Freethought & Rationalism Archive

protectgoddotcom · 09-10-2003, 08:07 AM

Have you ever wondered how the testimony of the four disciples of the New Testament would hold up in an American Court trial? According to the New Testament, the life of Jesus Christ is recorded in the testimony of the disciples Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew. The validity of these testimonies has been challenged in recent years and has caused a controversial stir. Form historical records to the critical examination of the editing that these books may have undergone since their original writing, the arguments seem to have lacked any real form.

What if the testimonies were to be put "on trial?" How would the writings of the four authors hold up as witness testimonies in an American court trial? In America we tend to take it for granted that you're guilty once proven guilty in court. World-renowned Paul Winchell has put together a theoretical trial where the very disciples whose supposed words have shaped the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last two thousand years. In summary, the disciples are questioned as to why certain seemingly important events aren't included in one of their testimonies but not the others. They are questioned as to the irrationality of certain statements/actions made by Jesus (ie. cursing at a fig tree for being out of season and causing it to whither away and die). It's indeed an interesting notion as to whether or not the word very Bible that court testimonies are sworn by would hold up in court.

http://www.protectgod.com

-DM- · 09-10-2003, 09:19 AM

At least somewhat related to the subject at hand:

Does The Claim of Jesus' Resurrection Prevail Under the Federal Rules of Evidence? by Eddie Tabash.

-Don-

protectgoddotcom · 09-10-2003, 01:01 PM

Very interesting. I'll have to link to it from protectgod.com.

Toto · 09-10-2003, 01:29 PM

From http://www.protectgod.com/trials.htm#trials

Quote:

Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. The four were arrested and taken to the Forum to stand trial.

Stop right there. No one believes that the gospels were written two years after the crucifixion, or that they were written by apostles of Jesus. There is no record of a furor in Rome, nor could one be imagined.

Is there any reason to go on?

BrotherMan · 09-10-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto No one believes that the gospels were written two years after the crucifixion, or that they were written by apostles of Jesus.[/B]

Maybe no atheist believes that, but I'm sure I could call out the window and find at least one Christian who does.

The article -DM- pointed to deals with how the courts view scientifically relevent (or irrelevent) evidence, it does not address what I inferred from the OP, which was how the "testimonies" as given from the gospels would be viewed comparitavely. Otherwise stated, how would the court handle the discrepancies between the four gospels?

But that's just my opinion.

protectgoddotcom · 09-10-2003, 04:21 PM

<<Is there any reason to go on?>>

Considering the passage you refer to follows this passge

"I have therefore chosen to defend the "Son of God" by creating an imaginary trial held in ancient Rome after the Crucifixion. All of the testimony presented can be verified by a careful analysis of the four gospels. " (notice the word imaginary)

I would say 1-YES and 2-lighten up Scroogie.

the concept here is a theoretical one. The whole idea is to see how the 'testimony' of the famous four would hold up. It just wouldn't make sense (for the sake of the apostles themselves being on trial) to say this takes place 100 or 500 years later because these guys would be dead. The site is aimed at opening up the eyes of those who DO believe that the books were written right then and there. So, even if they wish to continue believing that the four writers really did narrarate the Life of Jesus then and there, they can hopefully see that what they wroste is BS.

Toto · 09-10-2003, 04:37 PM

The Christians who defend the gospels as eyewitness testimony like to use the courtroom as an example - because witnesses rarely agree on details, even when they are describing the same event that they witnesses at the same time. So they use all of the discrepancies as PROOF that the gospels really are independent eyewitness accounts.

But if you actually undermine someone's naive faith, more power to you.

Doctor X · 09-10-2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Maybe no atheist believes that, but I'm sure I could call out the window and find at least one Christian who does.

A non sequitur, but certainly an argumentum ad captandum vulgus.

That many believe in something untrue does not transform it to truth.

--J.D.

Kosh · 09-10-2003, 07:44 PM

Great, now every time I think about Noahs Ark, all I get is an image of Tigger bouncing on the deck going "hoo hoo hoo hoo!"

Thanks for putting up a great page Paul!

09-10-2003, 08:07 AM	#1
protectgoddotcom Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7	Putting the Apostles on trial Have you ever wondered how the testimony of the four disciples of the New Testament would hold up in an American Court trial? According to the New Testament, the life of Jesus Christ is recorded in the testimony of the disciples Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew. The validity of these testimonies has been challenged in recent years and has caused a controversial stir. Form historical records to the critical examination of the editing that these books may have undergone since their original writing, the arguments seem to have lacked any real form. What if the testimonies were to be put "on trial?" How would the writings of the four authors hold up as witness testimonies in an American court trial? In America we tend to take it for granted that you're guilty once proven guilty in court. World-renowned Paul Winchell has put together a theoretical trial where the very disciples whose supposed words have shaped the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last two thousand years. In summary, the disciples are questioned as to why certain seemingly important events aren't included in one of their testimonies but not the others. They are questioned as to the irrationality of certain statements/actions made by Jesus (ie. cursing at a fig tree for being out of season and causing it to whither away and die). It's indeed an interesting notion as to whether or not the word very Bible that court testimonies are sworn by would hold up in court. http://www.protectgod.com

09-10-2003, 01:01 PM	#3
protectgoddotcom Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7	About the article Very interesting. I'll have to link to it from protectgod.com.

09-10-2003, 04:21 PM	#6
protectgoddotcom Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7	Calm down Toto <<Is there any reason to go on?>> Considering the passage you refer to follows this passge "I have therefore chosen to defend the "Son of God" by creating an imaginary trial held in ancient Rome after the Crucifixion. All of the testimony presented can be verified by a careful analysis of the four gospels. " (notice the word imaginary) I would say 1-YES and 2-lighten up Scroogie. the concept here is a theoretical one. The whole idea is to see how the 'testimony' of the famous four would hold up. It just wouldn't make sense (for the sake of the apostles themselves being on trial) to say this takes place 100 or 500 years later because these guys would be dead. The site is aimed at opening up the eyes of those who DO believe that the books were written right then and there. So, even if they wish to continue believing that the four writers really did narrarate the Life of Jesus then and there, they can hopefully see that what they wroste is BS.

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

09-10-2003, 09:19 AM	#2
-DM- Honorary Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Coast Posts: 5,714	At least somewhat related to the subject at hand: Does The Claim of Jesus' Resurrection Prevail Under the Federal Rules of Evidence? by Eddie Tabash. -Don-

09-10-2003, 04:37 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Christians who defend the gospels as eyewitness testimony like to use the courtroom as an example - because witnesses rarely agree on details, even when they are describing the same event that they witnesses at the same time. So they use all of the discrepancies as PROOF that the gospels really are independent eyewitness accounts. But if you actually undermine someone's naive faith, more power to you.

09-10-2003, 07:44 PM	#9
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Great, now every time I think about Noahs Ark, all I get is an image of Tigger bouncing on the deck going "hoo hoo hoo hoo!" Thanks for putting up a great page Paul!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.