SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dayuhan who wrote (24197)8/10/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly  Read Replies (4) of 108807
 
On many occasions back in my reporting days, I personally interviewed numerous eyewitnesses to historical events, all of whom gave entirely different accounts of the same events - only hours later.

The 'eyewitness' accounts of the same events in the gospels vary considerably in detail. If the writers had wanted to record identical stories they didn't do a very good job. The accounts can be read without contradicting each other, so perhaps the variation simply suggests a lack of collusion. It certainly indicates that they didn't alter their writings to make the details agree better.

I brought up the subject of the 'eyewitness' nature of the gospel accounts not to suggest that you should accept what they wrote. I mentioned it because Christine shares the tendency to object that "there aren't any historical references to Jesus' life" when in fact it is one of the most documented events that we do have from ancient history. Try comparing the age and number of manuscripts that exist for someone as prominent as Julius Caesar with what we have documenting the life of Christ. From what I've read the New Testament manuscripts are dramatically older and more prolific than the very few texts we have to rely on to document the first Roman Emperor. No one questions Julius, but then he wasn't supposed to be performing miracles either.

Biblical accounts of miracles were recorded by believers, who were certainly partial and therefore questionable as witnesses.

Didn't I read this in Catch 22? If they saw miracles, and reported them then their veracity is "questionable"... makes one wonder how they could ever report a miracle without losing their credibility. Looks to me like just another example of sneaking the conclusion of an argument into its premise.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News