Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xaxxat · 04-12-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is superficially true, but in a deeper sense it isn't. I'm an attorney, and I depose people all the time. If two witnesses say exactly the same thing about an event, I mean exactly, it is evidence of fraud, specifically coaching. They put together a story and repeated it.

In real life, any two people witnessing an event will percieve it differently. Memory is always faulty (or rather memory actually constructs events out of various details). So, if I depose two people and they generally describe the same event, but the details are a little off, it is a sign of truthfulness.

It would be extraordinary, I mean, absolutely extraordinary for any complex event or series of events witnessed in the past by two people to have that event described exactly the same by those two people -- unless they are coached and not really describing the event.

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

So, what % of disagreement = the truth?

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-12-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is superficially true, but in a deeper sense it isn't. I'm an attorney, and I depose people all the time. If two witnesses say exactly the same thing about an event, I mean exactly, it is evidence of fraud, specifically coaching. They put together a story and repeated it.

In real life, any two people witnessing an event will percieve it differently. Memory is always faulty (or rather memory actually constructs events out of various details). So, if I depose two people and they generally describe the same event, but the details are a little off, it is a sign of truthfulness.

It would be extraordinary, I mean, absolutely extraordinary for any complex event or series of events witnessed in the past by two people to have that event described exactly the same by those two people -- unless they are coached and not really describing the event.

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

So, what % of disagreement = the truth?

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Does any NT author?

Jeffrey

John Kesler · 04-12-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In real life, any two people witnessing an event will percieve it differently. Memory is always faulty (or rather memory actually constructs events out of various details). So, if I depose two people and they generally describe the same event, but the details are a little off, it is a sign of truthfulness.

But some details in the resurrection narratives aren't just "a little off." Whether Jesus first appeared to his apostles in Galilee (Matthew 28:7,10,16-17; Mark 16:7) or Jerusalem (Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19) is a major discrepancy. See also my post here, which goes into greater detail. Keep in mind that Galilee and Jerusalem are around 60-70 miles apart.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

If the writer(s) were knowingly creating a fraud, wouldn't they have been careful to write the fiction by illustrating a legal convocation of the Sanhedrin that wouldn't raise any questions?

Maybe. I really don't know.

But, I don't much care, either, because I have never believed that the gospel authors were attempting any kind of fraud. Furthermore, I know very few skeptics who believe they were, and of those few, there is none whose opinion I respect in the least, because their arguments are, without exception, nonsensical.

xaxxat · 04-12-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

So, what % of disagreement = the truth?

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Does any NT author?

Jeffrey

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Toto · 04-12-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

...

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Does any NT author?

Jeffrey

Paul does, certainly, as does the follower who wrote/forged the letter to Timothy that bears his name.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-12-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Does any NT author?

Jeffrey

Paul does, certainly, as does the follower who wrote/forged the letter to Timothy that bears his name.

Can you point me to the places where he and his follower do this with respect to their own writings, please? And even if they do, is this also the case with the evangelists -- even assuming that their definition of "inspired" is the same as what has been mooted here?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-12-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Would you please be kind enough to define for us what you mean by "divinely insp[i]red"?

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-12-2008, 11:04 AM

Jeffrey, we seem to be running off on one of your tangents.

Paul claims to have been personally inspired by a higher power. I don't think that Paul or pseudo-Paul claims that the words in his epistles have the same divine status as the Torah.

But this question came up when Gamera tried to make an analogy between 4 witnesses to an auto accident and the 4 gospels, and claimed that the disagreements between the gospels were a sign of independent witnessing, and therefore made them more reliable.

The Christian message does not claim to be based on something with the degree of reliability of eyewitnesses to an auto accident, especially since modern psychologists have now demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable.

Thus, the [rhetorical?] question of whether witnesses were divinely inspired. Believers think that the gospel writers were divinely inspired, even if they do not claim to be. Non believers would not put any credence in a claim of inspiration.

xaxxat · 04-12-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Also, do any of the witnesses claim to be divinely inspred?...

Would you please be kind enough to define for us what you mean by "divinely insp[i]red"?

Jeffrey

I knew this would be coming from you. Next you'll be wanting to know what "is" is...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2008, 11:04 AM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jeffrey, we seem to be running off on one of your tangents. Paul claims to have been personally inspired by a higher power. I don't think that Paul or pseudo-Paul claims that the words in his epistles have the same divine status as the Torah. But this question came up when Gamera tried to make an analogy between 4 witnesses to an auto accident and the 4 gospels, and claimed that the disagreements between the gospels were a sign of independent witnessing, and therefore made them more reliable. The Christian message does not claim to be based on something with the degree of reliability of eyewitnesses to an auto accident, especially since modern psychologists have now demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Thus, the [rhetorical?] question of whether witnesses were divinely inspired. Believers think that the gospel writers were divinely inspired, even if they do not claim to be. Non believers would not put any credence in a claim of inspiration.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.