

Atheos

Why would one need "biblical" evidence when one has decades of actual archaeological evidence, historical documents and other resources whereby a reasonable analysis can be made of the events and logistics of the time in question? using the bible to prove the bible is like using the Koran to prove the Koran. It's ... you know ... circular reasoning.

More telling than the 40 year sojourn in the desert are the alleged 10 plagues of Egypt that preceded it, the sudden exodus of nearly 2 million slaves from the area and the drowning of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. Had these events occurred as written in the bible most of them would have left indelible marks in the historical record. The actual result of these events? Nary a blip. Same evidence as what we have to demonstrate how those two koalas migrated from Mt. Ararat to Australia nibbling on a trail of eucalyptus leaves along the way. Epic fail.