Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[leibowde84]

That is completely irrelevant in this context. I am not making historical claims that become more certain over time. The legal validity of NT testimony is a subjective determination that does not become more certain with evidence. The historical reliability of the NT is affected by new discoveries and evidence but that was not the point I made. I simply said that by the rules of testimony and evidence the NT is acceptable (not that this makes it true).

I mean, how could one reasonably argue that they would be admissible when we have no definitive clue as to who wrote them, and what they were actually going off of. At this point, scholars seem to agree that the Gospels were not written by the men they were named for.

 

[outhouse]

I guess, but I think it would be unrealistic that there would 1. ever be a circumstance where Jesus' actual quotes would be in question legally; and 2. that evidence containing unverifiable double-hearsay would be admissible even if it was.

Absolutely correct.

 

[leibowde84]

That is completely irrelevant in this context. I am not making historical claims that become more certain over time. The legal validity of NT testimony is a subjective determination that does not become more certain with evidence. The historical reliability of the NT is affected by new discoveries and evidence but that was not the point I made. I simply said that by the rules of testimony and evidence the NT is acceptable (not that this makes it true).

After reading a bit more into your sources, it seems that they did make vast assumptions about who wrote the Gospels and when, limiting the occurrences of double and triple hearsay. That is an easy way to get around the hearsay rule, but it is extremely ignorant of what we know regarding the historicity of the texts.

 

[outhouse]

The views of the 1500s are just as valid as todays

Factually wrong.

I am not qualified

We know

I simply said that by the rules of testimony and evidence the NT is acceptable (not that this makes it true).

Its not. You tried to play this out before and you failed.

 

[outhouse]

After reading a bit more into your sources, it seems that they did make vast assumptions about who wrote the Gospels and when, limiting the occurrences of double and triple hearsay. That is an easy way to get around the hearsay rule, but it is extremely ignorant of what we know regarding the historicity of the texts.

They have been 100% refuted in entirety, and that was in the law they seemed to advance.

When it comes to biblical history, they are laughable embarrassments.

 

[1robin]

My point is that the testimony in the Bible would surely not be admissible in court today. It would not even be a consideration, as it is clearly not simple hearsay, but it contains multiple levels of hearsay. If, for example, we assume that the Gospel of Luke was based on the Gospel of Mark, which was written by John Mark who got it verbally from St. Peter who claims to have heard Jesus speak the words himself, there would be 3 levels of hearsay. Peter's testimony regarding Jesus' actual words would be hearsay. Then we would have to assume that Mark correctly wrote down the words that Peter told him. Finally, Luke's claims that his words were accurate would be based on the hearsay of Mark re: Peter.

To me, that seems like far too long of a string of hearsay statements to be admissible in any court.

It would be admissible under the ancient documents rule. I will admit that the criteria for admission under that rule is liberal but the bible meets all requirements. That is in fact the focus of Greenleaf's famous work the testimony of the evangelists. BTW my point was not that the NT is free of hearsay. It was that despite containing hearsay competent legal experts consider it valid and reliable. My primary contention is that the reliability of the NT cannot be written off by claiming it hearsay. IOW I am justified in considering it reliable. It may not be but it is reasonable to believe it to be.

 

[1robin]

Those two people are not scholars, and are worthless for any aspect of Jesus historicity.

This kind of nonsense caused me to burn out on debating with you. I will not pick up at the same irrational point I left off at with you. Either post some better reasons than summarily dismissing people you do not agree with or I will debate with you no further.

 

[1robin]

I mean, how could one reasonably argue that they would be admissible when we have no definitive clue as to who wrote them, and what they were actually going off of. At this point, scholars seem to agree that the Gospels were not written by the men they were named for.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document. Under the rule, if if a document is (1) more than 20 years old; (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then the document is found to be prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible.
Ancient Document Rule | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[outhouse]

This kind of nonsense caused me to burn out on debating with you

Yes I know.

YOU refuse truth, and academia and education and knowledge.

 

[1robin]

Anything in the Gospels is "Double-Hearsay", defined as the following (from Wikipedia)

Double hearsay is a hearsay statement that contains another hearsay statement itself.

For example, a witness wants to testify that "a very reliable man informed me that Wools-Sampson told him." The statements of the very reliable man and Wools-Sampson are both hearsay submissions on the part of the witness, and the second hearsay (the statement of Wools-Sampson) depends on the first (the statement of the very reliable man). In a court, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible. In this example, the first hearsay also comes from an anonymous source, and the admissibility of an anonymous statement requires additional legal burden of proof.

I think that the only way that one could legitimately admit any of the Gospels as evidence would be to assume (erroneously) that the Gospels were written by the men they were named for. In the early 1800s, I think this would have been a common mistake. Now, it is a view not held by most Secular Biblical Scholars (unbiased scholars). That is why I think there would be a specific issue with any of Jesus' supposed quotes.

I am not denying that the NT contains hearsay. I am claiming that those who know very well what hearsay is consider the NT reliable despite it. Hearsay can be allowed in the presentation of testimony or not depending on factors my sources not only knew very well but helped to define.

 

[outhouse]

I will debate with you no further.

When will you actually start is the question ???????????????


Top debate you have top be able to change your mind if credible evidence is brought forth, and you flat refuse to change your mind no matter how factual the evidence is.

 

[outhouse]

I am claiming that those who know very well what hearsay is consider the NT reliable despite it

Then provide sources, your opinion means nothing here.

And your sources from the horse and wagon days, also means nothing.

 

[outhouse]

Hearsay can be allowed in the presentation of testimony or not depending on factors my sources not only knew very well but helped to define.

Things have changes since then. Both would be laughed out of court. They were only useful in the justice system when justice was primitive.


They would be laughed out of court today.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1. Do not refer to one part of the Bible as proof for any validity of any other part of the Bible. We are trying to be objective here.

There are over 3 decades of analyses on comparing the gospels to Greco-Roman biography, and the consensus is that they are part of this genre. If this sounds unbelievable, check out Wiki's entry on "gospel" and the section on genre. I wrote it, even though I don't agree with what I wrote (it was years ago).

2. Do not make claims stating that "Biblical Scholars agree ..." This is nothing but a cop-out, and I would like to discuss the actual evidence that might lead those Scholars to agree in the first place.

This is not quite as bad as a creationist asking that biologists not assert that "evolutionary biologists agree", but suffers from the same obvious logical flaw. Luckily, we need not rely on biblical scholars, as all ancient historians with the exception of about 3 think that the idea that Jesus didn't exist is practically paranoid schizophrenia..

3. No claims without sufficient evidence to back them up. You cannot just say things like "everyone knows".

Actually, few do. That's because they can't be troubled to acquaint themselves with basic historical methods, evidence, and research. Otherwise, nobody would be asking such stupid questions.

4. Finally, there is absolutely NO CLAIMING THAT ANY OPINION SHARED MAKES THE HOLDER OF THAT PERSON ANY LESS OF A DECENT PERSON. Let's be adults and keep this one clean

Fair enough. Now how about allowing for claims of basic familiarity with relevant research?

 

[1robin]

Then provide sources, your opinion means nothing here.

And your sources from the horse and wagon days, also means nothing.

That's it I am done with you. If your best argument against a scholar you can come up with is the mode of transportation he used, you have no argument.

 

[outhouse]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document. Under the rule, if if a document is (1) more than 20 years old; (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then the document is found to be prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible.
Ancient Document Rule | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

You should not post on things you know nothing about. One is biblical history, your blind here. And you nothing about law to even mention it.




Example the link above.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document.

What exactly are you authenticating here?




With respect to authentication, an "ancient document" is one that may be deemed authentic without a witness to attest to the circumstances of its creation because its age suggests that it is unlikely to have been falsified in anticipation of the litigation in which it is introduced.

 

[outhouse]

If your best argument against a scholar

Are you being honest here???

He was no scholar, and no where is he ever called one.


Second. He has been refuted for his primitive methods and I posted it before.


Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Packham holds that what Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay and therefore does not comprise direct evidence to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus.

He also holds that the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined


"The 'Ancient Documents' rule at common law has traditionally related more to the authentication of the document than with the admissibility of its contents. It does not automatically lead to admission of the substance of the document irrespective of its credibility. (It can be argued this is even true today for the United States, even though the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 [16] states statements in Ancient Documents are admissible as exemptions to hearsay). Greenleaf takes no cognisance of this position and asserts that when an instrument is admitted under the said rule the court is bound to receive into evidence its substance as well unless the opposing party is able to impeach it ... The question as to whether the authentication of the gospels under the 'Ancient Documents' rule leads to receiving their substance into evidence is contentious. It could be strongly pleaded there is justification for doing so. Yet, it should be noted such pleading would be met by the adverse party's strong rejoinder" (pp. 60-61 & 63).

 

[leibowde84]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document. Under the rule, if if a document is (1) more than 20 years old; (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then the document is found to be prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible.
Ancient Document Rule | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

There is no chance in hell that the Bible would be considered "regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations", as we have no clear indication of who wrote them. Thus, we have no reason to believe that they were not altered throughout history. Greenleaf explicitly assumes that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, if it was brought in as evidence, it would be an easy slam dunk for the objecting party to show that it is legally unreliable.

 

[leibowde84]

Your not being honest.

He was no scholar, and no where is he ever called one.


Second. He has been refuted for his primitive methods and I posted it before.


Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Packham holds that what Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay and therefore does not comprise direct evidence to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus.

He also holds that the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined


"The 'Ancient Documents' rule at common law has traditionally related more to the authentication of the document than with the admissibility of its contents. It does not automatically lead to admission of the substance of the document irrespective of its credibility. (It can be argued this is even true today for the United States, even though the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 [16] states statements in Ancient Documents are admissible as exemptions to hearsay). Greenleaf takes no cognisance of this position and asserts that when an instrument is admitted under the said rule the court is bound to receive into evidence its substance as well unless the opposing party is able to impeach it ... The question as to whether the authentication of the gospels under the 'Ancient Documents' rule leads to receiving their substance into evidence is contentious. It could be strongly pleaded there is justification for doing so. Yet, it should be noted such pleading would be met by the adverse party's strong rejoinder" (pp. 60-61 & 63).

Very good point about the ancient documents rule. The more I learn about Greenleaf's argument, the less valid it seems. I mean, the assumption that eye-witnesses wrote any of the Gospels is absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

That's it I am done with you. If your best argument against a scholar you can come up with is the mode of transportation he used, you have no argument.

He made a very valid point about the ancient document rule. Authenticity does not mean that the contents will be admissible. Also, Greenleaf erroneously assumed that eye witnesses had something to do with the writing of the Gospels.