Effective Altruism

[Tassman]

No Tassman, it's not. I have been in trials as a juror, and worked many trials as support staff. I have seen entire cases turn on one witness testimony. Especially in civil trials that are pretty much "he said/she said" like personal liability. You can have evidence such as a dented car, but without eye witness testimony you can't determine what happened. The eye witness testimony is the key to the trial. The dented car is just what is being sued for. If you have two or more eye witnesses that say the defendant caused the dent, guess who gets believed?

The personal testimony is the key to the trial only if it can be supported by substantive, credible evidence.

[Sparko]

The personal testimony is the key to the trial only if it can be supported by substantive, credible evidence.

You keep saying that. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.

I already gave you one example: a car with a dent in it. The only 'evidence' is that there is a dent in a car. That doesn't tell you how it got there or who did it. In such a case eye witness testimony IS the substantive, credible evidence. It alone, by itself, with no other evidence, can determine who did it and why. All you have to do is produce an eye witness who saw the whole thing. Two, even better. No videos. Just eye witness testimony. The case will be decided on that alone. Happens all the time.

[Tassman]

You keep saying that. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.

I already gave you one example: a car with a dent in it. The only 'evidence' is that there is a dent in a car. That doesn't tell you how it got there or who did it. In such a case eye witness testimony IS the substantive, credible evidence. It alone, by itself, with no other evidence, can determine who did it and why. All you have to do is produce an eye witness who saw the whole thing. Two, even better. No videos. Just eye witness testimony. The case will be decided on that alone. Happens all the time.

You've segued from the value of a subjective "personal testimony", which is my argument, to that of "eyewitness testimony", which is quite a different thing. Subjective “personal testimony” is considered neutral unless it can be supported by substantive, credible evidence.

[Sparko]

You've segued from the value of a subjective "personal testimony", which is my argument, to that of "eyewitness testimony", which is quite a different thing. Subjective “personal testimony” is considered neutral unless it can be supported by substantive, credible evidence.

ah. I see. No it is you who are playing switcheroo here Tassman. You are trying to play semantic games.

OK, so define the difference between "personal testimony" and "eyewitness testimony" in a court of law.

[Tassman]

ah. I see. No it is you who are playing switcheroo here Tassman. You are trying to play semantic games.

Nope! I specifically said “subjective personal testimony", not "eyewitness testimony" and I gave the claims of a personal experience with Jesus or alien abduction as examples of "personal testimony" which could not be verified.

OK, so define the difference between "personal testimony" and "eyewitness testimony" in a court of law.

“Eyewitness testimony" claims to have objectively seen something and this can be readily substantiated if that “something” can be or shown empirically to exist or to have occurred.

[Sparko]

Nope! I specifically said “subjective personal testimony", not "eyewitness testimony" and I gave the claims of a personal experience with Jesus or alien abduction as examples of "personal testimony" which could not be verified.



“Eyewitness testimony" claims to have objectively seen something and this can be readily substantiated if that “something” can be or shown empirically to exist or to have occurred.

so basically they are the same thing then? Or are you saying if it is something you believe then it is eye witness testimony and if it is something too incredible to believe then it is personal testimony?

Lets say a woman's car was dented by some idiot. She tells her story in court. It is something that happened to her, a personal experience. Is that personal testimony or eye witness testimony?

[Tassman]

so basically they are the same thing then? Or are you saying if it is something you believe then it is eye witness testimony and if it is something too incredible to believe then it is personal testimony?

Lets say a woman's car was dented by some idiot. She tells her story in court. It is something that happened to her, a personal experience. Is that personal testimony or eye witness testimony?

A personal testimony about a subjective experience, such as experiencing Jesus Christ in your life, is delusional. It is unverifiable. Conversely, your woman telling her story about a dented car is telling a story which is both plausible and potentially verifiable. See the difference?

[Sparko]

A personal testimony about a subjective experience, such as experiencing Jesus Christ in your life, is delusional. It is unverifiable. Conversely, your woman telling her story about a dented car is telling a story which is both plausible and potentially verifiable. See the difference?

The authors of the gospels wrote about events that were verifiable by other contemporaries at at the time. They included details that can still be verified today, like mentioning certain places and events that can be verified independently. So they were eye witnesses according to your own definition. Thanks for playing.

[Bisto]

[Cameo]
Good evening Tass. Feeling nitpicky right now.

A personal testimony about a subjective experience, such as experiencing Jesus Christ in your life, is delusional. It is unverifiable. Conversely, your woman telling her story about a dented car is telling a story which is both plausible and potentially verifiable. See the difference?

If I go to your country and meet you and some of your pals in the street and we go have a coffee or something, would that count as you guys subjectively experiencing Bisto in your life?

Btw, at least folks like Gary pretended to really consider the Resurrection as a possibility :p

[/Cameo]

[Tassman]

The authors of the gospels wrote about events that were verifiable by other contemporaries at at the time. They included details that can still be verified today, like mentioning certain places and events that can be verified independently. So they were eye witnesses according to your own definition. Thanks for playing.

The majority of contemporary historians don’t doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure as such. But they do not accept the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, because there’s no substantive evidence supporting them. Including no eye-witness reportage!

But, again you’ve segued from subjective personal testimony of experiencing Jesus in your life, which is delusional, to 'eyewitness reporting' which is qualitatively different.

[Tassman]

[Cameo]
[Good evening Tass. Feeling nitpicky right now.

Good morning to you Bisto.

If I go to your country and meet you and some of your pals in the street and we go have a coffee or something, would that count as you guys subjectively experiencing Bisto in your life?

The difference between subjectively experiencing Jesus in your life, which can’t be independently verified, and you meeting up with me in Sydney is that our existence can be independently verified...as can our coffee and coffee-shop.

Btw, at least folks like Gary pretended to really consider the Resurrection as a possibility :p

[/Cameo]

Can’t imagine why!

[Adrift]

The majority of contemporary historians don’t doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure as such. But they do not accept the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, because there’s no substantive evidence supporting them. Including no eye-witness reportage!

This is now, I believe, the fifth time I've caught you repeating this sentiment. And again, in rebuttal, Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg:

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

Jesus was known for doing "mighty deeds," according to Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus near the end of the first century. The gospels agree. They not only report many stories of spectacular deeds done by Jesus, but also that crowds flocked to him because of his reputation as a healer.

These spectacular deeds are commonly divided into two categories. The first is healing, including exorcism. The second, often called nature miracles, includes such stories as walking on the sea, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fish, and changing water into wine.
Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sea of red]

This is now, I believe, the fifth time I've caught you repeating this sentiment. And again, in rebuttal, Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg:

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

Jesus was known for doing "mighty deeds," according to Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus near the end of the first century. The gospels agree. They not only report many stories of spectacular deeds done by Jesus, but also that crowds flocked to him because of his reputation as a healer.

These spectacular deeds are commonly divided into two categories. The first is healing, including exorcism. The second, often called nature miracles, includes such stories as walking on the sea, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fish, and changing water into wine.
Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

© Copyright Original Source

And what does it say right after that?

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

J
Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them.

© Copyright Original Source

He literally experiences doubt as to whether Jesus performed supernatural miracles such as walking on water and the like -- which no historian would claim has been demonstrated through history. I'm no expert on this, but I've read enough to know that historians in no way accept the supernatural miracles of the gospels. And as for the bit about healings and exorcisms, nowhere has Borg or the Jesus seminar, ever proclaimed that Jesus performed the NT miracles. All they believe was that he was basically a sage that did faith healings no different than Pythagoras or Apollonius of Tyana.

You were quote mining pure and simple.

[Starlight]

The majority of contemporary historians don’t doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure as such. But they do not accept the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, because there’s no substantive evidence supporting them.

I don't have a problem believing that his followers thought he had done some miracles. A modern parallel is the 20th century Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba whose followers believed he had done many miracles of healing, resurrections, and a boatload of other magic tricks. Does anyone in the West take Sai Baba's miracles seriously? Not really.

Faith healers and whatnot have always had lots of followers who believed that the person was doing miracles. Did they actually do miracles? Of course not. Duh. But the credulous and the gullible thought they did.

[Adrift]

And what does it say right after that?

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

J
Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them.

© Copyright Original Source

He literally experiences doubt as to whether Jesus performed supernatural miracles such as walking on water and the like -- which no historian would claim has been demonstrated through history. I'm no expert on this, but I've read enough to know that historians in no way accept the supernatural miracles of the gospels. And as for the bit about healings and exorcisms, nowhere has Borg or the Jesus seminar, ever proclaimed that Jesus performed the NT miracles. All they believe was that he was basically a sage that did faith healings no different than Pythagoras or Apollonius of Tyana.

You were quote mining pure and simple.

If you had kept reading on you'd would have seen that I did NOT quote mine, and that Borg is, in fact, referring to his belief in actual supernatural miracles.

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

I regard the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives, not as history. They are, to use an insight I owe to Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, parables about Jesus. Jesus told parables about God, and the early Christians told parables about Jesus.

As a historian, however, I do think Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. To illustrate my reasoning, I use two factors. The evidence that Jesus performed healings and cast out what he and his disciples called evil spirits is widespread throughout in earliest Christian writing. There are stories and sayings, and both his followers and opponents accepted that he performed these acts.

The second factor is evidence that paranormal healings happen. The evidence is ancient and modern, anecdotal and statistical. Since I am persuaded that paranormal healings do happen, then there is no reason to deny them to Jesus.

Many modern people understand Jesus' healings as merely faith healings. It is true that some physical conditions are caused by mental states, and sometimes a physical cure can be brought about by addressing the mental state. Moreover, faith or confidence in the power of the healer can bring about a cure.

But not all paranormal healings can be accounted for in this way. In some cases, in the gospels and the modern world, the faith of the healed person doesn't seems to be involved. We don't know how to account for them. In my judgment, seeing the explanation as either "supernatural intervention" or as "psychosomatic cure" is too much of a claim for us to make because we don’t understand the process involved in paranormal healing.

We also don't know the limits of paranormal healing, though I think there are some. I am confident, for example, that missing limbs are never replaced. But there is an impressive range of serious conditions that have been healed by paranormal means.

Hence, my conclusion: Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. Indeed, more healing stories are told about him than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition. In all likelihood, he was the most remarkable healer in human history.

© Copyright Original Source

Frankly, I'm surprised it took five times for you to actually take notice of this article.

At any rate, regardless of which category of miracle historians accept, your continued insistence that, "The majority of contemporary historians don’t doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure as such. But they do not accept the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, because there’s no substantive evidence supporting them. Including no eye-witness reportage!" is flat out wrong. It just is. The majority of NT historians DO accept that Jesus performed miracles. They may or may not accept all of the miracles of the NT, but they do accept them.