NZSkep

A recent event in NZ made me think about the validity of eye-witness accounts.

A common argument for the resurection by chrstians is the ‘eyewtiness’ accounts we have in the bible.

I think this story should go to show just how widely eye-witness accounts of the same event can vary

Story:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10466441

basically there are two separate accounts from independant eyewitnesses of the same occurance (i.e. not the police). One says that the man who was shot was advancing agressively towards the officer with a hammer, the other says he was standing still calmly with hands by his sides holding no weapons. (please let’s not derail this thread into the validity of the poice actions or the issue of tasers/guns etc)

These are eye witnesses reporting their claim only a day or two after the event happened.
At least one of these guys (and possibly both) must be incorrect in what he saw.

So my point is:

If eye-witness accounts are so unreliable even when documented a short time after an event, why should we place any credence on biblical accounts which are uncorroborated, often contradictory, internally inconsistant, and not documented until many years after they supposedly happened, often by someone other than the supposed eye-witness?

mountainman

Good point NZSkep,

Is this not the age-old and simple case of buyer beware?

Someone obviously wanted to incorporate a number
of seeming independent "eye-witness" accounts of
the life of what was to become Constantine's new
monotheistic God; the central eye of storm of
intolerance associated closely in the historical
sense with the new Emperor cult.

Who first published the separate eye-witness
accounts throughout the empire, lavishly and
sparing no expense? Who advertised the eye-
witness accounts? Who made the positions of
the new Christian church tax-exempt? Who
promoted Christianity in antiquity? Who spent
the greatest amount of money ever spent in
antiquity on a building program of stone?
Who was it that brought about the situation
in which the highways were covered with
galloping bishops?


In fact, which "pseudo-historian" first published
a quick-reference concordance, about what
was said by eyewitness one and two and three
and four, in common. And what was said just
by eyewitnesses 2, 3, 4 etc, covering all the
possible permutations of "agreement" and
the "validity by agreement of eyewitnesses".

It was a racket. An imperial scale racket.
And the world is still deluded by it.

I am confident that incontravertible
evidence will one day be found by which
the true history of antiquity will be
exposed, in which Christianity is to
be associated with a military boundary
event of the eastern Roman empire,
focused on Antioch and Nicaea, 325 CE.



The validity of eyewitness claims:
BUYER BEWARE.

IMO


Pete Brown
Constantine's Christian propaganda included a pseudo-History.