Evidence please

Originally posted by @whodey
Jesus never wrote about himself. This is evidence.

At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.

Have you got a witness to what Jesus said?

Wow.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Have you got a witness to what Jesus said?

Wow.

You hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.

As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.

Originally posted by @whodey
As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.

Multiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.

Originally posted by @whodey
You hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.

I agree that this is a form of evidence albeit weakened by the fact you have to be a believer to believe it.

Originally posted by @fmf
Multiple sources all with the same purpose is pretty meaningless, especially when dozens and dozens of competing gospels were rejected in a stupendous bout of editing which intended to cultivate uniformity. The "either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses" thing is actually hearsay.

So I guess it gets down to which witness you believe, doesn't it.

Nonetheless, it is evidence.

From what I have been able to determine, the gospels are the closest witness to the time of Christ that have been uncovered.

Now what account of someone would you tend to believe the most? Is it what a person writes about themselves or what others write about them?

Originally posted by @whodey
You hear Christians give witness to what Christ has done in their lives every day.

As for the Bible, you have multiple sources saying pretty much the same thing in the gospels. These are either direct witnesses or a witness of other witnesses.

No. You said: “At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.”

What you are talking about is first hand witness evidence about a subjective experience you have had. First hand witness testimony of Jesus words would be someone who was there, first hand, and can verify what was said by whom.

What you have (and I have for that matter) in terms of evidence of the words Jesus actually spoke is not permissible in a court of law as it is hearsay. At best.

Originally posted by @fmf
I agree that this is a form of evidence albeit weakened by the fact you have to be a believer to believe it.

Paul is perhaps the first to have a dramatic conversion. Although he did not meet Jesus before crucified, he claims to have met him on the road to Damascus.

If the accounts of Paul are true, that he persecuted Christians and killed them, it would answer why he changed so.

Originally posted by @divegeester
No. You said: “At least, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law.”

What you are talking about is first hand witness evidence about a subjective experience you have had. First hand witness testimony of Jesus words would be someone who was there, first hand, and can verify what was said by whom.

What you have (and I have for that matter) in ...[text shortened]... f the words Jesus actually spoke is not permissible in a court of law as it is hearsay. At best.

The gospels are either from first hand accounts or people recording it for them.

Evidence may be rejected in a court of law, depending on the perceived accuracy of such evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

Originally posted by @whodey
So I guess it gets down to which witness you believe, doesn't it.

Nonetheless, it is evidence.

It is evidence, yes. Convincing to the believer; weak or meaningless to non-believers.

Revelation 12:11

And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.

Originally posted by @fmf
It is evidence, yes. Convincing to the believer; weak or meaningless to non-believers.

Depending on the change that the unbeliever sees in their life

I imagine those who knew Paul saw a big change.

Originally posted by @whodey
The gospels are either from first hand accounts or people recording it for them.

No they are the product of decades of "oral history"/Chinese whispers and corporate Christianity's attentions. They are essentially a secondary source

Originally posted by @whodey
If the accounts of Paul are true, that he persecuted Christians and killed them, it would answer why he changed so.

I think a change of strategy by those who ran Rome's psy-ops against the Jews could explain the change.

Originally posted by @whodey
Now what account of someone would you tend to believe the most? Is it what a person writes about themselves or what others write about them?

Well of course this is a false dilema erected in the service of propagating something you already believe.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think a change of strategy by those who ran Rome's psy-ops against the Jews could explain the change.

And I believe you believe that.