The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Heisenberg]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".

[xSilverPhinx]

I think it can get confusing when you base your beliefs on personal experience. He has epistemological evidence (he knows what he experienced) but has to have faith that what he experienced really is what he thinks it is.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.

Weak is in the eye of the beholder. I'll concede that they are weak and basically useless to you, but not to me.  How's that?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".

No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters.  Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened.  Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.

[Too Few Lions]

No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters.  Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened.  Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.

But there is NO eyewitness evidence of Jesus' miracles or resurrection, and certainly none that would stand up in court. The gospels and Paul's letters were written decades after any such event, and had been copied, altered, interpolated and changed dozens of times before we have the fourth century copies that are the earliest dated Bibles. Who knows what those letters looked like in the first century, or even if they ever existed back then. Using Paul as eyewitness testimony of Jesus is like using me as eyewitness testimony of Hitler, it's ridiculous!

If you want to talk about Jesus' life as historical fact come back to us when you have some hard evidence which undeniably dates to the early first century. At the moment there is none, which is rather odd for the supposed son of god roaming the world.

And as for Paul's reliability as a witness, he clearly fails for the above highlighted reasons. If there really was a  man performing all of these miracles and a resurrection, why is there no evidence of it from non-Christian sources? I'm sure it would have been pretty big news.

And what about other contemporaneous miracle workers such as Apollonius of Tyana. Was his resurrection from the dead also true? I don't see why Jesus' is and Apollonius' isn't.

And I think your claims about Jesus are far nearer claiming that the moon is made of cheese than claiming you jogged five miles. Jogging five miles is nothing out of the ordinary, whereas miracles and resurrection from the dead are. Science (and plain common sense!) tell us that these claims are impossible and bogus.

[Gawen]

I'm done with this thread.

[Heisenberg]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.

Weak is in the eye of the beholder. I'll concede that they are weak and basically useless to you, but not to me.  How's that?

I don't accept it. Evidence is not subjective. It can either be strong or weak. You accept it as strong evidence because it matches the conclusion that you have already reached. I have reached my conclusion because this is the strongest evidence to the contrary. That's the difference between us. And I'm sorry, but in no logical world does scripture constitute strong usable (let alone conclusive) evidence.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  

If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?

I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".

No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters.  Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened.  Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.

No, you really aren't using evidence that way. No judge in the world would convict someone of anything based soley on one eyewitness account unless there was collaborating evidence.

If I go to a judge tomorrow and say "I saw so-and-so murder so-and-so", but there's no physical evidence tying that person to the murder, or no other eye-witness accounts or other factors which supports that this is true, there is no way that the person would be convicted or anything. My statement might get someone arrested or investigated, but it just not enough to convince anyone that it's true.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

One piece of personal hearsay, either in a scholastic or legal setting, means very little no matter how much emotional weight you put behind it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

No, you really aren't using evidence that way. No judge in the world would convict someone of anything based soley on one eyewitness account unless there was collaborating evidence.

If I go to a judge tomorrow and say "I saw so-and-so murder so-and-so", but there's no physical evidence tying that person to the murder, or no other eye-witness accounts or other factors which supports that this is true, there is no way that the person would be convicted or anything. My statement might get someone arrested or investigated, but it just not enough to convince anyone that it's true.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

One piece of personal hearsay, either in a scholastic or legal setting, means very little no matter how much emotional weight you put behind it.

It's not hearsay if one saw it.  Paul is saying that one of Jesus' resurrection appearances was to him personally.  That is not hearsay.  And no one is trying to convict anyone of anything.  That would be in a criminal case, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is more like a normal civil case, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence."  Now, if it doesn't convince you, then your decision would be against the resurrection. But it's still evidence, and would be admitted into evidence by a judge, just as any other eyewitness testimony would be.

[DeterminedJuliet]

You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence.  I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.

By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.

Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!

[Tank]

You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence.  I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.

By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.

Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!

Quite right DJ. When cornered theists use language as a 'get out of jail free card' by simply redefining the words (usually their own) that are trapping them. It's one of the reasons that, at the end of the day, there is little point debating with theists as they have fitted their goal posts with wheels.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence.  I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.

By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.

Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!

I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went.  I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't.  I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end.  Ciao.

[Too Few Lions]

I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went.  I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't.  I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end.  Ciao.

But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to  some historical event, which also can't be verified.

What you have is a claim made by a fanatical proseltyser who never met Jesus, and who was prone to self aggrandisement and making things up. It also seems to me that Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus in a vision rather than in the flesh, and I wouldn't count claims of a vision from a religious nut as historical evidence in any way, shape or form.

On top of that you are basing your claims on a text which the earliest known copy dates to the late second / early third century and claiming the passage actually dates to the mid first century (150+ years earlier) and couldn't possibly have been altered or actually first written in that 150+ years.

We also have the fact that all the many Greek, Roman and Jewish sources from the era fail to mention this most incredible of events. Given all of these problems, 1 Corinthians 15 does not qualify as 'an eyewitness account of a historical event' in normal circumstances, even more so when the claims made are so ludicrous, and not physically possible.

You are correct in saying you think that Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, but just because you think that, it doesn't mean that Paul's account actually is an 'eyewitness account of an historical event'. It's just your opinion, which is something vastly different from it being a historical fact.

[Sandra Craft]

I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went.  I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't.  I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end.  Ciao.

But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to  some historical event, which also can't be verified.

My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts.  Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event?  I would never accept that.