"Colloborating" Witnesses
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 09 Jun 1998 22:15:08 -0700 (00897473708, 2.2.32.19980610051508.0067cc28@midwest.net)
At 04:19 PM 6/9/98 -0500, Terry wrote:
>
>
>>TILL
>>That depends on the claims. If you mean extraordinary claims, like those
>>that Josephus made in *Wars of the Jews,* 6:5.3, the answer is no. What
>>about you? Do you accept as historical fact that a heifer gave birth to a
>>lamb, that the altar in the temple glowed with such brilliance one time at
>>the 9th hour of the night that it gave the appearance of being daylight,
>>that a gate in the temple that required 20 men to shut it opened of its own
>>accord while it had "bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor," that an
>>army of soldiers and chariots were seen running around in the clouds,
>>surrounding the city? If not, why not? All of these claims are recorded
>in
>>the place cited above.
>
>
>TERRY
>I seldom accept anything without examining it first, and that includes
>people's many interpretations of the Bible. However I will answer the
>question you have been presenting to Matt Bell and Ron about collaborating
>Witnesses first, I have not been following that thread but decided to
>comment on it. Answering that question may also answer this one.
>
TILL
Gee, do you really think that the Bible may have been written by
"collaborating" witnesses? That would really undermine its credibility,
wouldn't it?
>TILL
>Okay, but this will require you to accept the historical accuracy of
>extraordinary events that Tacitus and Suetonius claimed. Are you going to
>be consistent and do that? If so, are you going to say that you have no
>choice except to believe that the Emperor Vespasian healed a blind man by
>putting saliva on his eyes and healed a man with a crippled arm by just
>touching him? Are you going to accept as historical fact their claim that
>these events were seen by many witnesses? Are you going to accept as
>historical fact that these men were sent to Vespasian by the god Serapis?
>If so, that would require you to acknowledge the existence of Serapis,
>wouldn't it?
>
>TERRY
>First of all, if you don't want to read this post because of my poor writing
>skills you better stop right now.
>
TILL
It's too late. See my comment above about "collaborating" witnesses.
TERRY
>Second you are a master at making assumptions that lead to conclusions you
>want. It is entirely possible that Tacitus and Suetonius could have stated
>the truth in some occasions and not so in others just as you may think the
>same about the Bible writers. A person could be skeptical of the claim that
>Tacitus and Suetonius made respecting the Emperor Vespasian healing a blind
>man for a good reason. So the next question is what is the reason one could
>be skeptical of some claims and not of others. Because Tacitus and
>Suetonius made claims that substantiate what the Bible writers also said.
>These claims being comments made about John the Baptist and the existence of
>James and Jesus.
TILL
Could you tell us where Tacitus and Suetonius said anything about John the
Baptist and James? Also, please tell us where Suetonius said anything about
Jesus.
TERRY
>The 9 Bible writers in the NT, for the most part, also stated and verified
these >same claims. In other words they verified each others claims on these
particular >points.
TILL
In other words, you are saying that if Tacitus and Suetonius agreed with
what NT writers said, that's good enough for you. The only problem is that
you are claiming that Tacitus and Suetonius referred to people that they
really never mentioned.
TERRY
> Therefore I can accept these claims that Tacitus and Suetonius made that
are >verified by other non interested Witnesses including to some extent
Josephus.
TILL
But the problem is that you obviously think that Tacitus and Suetonius said
things that they really didn't say. Please quote for us what either of them
said about John the Baptist and James?
TERRY
>However as for the claims that the "Emperor Vespasian healed a blind man by
>putting saliva on his eyes and healed another man by touching him need to
be >substantiated by several other "non interested Witnesses.
TILL
This needs to be substantiated by "several other non [sic] interested
witnesses"? Then please tell us why you are willing to accept the claim
that Jesus healed a blind man by spitting on the ground, making clay, and
putting it on the man's eyes" (John 9:1-8)? What "several" disinterested
witnesses have substantiated this claim? The fact is that this miracle
claim wasn't even substantiated by biased witnesses, because John was the
only NT writer who mentioned it. You're a bit inconsistent, aren't you?
TERRY
>Shows us the verification in the Bible of where Emperor Vespasian healed a
blind >man and yes I can believe it, show the verifications from a number
of other non >interested sources and perhaps there might be some credence
to it then.
TILL
Well, why don't you show us verification "from a number of other non [sic]
interested sources" that Jesus healed the blind man as claimed in John 9?
You're showing an obvious bias here, but we knew that you had the bias
before this matter was brought up for discussion. Your position is
obviously that you will accept any extraordinary claim in the Bible whether
there is disinterested, unbiased corroboration or not, but if an
extraordinary claim is in a nonbiblical document, you demand corroboration
by "several" disinterested parties. Thank you for confirming what we
already knew. You have a presupposed bias to accept anything that the Bible
says.
TERRY
>Furthermore just by mentioning the names of Jesus, James and John the
Baptist >these men are giving collaborating evidence that they believe they
did exist, >especially Tactius who probably was about as much a friend of
Christianity as >your are.
TILL
So when are you going to cite the places where Tacitus and Suetonius
mentioned John the Baptist and James?
>
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net