Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

The number of Biblical authors speaks to the point of NUMBERS OF WITNESSES, and the length of time between them speaks to the validation from completely different time/culture contexts to the same message from so many different witnesses."Witnesses" in this case in the sense of people who wrote about essential events in the history of God's dealings with humanity which became the Christian religion. Any written account is a witness in this sense. And there are also direct references to other witnesses of some events. All in all "a great cloud of witnesses" as the Bible puts it.And how only the Bible quotes God may not be strictly on the topic, and in fact I would have mentioned it in my first post if I thought so. But it was an answer to PaulK's claim that it IS relevant. He claimed that the Koran was authored by God and that this trumps Moses' witness claims. In fact, again, there are NO references in the Koran to God's speaking to anyone, and Mohammed doesn't even claim such a thing, but God {edit: DID speak to Moses and many others in the Bible} and is indeed the author, inspirer and overseer of every word of the Bible. If this isn't about witness value, speak to PaulK. Pardon me, that was sloppy. I was still meaning to refer to WITNESS authentication. Mea culpa.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:01 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:07 PM

Thanks, Pecos, but I really don't want to argue about Islam at all. The thread is about eyewitness accounts in religious texts. The Koran has none. I really think there's nothing more to say.=======================Maranatha, Faith!

whall, I wanna tell ya, pardner, yo sua beat me ta death wid woids.

Ach du lieber Himmel, was ist denn nur kaput?Nichts ist kaput, rausgeschmissen haben sie mi!

In particular, the Eastern religions which are almost all accounts of discussions.Buddha, Confuciouos, Lao Zi, Mencius, Mo Tzu are all historical charachters that are very well documented. Their lives and body of work extended over far longer period than Jesus, they all started their missions at around the same ages (although Muhammad was slightly older when he had his revelation) and they all produced large bodies of text that have survived.Is there any reason that their material should not carry the same weight as the Judaic texts (Tanakah, Bible and Koran) and should not be considered as authoritative?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

In particular, the Eastern religions which are almost all accounts of discussions.

​

Buddha, Confuciouos, Lao Zi, Mencius, Mo Tzu are all historical charachters that are very well documented. Their lives and body of work extended over far longer period than Jesus, they all started their missions at around the same ages (although Muhammad was slightly older when he had his revelation) and they all produced large bodies of text that have survived.

---

Well, are they witness accounts?My point about the Bible is that its authors and protagonists are real historical people who witnessed and reported primarily upon real historical EVENTS that demonstrate the doings of God with His people -- both His actions and His communications.My impression of the Eastern texts is that they are strictly philosophical discussions of questions of ethics and wisdom and the nature of reality and life, some quite edifying and interesting, but that they are not about events as the Bible is, so the idea of "witness" doesn't pertain.

quote:

---

Is there any reason that their material should not carry the same weight as the Judaic texts (Tanakah, Bible and Koran) and should not be considered as authoritative?

---

They may have some claim to some other kind of authoritativeness but not witness-to-history authoritativeness (neither does the Koran, however, as Checkmate has confirmed), but as for the the question about the "same weight," that would be a discussion in itself not related to the question of witness validity -- {EDIT: or perhaps more accurately, to be weighed AGAINST witness validity}.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:25 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:26 PM

But they are witnessed. Each of these people had students who learned from them, many forming their own schools. Much of what they wrote was copied down by other eye witnesses and they moved freely about visiting both the meek and mighty.How is that ANY different than anything included in the Bible?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi allI like to state that thank you for having me here, though, being new, I have committed few oversights and/or errors. I will be more cautious in the very future.Thanks for your professionalims now and in future

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

Faith, And my point is that the statement above is without factual merit. You can't even show me Moses existed. You keep giving us this wishy washy multiple corroboration of the characters, but can't show ANY of them are non-fiction.Ergo, they can not be considered eyewitnesses.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I guess this is a different meaning of witness, having to do with witnessing a document, its source or something. The term "eyewitness" doesn't apply except to events, not documents, at least that is how I have been using it.Many meanings of witness pertain to the Bible, but the main one is witness to historical events, not to the writing of documents. The documents in themselves ARE a witness to the events, as they record those events.The Eastern documents only record philosophical discussions, and their religious import is in their wisdom, the wisdom of their author or authors. The Koran is more like these except it seems to focus heavily on commands and threats of dire consequences, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers.The Bible's religious import, however, is maybe 80% in the historical events, or to be conservative, at least 50%, and most of the teaching passages refer back to those events anyway, such as in the psalms and the prophets. Events such as God's calling Abraham out of Ur. That's an event, not a teaching. The writing about it is a witnessing to it, just as the oral telling of it was previously a witnessing to it. Also everything recounted about Abraham's sojourns. Events such as his pre-empting God's plan by having a child with Hagar. Events such as his going to sacrifice Isaac on God's command. All the events of Isaac's and Jacob's lives, and Israel's twelve sons' lives. Events such as Moses' leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Events such as Moses' getting the Law straight from God on Sinai, not just sitting down and thinking and discussing it out as the Eastern wise men do. Events such as all the miracles.ALL these things have SPECIFIC application to the meaning of Biblical religion. They ARE the message. They are not just stories about a people, they teach about the character of God and His doings with His people, and their fidelities and infidelities and how God deals with those things. The events are central to the religion, they reveal the character of God and His interactions with humanity and what we can expect of Him as we trust Him and follow Him.All of Genesis is events. Half of Exodus is events. Most of the rest of the Pentateuch is moral and ceremonial instruction but there are events recorded there as well. From Judges all the way through Ezra and Nehemiah the Bible is nothing but historical events, all of which are plumbed by theologians for revelations of God's character and plans.The prophets usually pronounce God's judgment on events, on the misdeeds of the people of God and His judgment for their misdeeds, as well as those of neighboring nations, and His promises of renewal and restoration, especially the promise of an ultimate Savior. Many of these prophecies have been fulfilled in history. Biblical religion OCCURS in history. That's why eyewitness testimony is central to it.Then of course the Messiah came and the gospels are predominantly accounts of the events of His life and ministry. The Book of Acts is a historical account of how God moved His testimony from Israel to the Gentiles and the entire world.So this is what I mean by witness accounts. The Bible is full of them, accounts of historical events that are not just backdrops as they might be in a novel, but the plot itself, the message itself.There is nothing like this in any other religion.

YOu can't even prove the existence of your great grandfather. Same problemThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 04:20 PM

quote:

---

In another thread, it was asked how the eyewitness accounts in the bible were more "valid" than similar content in other religious texts.
What is the criteria that we should (or do) use to make an assumption of validity?

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befits not Allh that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: ‘Be!’ and it is. (Maryam 19:34-35)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then He said upon him, 'Be' and he was. (Al-Imran 3:59)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

How would we decide if those accounts from the Koran are less valid than the accounts presented in the bible?

---

Perhaps, my first mistake was to join this forum and/or discussion in the middle of debate on an invitation. Nevertheless, I admit that I did not read the very first and/or this post and instead of that responded to "Faith."

​

Let me clear things up from absolutely Islaamic point of view:

​

1. Islaam and/or Qur'aan give no status to Christianity whatsoever.

​

2. Islaam and/or Qur'aan do not have and/or contain any eyewitness accounts whatsoever.

​

3. Islaam and/or Glorious Qur'aan absolutely rejects the notion and/or idea of Jesus' crucifixion and/or his alleged death and coming back to life and/or alleged "resurrection."

​

4. Glorious Qur'aan does not mention the name "Jesus" at all. Qur'aanic name is Al-Masih Isa Ibn Maryam. (Jesus is found in English transaltions of Qur'aan only.) Also the name Al-Masih Isa son of Maryam rejects any notion and/or idea of Jesus being Son of God or God.

​

Let us discuss the Qur'aanic quoted cited by "General Krull", and the first reference is about Glorious Qur'aan 19:34-35. In conclusion, these above brief explanation may help the readers about the meanings and message of the Ayaat (Verses) in question. It has nothing to do with any eywitness accounts. Again, Qur'aan give no status to Christianity (Period).Regards

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

no more colors.please, for the love of god. (i'd like to actually read your post, but it makes my eyes bleed)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 04:16 PM

---

אָרַח

But then there is a problem. If you are talking about eyewitness testimony of events, then the Bible is certainly flawed. Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. There are two different eyewitness reports of the Flood and they contradict each other. And on and on.There is no eye witness account of creation. There is no eye witness account of what lead to the alleged flood. No eye witness accounts of what happened in the Garden.How can you assign greater authority to the Bible than any other such document?It's fine to say "That is what you believe" but that is simply a statement of belief, no more, no less.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith, I'm not trying to convince you that my Great-Grandfather existed, so it's not the same problem.You however are trying to tell me that Moses existed & is an eyewitness to fantastic things, & provide no legitimate evidence whatsoever that he did. Specifically, you make the claim that there are eyewitnesses of Moses (the so-called internal corroboration), but present none that can actually be shown to be non-fictional themselves. Therefore, Moses as a once living person cannot be verified, & by definition cannot be an eyewitness. Ditto for the rest of the OT.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't