|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 9:28:30 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Method,
There are some questions which science doesn't really touch. I'm not trying to put down science -- in fact, it is its great strength that it accepts itself entirely limited by METHOD! :)
For instance, I see no way for science to honestly rule on whether or not consciousness exists independent of mind, that it is beyond death, etc.
Of course, it has ruled that mind and brain are correlated beyond a shadow of a doubt. How did it get to this ruling? Well, it is of course obvious, but I ask only so that I can point out that neuroscience correlates brain states with mind states by observing various physical measures of the brain with SUBJECTIVE REPORTING. There is nothing wrong with this -- how else could they approach the question of correlating subjective with objective?
Basically, science jumps over the sticky question of objectively verifying that the subjectivity exists to answers the question as convincingly as it can, but only pragmatically -- not absolutely. For instance, there is nothing to prevent a subject in an experiment from lying about his mind-state every step of the way, because it is hidden from the observer.
The difference with the question of whether mind exists independent of brain is that in such cases subjectivity is (by normal premises) cut off in principle from reporting.
Basically, all I am saying is that correlation can demonstrate that where there is brain there is mind -- that is, it can establish a sufficient condition for mind -- it cannot comment on necessary conditions, as it cannot investigate mind apart from brain in principle. That is, brain is a necessary condition for interview, for the only method open for investigation of subjectivity, but this does not mean therefore that it is a necessary condition of subjectivity itself.
I hope you can agree with what I am saying.
I don't know if has an application to the present discussion about soul, however.
Thanks for reading
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 9:35:02 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Method,
There are some questions which science doesn't really touch. I'm not trying to put down science -- in fact, it is its great strength that it accepts itself entirely limited by METHOD! :)
For instance, I see no way for science to honestly rule on whether or not consciousness exists independent of mind, that it is beyond death, etc.
Of course, it has ruled that mind and brain are correlated beyond a shadow of a doubt. How did it get to this ruling? Well, it is of course obvious, but I ask only so that I can point out that neuroscience correlates brain states with mind states by observing various physical measures of the brain with SUBJECTIVE REPORTING. There is nothing wrong with this -- how else could they approach the question of correlating subjective with objective?
Basically, science jumps over the sticky question of objectively verifying that the subjectivity exists to answers the question as convincingly as it can, but only pragmatically -- not absolutely. For instance, there is nothing to prevent a subject in an experiment from lying about his mind-state every step of the way, because it is hidden from the observer.
The difference with the question of whether mind exists independent of brain is that in such cases subjectivity is (by normal premises) cut off in principle from reporting.
Basically, all I am saying is that correlation can demonstrate that where there is brain there is mind -- that is, it can establish a sufficient condition for mind -- it cannot comment on necessary conditions, as it cannot investigate mind apart from brain in principle. That is, brain is a necessary condition for interview, for the only method open for investigation of subjectivity, but this does not mean therefore that it is a necessary condition of subjectivity itself.
I hope you can agree with what I am saying.
I don't know if has an application to the present discussion about soul, however.
Thanks for reading
Scientists don't know that man has a spirit in him as well as a brain. So they have no clue that there's life after death. So trying to deny God keeps one from understanding what they can't see.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 10:28:10 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) As opposed to "Our doctors of science tell us so?"
(Method) Doctors of science include the measurements, data, and experiments they used to reach their conclusions in their papers. I am asking for the same.
(theo) Then I will give you the BEST evidence.
What do you consider to be the best evidence? I will tell you. The best evidence is testimony.
(Method) The best evidence is empirical evidence since everyone can measure it independent of others. In courts of law forensic evidence (which is empirical evidence) overrules testimony all of the time.
But it is not the empirical evidence of forensic evidence that goes before the jury, it is testimony ABOUT the forensic evidence and its meaning that are testified to before the jury; specifically BECAUSE laymen are not qualified to understand the implications and nuances of forensic evidence.
Your simple assertion "everyone can measure it independent of others" is just rhetoric out of touch with reality. Not "everyone" has the degree of expertise to even perceive what it is they are seeing, and in many cases even what they are hearing ABOUT what they are seeing. That is why juries are so unpredictable. NO ONE KNOWS if any member of the jury understands the testimony about the empirical evidence, and no one expects the jury to understand it WITHOUT the testimony of experts. No, testimony remains the best evidence.
quote:
(theo) You may think experience or machine reaction to be better, but in order to extrapolate it and convince others who could not take part in the experiment, the ONLY recourse left to you is testimony. You have to TELL others, and you must tell them convincingly.
(Method) The only recourse is to do the experiment myself and see if your results are repeatable.
(theo) It matters not how many times you repeat the experiment, it still remains a truth; you still have to convince other who were not witness to the experiment. And testimony is the strongest convincing evidence.
This of course, assumes you are not experimenting with hitting your head with a hammer, and intend to hit everyone's head with a hammer to demonstrate your experimant by Thomistic proof.
quote](theo) I have the testimony of God himself. And I accept his testimony.
(Method) I don't. Do you actually have evidence or are you going to keep yanking my chain?
(theo) I have actual evidence. It is called the testimony of the witness, accepted in any court of law. If that "pulls your chain" it is not the lack of evidence, nor even the lack of credence attached to the evidence, but is directly connected to either your own inability to evaluate what you do not understand, or to your own determination to disbelieve in spite of the evidence.
quote:
(theo) Now, you want evidence, you have evidence. Let's see what you do with it.
(Method) Scriptures are not evidence.
(theo) While it is true many thinkers and philosophers would agree with your analysis, you and they are still wrong.
Why do you think written notes are given in evidence before juries in every nation that has a jury system of jurisprudence? Written testimony has as much value before a jury as any other kind of evidence once the credential of the writer has been established. And the credential of the writer of scripture has been well established for centuries, by competent experts in such matter.
The MEANING attributed to the scriptures is hotly debated, in many instances, however, it is still to the scriptures that appeal is made to reconcile differences perceived within the framework of the documents themselves. And it is always as EVIDENCE scripture is presented.
Just as in any court, testimony ABOUT the evidence is sometimes more powerful than the documents themselves. It then becomes the TESTIMONY that is primary evidence, but the scripture still remains accepted as evidence.
Whether you accept it or reject it has no bearing on its value as evidence. It only effects the value any conclusions drawn, may or may not have on you, your understanding, your practice, or your analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 10:51:18 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
But it is not the empirical evidence of forensic evidence that goes before the jury, it is testimony ABOUT the forensic evidence and its meaning that are testified to before the jury; specifically BECAUSE laymen are not qualified to understand the implications and nuances of forensic evidence.
This is equivalent to peer reviewed papers. Experts in a field review the paper and then the paper is printed in a journal for all to see.
Also, any forensic evidence that the prosecution presents HAS to be available to the defense. If the prosecutions DNA test destroys an entire sample then it can not be used in court. This is the exactly what I am referring to when I speak of empirical and testable.
quote:
Your simple assertion "everyone can measure it independent of others" is just rhetoric out of touch with reality. Not "everyone" has the degree of expertise to even perceive what it is they are seeing, and in many cases even what they are hearing ABOUT what they are seeing.
It is a matter of training, not a matter of the evidence not existing. You probably could not sequence DNA or understand how it is done, but I do. In fact, I could help you understand the procedure in a couple hours. It's not that tough.
quote:
NO ONE KNOWS if any member of the jury understands the testimony about the empirical evidence, and no one expects the jury to understand it WITHOUT the testimony of experts. No, testimony remains the best evidence.
Actually, this is analogous to this entire forum. Non-experts disbelieve the experts because they don't like the conclusions or don't understand the evidence. Evidence is evidence, even if it is presented by an expert. In the case of forensic evidence it exists independently of the expert testimony, and it can be challenged by referring to the evidence itself. This is the way it should be.
quote:
(theo) It matters not how many times you repeat the experiment, it still remains a truth; you still have to convince other who were not witness to the experiment. And testimony is the strongest convincing evidence.
So let me get this straight. Let's say there was a murder scene where the suspects blood finger prints, DNA, clothing fibers, shoe prints, and wallet were found in and around the body. You would ignore all of this empirical evidence if this man's wife went to the stand and proclaimed that he was home that night. Is that right?
quote:
This of course, assumes you are not experimenting with hitting your head with a hammer, and intend to hit everyone's head with a hammer to demonstrate your experimant by Thomistic proof.
Isn't that the proof that christians offer? Wait till we are dead and meet God?
quote:
(theo) I have actual evidence. It is called the testimony of the witness, accepted in any court of law.
One has to be able to cross examine the witness.
quote:
If that "pulls your chain" it is not the lack of evidence, nor even the lack of credence attached to the evidence, but is directly connected to either your own inability to evaluate what you do not understand, or to your own determination to disbelieve in spite of the evidence.
In the words of Dr. House, people lie. Evidence doesn't.
quote:
(theo) While it is true many thinkers and philosophers would agree with your analysis, you and they are still wrong.
Why do you think written notes are given in evidence before juries in every nation that has a jury system of jurisprudence? Written testimony has as much value before a jury as any other kind of evidence once the credential of the writer has been established. And the credential of the writer of scripture has been well established for centuries, by competent experts in such matter.
The credentials have not been established, and the source of the written notes must be available for cross examination.
You also have the problem of conflicting testimony. Given the number of conflicting religious texts you can hardly claim that the Bible is the one and only true record.
quote:
The MEANING attributed to the scriptures is hotly debated, in many instances, however, it is still to the scriptures that appeal is made to reconcile differences perceived within the framework of the documents themselves. And it is always as EVIDENCE scripture is presented.
Try and find me one scientific paper that uses anecdotal testimony as it's only data. You won't find it. There is a reason for that.
If you don't have empirical evidence just say so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 11:09:11 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
But it is not the empirical evidence of forensic evidence that goes before the jury, it is testimony ABOUT the forensic evidence and its meaning that are testified to before the jury; specifically BECAUSE laymen are not qualified to understand the implications and nuances of forensic evidence.
This is equivalent to peer reviewed papers. Experts in a field review the paper and then the paper is printed in a journal for all to see.
Also, any forensic evidence that the prosecution presents HAS to be available to the defense. If the prosecutions DNA test destroys an entire sample then it can not be used in court. This is the exactly what I am referring to when I speak of empirical and testable.
quote:
Your simple assertion "everyone can measure it independent of others" is just rhetoric out of touch with reality. Not "everyone" has the degree of expertise to even perceive what it is they are seeing, and in many cases even what they are hearing ABOUT what they are seeing.
It is a matter of training, not a matter of the evidence not existing. You probably could not sequence DNA or understand how it is done, but I do. In fact, I could help you understand the procedure in a couple hours. It's not that tough.
quote:
NO ONE KNOWS if any member of the jury understands the testimony about the empirical evidence, and no one expects the jury to understand it WITHOUT the testimony of experts. No, testimony remains the best evidence.
Actually, this is analogous to this entire forum. Non-experts disbelieve the experts because they don't like the conclusions or don't understand the evidence. Evidence is evidence, even if it is presented by an expert. In the case of forensic evidence it exists independently of the expert testimony, and it can be challenged by referring to the evidence itself. This is the way it should be.
quote:
(theo) It matters not how many times you repeat the experiment, it still remains a truth; you still have to convince other who were not witness to the experiment. And testimony is the strongest convincing evidence.
So let me get this straight. Let's say there was a murder scene where the suspects blood finger prints, DNA, clothing fibers, shoe prints, and wallet were found in and around the body. You would ignore all of this empirical evidence if this man's wife went to the stand and proclaimed that he was home that night. Is that right?
quote:
This of course, assumes you are not experimenting with hitting your head with a hammer, and intend to hit everyone's head with a hammer to demonstrate your experimant by Thomistic proof.
Isn't that the proof that christians offer? Wait till we are dead and meet God?
quote:
(theo) I have actual evidence. It is called the testimony of the witness, accepted in any court of law.
One has to be able to cross examine the witness.
quote:
If that "pulls your chain" it is not the lack of evidence, nor even the lack of credence attached to the evidence, but is directly connected to either your own inability to evaluate what you do not understand, or to your own determination to disbelieve in spite of the evidence.
In the words of Dr. House, people lie. Evidence doesn't.
quote:
(theo) While it is true many thinkers and philosophers would agree with your analysis, you and they are still wrong.
Why do you think written notes are given in evidence before juries in every nation that has a jury system of jurisprudence? Written testimony has as much value before a jury as any other kind of evidence once the credential of the writer has been established. And the credential of the writer of scripture has been well established for centuries, by competent experts in such matter.
The credentials have not been established, and the source of the written notes must be available for cross examination.
You also have the problem of conflicting testimony. Given the number of conflicting religious texts you can hardly claim that the Bible is the one and only true record.
quote:
The MEANING attributed to the scriptures is hotly debated, in many instances, however, it is still to the scriptures that appeal is made to reconcile differences perceived within the framework of the documents themselves. And it is always as EVIDENCE scripture is presented.
Try and find me one scientific paper that uses anecdotal testimony as it's only data. You won't find it. There is a reason for that.
If you don't have empirical evidence just say so.
So then what you're saying is that you would believe the accounts christ's life more if they weren't witnessed. Is that correct?  If so, then why do unbelievers always ask for more accounts of Christ's life? 
But I know, "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence." In that case, since apes don't turn into people in reality, then the extraordinary claim that they do requires more evidence than the imaginations of men.  Evidence like people witnessing apes turning into people, or apes breeding anything other than apes will be a start. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 11:20:33 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
So then what you're saying is that you would believe the accounts christ's life more if they weren't witnessed. Is that correct?
I would believe it more if there were disinterested witnesses. What we do have are accounts written by devout followers many years after the occurences. On top of that, the accounts borrow heavily from one another in certain sections which means that they are not independent accounts.
quote:
But I know, "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence." In that case, since apes don't turn into people in reality,
People are apes. We are also mammals, vertebrates, and eukaryotes. These classifications do not tell us how we should act. What they do tell us is what morphological characteristics we share with other animals.
You see our classification of apes as an insult. I see it quite differently. I see us as the crowning achievement among apes. You see the glass half empty, I see it half full.
quote:
Evidence like people witnessing apes turning into people, or apes breeding anything other than apes will be a start.
Have you witnessed Great Danes turning into Chihuahuas yet?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/12/2008 10:34:59 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) But it is not the empirical evidence of forensic evidence that goes before the jury, it is testimony ABOUT the forensic evidence and its meaning that are testified to before the jury; specifically BECAUSE laymen are not qualified to understand the implications and nuances of forensic evidence.
(Method) This is equivalent to peer reviewed papers. Experts in a field review the paper and then the paper is printed in a journal for all to see.
(theo) It matters not, the jury is not handed "peer reviewed papers" to review. Thay are subjected to "TESTIMONY ABOUT" the forensic evidence.
quote:
(Method) Also, any forensic evidence that the prosecution presents HAS to be available to the defense. If the prosecutions DNA test destroys an entire sample then it can not be used in court. This is the exactly what I am referring to when I speak of empirical and testable.
(theo) But it still must be presented by testimony. THAT is what I am talking about when I say "TESTIMONY" is the best evidence.
"TESTIMONY" is what makes all other evidence make sense to untutored juries.
quote:
(theo) Your simple assertion "everyone can measure it independent of others" is just rhetoric out of touch with reality. Not "everyone" has the degree of expertise to even perceive what it is they are seeing, and in many cases even what they are hearing ABOUT what they are seeing.
(Method) It is a matter of training, not a matter of the evidence not existing. You probably could not sequence DNA or understand how it is done, but I do. In fact, I could help you understand the procedure in a couple hours. It's not that tough.
(theo) But I said nothing about "evidence not existing." I said evidence must be explained to the untrained, by TESTIMONY, making TESTIMONY the best evidence. And to make me understand sequencing DNA you would have to give testimony. You are demonstrating my point very well.
quote:
(theo) NO ONE KNOWS if any member of the jury understands the testimony about the empirical evidence, and no one expects the jury to understand it WITHOUT the testimony of experts. No, testimony remains the best evidence.
(Method) Actually, this is analogous to this entire forum. Non-experts disbelieve the experts because they don't like the conclusions or don't understand the evidence.
(theo) That same jury is just as likely to believe the experts, precisely BECAUSE they don't understand the evidence. And they assume it must be so because after all, why else would an EXPERT testify?
quote:
(Method) Evidence is evidence, even if it is presented by an expert. In the case of forensic evidence it exists independently of the expert testimony, and it can be challenged by referring to the evidence itself. This is the way it should be.
(theo) It still cannot be presented as forensic evidence aside from and without testimony to explain its meanings and nuances of meaning. It still requires testimony regardless of what other classification of evidence you present. Even if one of the jurors experienced what you are trying to convince the rest of the jury about, he cannot share that experience with them without 'testifying' to what it is and what it means that he experienced.
quote:
(theo) It matters not how many times you repeat the experiment, it still remains a truth; you still have to convince other who were not witness to the experiment. And testimony is the strongest convincing evidence.
(Method) So let me get this straight. Let's say there was a murder scene where the suspects blood, finger prints, DNA, clothing fibers, shoe prints, and wallet were found in and around the body. You would ignore all of this empirical evidence if this man's wife went to the stand and proclaimed that he was home that night. Is that right?
(theo) Absolutely NOT. With all that forensic evidence, the jury still has to have those who know and understand the significance of every item in the "evidence arsenal" testify in open court in a way that they can make the jury understand that same significance of meaning and nuance. In other words the one testifying must not only tell what the evidence is, he must also be able to convince the jury that it is so in compliance with his conclusions ABOUT that evidence.
And further, in some cases your scenario is true; juries would rather believe a beautiful distraught widow than an overbearing hardworking frustrated prosecuting attorney. That is why some people "get away with murder"... the testimony was not convincing.
quote:
(theo) This of course, assumes you are not experimenting with hitting your head with a hammer, and intend to hit everyone's head with a hammer to demonstrate your experiment by Thomistic proof.
(Method) Isn't that the proof that christians offer? Wait till we are dead and meet God?
(theo) Some perhaps, but I have offered testimony of one who has impecable credentials, which testimony has not been successfully refuted by anyone having equal credentials.
quote:
(theo) I have actual evidence. It is called the testimony of the witness, accepted in any court of law.
(Method) One has to be able to cross examine the witness.
(theo) By all means. Even God invites you to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [I thes 5:21]
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." [Rom 12:2]
That little word "prove" comes from a Greek word (dokimazo) meaning
Meaning: 1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy
Just do not dismiss the witness for your own understanding or lack thereof; but test the historical application of prophecies against the prophecies theirselves.
quote:
(theo) If that "pulls your chain" it is not the lack of evidence, nor even the lack of credence attached to the evidence, but is directly connected to either your own inability to evaluate what you do not understand, or to your own determination to disbelieve in spite of the evidence.
(Method) In the words of Dr. House, people lie. Evidence doesn't.
While that may in come cases be true, there is also an abundance of evidence that is not understood even by experts because expertise is dependent upon experience AND the proper analysis of that experience.
Remember when you first read or heard that people actually thought the world is flat? Did you do as I did, and scoff at the concept? That did not change the verdict favoring a flat world. No, it was the popular misconception based upon the successful testimony of Portugese sailors who wanted to protect their trade routs and convinced the rest of the maritime world that the earth is flat and their ships would fall over the edge to destruction.
Now, however, we can sail the oceans with impunity because other testimony more convincing, established in conjunction with other evidence and its accompanying testimony, that the earth is indeed round.
Doesn't that make you feel all safer? :)
quote:
(theo) While it is true many thinkers and philosophers would agree with your analysis, you and they are still wrong.
Why do you think written notes are given in evidence before juries in every nation that has a jury system of jurisprudence? Written testimony has as much value before a jury as any other kind of evidence once the credential of the writer has been established. And the credential of the writer of scripture has been well established for centuries, by competent experts in such matter.
(Method) The credentials have not been established, and the source of the written notes must be available for cross examination.
(theo) OF COURSE THEY HAVE. The fact that not every member of an unlearened or untaught audience does not understand or agree with the evidence does not alter the significance of either the evidence itself, nor
the finding of the jury.
As for the source of the written notes, it has also been well testified to and accepted by experts in the applicable fields of expertise.
quote:
(Method) You also have the problem of conflicting testimony. Given the number of conflicting religious texts you can hardly claim that the Bible is the one and only true record.
(theo) OF COURSE I CAN. I am not hindered by the conflicting testimonies of later sources, sources that after the fact attempt to alter the original. As for the "religious texts," it is differs from that which has been expertly established, I am not much bothered with it. I do not change my mind with every wind of doctrine.
I am more bothered by the conflicting testimonies of those who cause denominations to arise which divide the church, than almost any other kind of testimony offered in the field. They ar enot dependent upon evidence, but rather upon reputation and ego.
quote:
(theo) The MEANING attributed to the scriptures is hotly debated, in many instances, however, it is still to the scriptures that appeal is made to reconcile differences perceived within the framework of the documents themselves. And it is always as EVIDENCE scripture is presented.
(Method) Try and find me one scientific paper that uses anecdotal testimony as it's only data. You won't find it. There is a reason for that.
If you don't have empirical evidence just say so.
(theo) Find me one Christian that uses anecdotal testimony as his/her only data. You won't find it. There is a reason for that. Christians rely upon the evidence of fulfilled peophecy, and fulfilled prayer, about as much as they rely upon the written account. And they rely much upon hope which is based on expectation which is based on the perception of promises fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/12/2008 10:48:39 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would believe it more if there were disinterested witnesses. What we do have are accounts written by devout followers many years after the occurences. On top of that, the accounts borrow heavily from one another in certain sections which means that they are not independent accounts.
Suppose you are driving home one evening from work, and witness a terrible accident. Suppose also, there are several other witnesses to the event. Along comes a policement that asks each of you, without consulting with each other, to write an account of your perception of what you witnessed.
There would be differences of style, vocabulary, direction of perception, point of view, the value of the significance of some things seen by all, but not appreciated the same by all.
Would they all but one be liars? Or mistaken? Or making it up?
We have a better witness than that; inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God himself to remind these witnesses of what it was they saw, experienced for themselves, or had explained to them by the master himself. And every word was established by two or three witnesses, whether by anotehr writer, or by the Spirit of God, or by the experience of the one centered in the focus of the story.
God has taken men who did not write because of thie education, but chose ignorant and unlearned men; inspired them with Spirit enhanced memory, and instructions to "write." Some of them (Old Testament Authors for example) did not understand the significance of much that they wrote. It was not theirs to understand, it was theirs to write. It became testimony to events designed by God, prophesied through the prophets, and fulfilled by and through the persons chosen for that task.
It behooves us to examine the evidence with understanding and humility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/12/2008 12:15:12 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
I would believe it more if there were disinterested witnesses. What we do have are accounts written by devout followers many years after the occurences. On top of that, the accounts borrow heavily from one another in certain sections which means that they are not independent accounts.
Suppose you are driving home one evening from work, and witness a terrible accident. Suppose also, there are several other witnesses to the event. Along comes a policement that asks each of you, without consulting with each other, to write an account of your perception of what you witnessed.
There would be differences of style, vocabulary, direction of perception, point of view, the value of the significance of some things seen by all, but not appreciated the same by all.
This is a poor analogy to the gospels.
A better analogy would be that you wrote out your testimony 20 years later. And published it. Then another eyewitness took your published testimony and added some additional information. And then a policeman (not an eyewitness) took the combined written testimony---added some information from other sources (not all of them immediate eyewitnesses) and wrote a report containing much of the previous publications and some information he discovered independently
As a whole this is not an eyewitness account, nor is the final report independent of the two earlier publications. Rather, it incorporates them.
quote:
It behooves us to examine the evidence with understanding and humility.
Indeed it does. The common sourcing of the gospels, indicating they are not independant (and therefore do not confirm each other) and often not from an eyewitness, certainly not disinterested eyewitnesses, are aspects of the gospels we need to understand and accept in humility.
It is amazing to me that the Holy Spirit can and does work through these human limitations.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
