Sentences with phrase &laquo;not eye witnesses&raquo;

Still, many defenders contest that even though the polygraph isn't 100 % accurate, neither is DNA testing or eye - witness testimonies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/

WASHINGTON — House Democrats, frustrated by what they see as GOP inaction and with an eye on midterm elections, on Tuesday held the first of what they hope to be several interviews with witnesses who have not been interrogated in the Republican - led Russia investigations.

https://www.cnbc.com/

'' science shuts down, they don't give God the benefit of the doubt when considering eye witness accounts.»

You however don't see your own hypocrisy in greater depth when you say that the bible was deliberately written to be sacred and holy, without ANY sourcing and you take the word of people who lived a really long time ago who also can not provide you with anything more than «eye - witness accounts» which have undoubtedly been changed, tweaked or even just falsly made up in order to cement their point.

Not only are there a lot of eye witness accounts of Zeus coming down from Olympus and talking to people, I personally have spoken with Zeus himself.

Obviously jesus didn't have the same historical recording devices as I do, however the only thing that we have to go off of that jesus existed was a book of eye - witness accounts designed by a council that specifically was formed to prove the validity of this specific individual.

[130] While not personally an eye - witness of Jesus» ministry, Paul states that he was acquainted with people who had known Jesus: the apostle Peter (also known as Cephas), the apostle John, and James, the brother of Jesus.

This does not necessarily indicate an earlier source, if anything it lessens the credibility that these other 2 were «eye - witness» accounts of any kind.

'' «If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one - tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.

You have eye witness accounts in the bible, you have present day people telling you he's there, knowing he's there, not belief, knowing, you have vast supernatural events like the big bang that happened once and never again, you have life starting up, species forming, male and female that have to be there for offspring, and lo and behold... you deny all of them because God being there, isn't what you wanted.

It does not require people to be experts at such, but it does show that not everyone had to be an expert, or an eye witness to have faith that it's true.

You represent the TYPICAL christian... can not comprehend what was originally said and have serious serious trouble connecting the dots and serious trouble discerning between what is evidenced and what is been rewritten a hundred times copied in differnt languages... originally written in greek... which wasn't the language of jesus but somehow the scribes met every eye witness and wrote all of it down... actually there are NO eye witness accounts in the bible so how is it that people get conned into believing this?

How do you know that those Egyptian myths weren't written by eye witness to become the world of Horus?

I can verify that someone claimed something but an eye - witness account is not verifiable or empirical evidence.

But though a contemporary learner readily becomes an historical eye - witness, the difficulty is that the knowledge of some historical circumstance, or indeed a knowledge of all the circumstances with the reliability of an eye - witness, does not make such an eye - witness a disciple; which is apparent from the fact that this knowledge has merely historical significance for him.

Heck I'm not within 20 generations of an eye witness.

I know you are thinking that what's happening around us nowadays doesn't need brains to figure out the horrific scenes we see and witness with our own eyes.

I would call that sketchy hearsay at best... not «eye witness» evidence.

So while there are differences in the Four Gospels, they are not contradictions or errors, but are the normal differences one would expect when comparing different eye - witness accounts of the same event form different perspectives.

Of course, if we had only one Gospel account, people would claim that since there were no additional eye - witness records, the one account was not reliable.

Topher, don't forget about all of the «eye witnesses» that have been abducted by aliens and had their butts probed.

But our faith is based on the report of eye witnesses that were cross examined in their time and not found to be fraudulent.

If you don't believe in eye witnesses, feel free to not believe in numerous events throughout history.

If you look at the resurrection there are only close associates as supposed «eye witnesses,» unless you count the highly supicious 500 people that Paul, at least I think it was Paul, talks about several years, if not decades later.

Many people question the authenticity of the authorship of the Gospels and can not understand how they claim to be eye witness accounts of events that were not written until years after the events actually happened.

C. Incorrect, the gospels were written by third party authors, not eye - witnesses.

========== @Apple Bush «Incorrect, the gospels were written by third party authors, not eye - witnesses.»

Is it just that you don't believe in 2000 year old eye witness testimony?

8... «do not even claim to have been witnesses» 1 John 1:1 «That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.»

and EXCUSE me the eye witness accounts were not written by the eye witnesess.

There are millions of eye witness accounts of ghosts through the years, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of photographs through the years.

This is combined with an alarming tendency to make sweeping statements such as; «New Testament scholars sometimes say that the Gospel accounts of the appearances of the risen Christ are false and his followers did not intentionally claim to be eye - witnesses to his resurrection», without references to back it up.

http://www.faith.org.uk/

Of course, John was not there to see it personally, but he had sent his two eyes, his two disciples, to witness it for him, and report back to him what they had seen.

Yet, as we have already pointed out, there is good evidence for concluding that they are not only not narrated to us directly by eye - witnesses, but that, in addition, they are not even independent of each other.

In the first place, as we have seen, the four evangelists were not themselves eye - witnesses, but writers depending upon the traditions received from others.

You might as well admit that you don't support the teachings of Jesus Christ as chronicled by four of his apostle - eye witness biographers.

Here we are on much firmer ground than in the case of the Gospel narratives, for not only is it the earliest written testimony to the resurrection (written about twenty to twenty - five years after the death of Jesus), but it is first - hand testimony, and most probably the «only written testimony to come from one who could claim to be himself an «eye - witness» of the resurrection».18 Admittedly Paul, on his own admission, was in a very unusual category.

The Indian god at least has some eye witnesses... there are NONE from the bible... ZERO... not one eye witness account.

Your «testimony of eye witnesses» was not «scrutinized by skeptics of their day», though your cult members write it that way in an attempt at credibility.

So, though I have been planning to study this passage (You will know them by their works), I believe it is speaking to whether or not someone who claims to be a prophet really is a prophet; if their prophesies come to fruition 100 % of the time, pretty certain they are a prophet in the eyes of witnesses.

The Gospel writers were not presenting eye - witness accounts, but simply collecting the stories already circulating about Jesus in the expanding oral tradition.

Be Honest: One more thing: if the gospels are the true eye witness accounts of those men, then the buybull is not the word of god.

I'm not opposed to Religion or Science pandering their theories, but until we find an eye witness account, that can be established and recognized with solid «PROOF» that the earth is»...» years old, don't call it a fact....

The first letters of the NT church are within ten years of Christ death while plenty of eye witnesses (many new converts) were rapidly spreading it out from Jerusalem.

Israel, Maritain held, intending by this name not the present state of Israel but the Jewish people as a whole, is «a witness to the Scriptures,» holding the Bible before the eyes of the world.

https://www.firstthings.com/

Some profess to have witnessed other supernatural events and miracles, such as the visage of Mary appearing in the sun, or the sacred heart pulsating in the sun — and that their lengthy staring at the sun does not damage their eyes.

Without significant dissent scholars have long regarded it not only as the oldest extant poem of any considerable length in the Old Testament, but also as the work of, if not an eye - witness, then one who was nevertheless close to the event and intimately informed about it.

Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved.Response # 2: Despite the UFMCC's contention that the word for abomination (toevah) is usually associated with idolatry, it in fact appears in Proverbs 6:16 - 19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony: There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable [an abomination or toevah] to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.Idolatry plays no part in these scriptures; clearly, then, toevah is not limited to idolatrous practices.Response # 3: If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry.