Sentences with phrase «not eyewitnesses»

You are confident that the defense attorney does not share belief in your innocence, since they were not eyewitnesses in the case and therefore have no clue what really happened, and are predisposed to believe that most people lie to get out of trouble.

Many of us who are not eyewitnesses have trouble even assigning terms like «victim» or «abuser» when there are contradictory stories, evidence, and testimony and we ourselves haven't witnessed the behavior in question (or are very distant from it).

And couldn't the eyewitnesses have done more?

Anyone born after this date, is obviously not an eyewitness.

4:13] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.

You are assuming that even if the author of the Gospel of Matthew was not an eyewitness that the information which he tells was received from persons who were eyewitnesses.

It would be hard to understand why a disciple and an eyewitness would be so dependent on Mark, who was not an eyewitness.

He is not an eyewitness to the events he writes about, but he has carefully investigated these events, and records what he has learned.

Luke's statement only proves he was not an eyewitness and was just recording the myth.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the author was not an eyewitness but to say he was is simply a guess.

Luke very clearly states in the first few verses of chapter one that he is not an eyewitness.

Again, not proof that he was not an eyewitness but to say he was is no better than a guess.

Gospel of Luke: Believed to be written between 60 to 90 years after the death of Christ; NOT AN EYEWITNESS OF CHRIST.

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus» life either.

Author detectable from contents: A Greek - speaker, who knew Aramaic or Hebrew or both and was not an eyewitness of Jesus» ministry, drew on Mark and a collection of sayings of the Lord (Q) as well as on other available traditions oral or written.

Not exact matches

Within a matter of minutes, Twitter users had identified him in one of the eyewitness videos — clearly not involved in the shooting — even as the police message was being retweeted tens of thousands of times, and TV news channels were still calling him a suspect.

If, as several eyewitnesses have claimed, a flight attendant «insisted» that the dog's owner, Catalina Robledo, needed to store the pet in an overhead bin, why didn't the passenger object more fervently or get off the plane?

There's not a single credible eyewitness account and if there were we understand eyewitness testimony is not very reliable.

There is not one single credible eyewitness account.

I will trust the 4 gospels in the NT as they were written soon after Jesus time, by eyewitness and is the truth.

This guy is, in essence, asserting that at that time no one knew anything about places they didn't live, therefore if anything they said about Israel is accurate then they were there and eyewitnesses to everything and the gospels are correct and magic happened, which is completely moronic and without evidentiary support.

«By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels can not be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

Don't you think that an all powerful, all knowing, all good god would have left tons of indisputable eyewitness testimony from both Jewish and Roman sources?

So, they couldn't have been eyewitnesses.

Not to mention early Christians had first - hand eyewitnesses of Christ being risen from the dead among them.

Josephus could not have been an eyewitness.

The author summarizes the agreements among scholars about the New Testament texts and the problems they face in trying to recover the historical Jesus — the lack of eyewitnesses and the fact that the Gospels were not written individually and probably not by the authors to which they were traditionally ascribed.

It's not like a thousand eyewitness accounts of an event, where they'd vary in the details but generally agree on the most important aspects, it's more like a thousand people who were asked to right a short story about anything they wanted.

Yet place all these miracle stories in the pre-scientific Roman Empire circa 1st century CE attested to by copies of copies of copies of discrepant manuscripts (written not by eyewitnesses) and somehow they become valid?

Police said Brown had struggled with an officer, while eyewitnesses told CNN he had his hands up and did not to provoke the use of force.

The eyewitnesses therefore guarantee St. Paul's preaching, not the fact of the resurrection.

There is not one non-Christian, credible, eyewitness account of Jesus's supernatural powers, or his alleged rising from the grave.

e earliest, writings were from 60 - 90 AD (mostly Paul's stuff, who was not a witness), but others were from a later time period, and were not written by eyewitnesses.

What Mumia does not discuss here» what he has never discussed» is the treachery that occurred on that terrible night in 1982, when eyewitnesses say he emptied his gun into the body of Officer Daniel Faulkner.

The earliest voice we directly hear, that of Paul (for Paul antedates all of the Gospels), tells us little about Jesus, and Paul's testimony is not that of an eyewitness.

So, no, as a general rule the testimony on many eyewitnesses, even verifiable ones, isn't always reliable, is it?

kermit4jc Paul's claim of 500 eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the rest of the NT.

you seem apprehensive about it... and whether the authors were known or not... the eyewitnesses are still alive..

the «eyewitnesses» to Joe did not see the delivery of the plates... they only saw the plates AFTER deliverance... while the traveling compamions of Paul were right there with Him on the Road to Damascus... go read the Book of Acts

The average life - span in those days was around 45 years — the likelihood of any original eyewitnesses still being around to testify to the Gospel authors is extremely low, not to mention the fact that even the classical historian Josephus said that 20 years is long enough to render witness testimony useless.

2 Given this author's care and demonstrated reliability, as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this man can be trusted when it comes to matters in the life of Jesus for which we do not enjoy independent confirmation.

«Because some scholars have treated miracle claims in the Gospels and Acts as purely legendary on the premise that such events do not happen, I intended to challenge their instinctive dismissal of the possibility of such claims by referring to a few works that catalogued modern eyewitness claims of miracles.»

For example, Peter said, «We didn't follow cleverly devised tales when we told you about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His Majesty» (2 Pet.

Also, about your little book of fables, not a single eyewitness wrote a word in it.

And you're totally correct in that the entire book of Genesis can not be eyewitness - based.

That is why they lay such stress on this part of their story; and not they alone, but the «original eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel» who transmitted the memories on which they worked.

Eyewitness accounts and photography do not make very good evidence.

Why would eyewitnesses need to rely on accounts by a person who was not claimed to be an eyewitness and who lived well after the events they supposedly witnessed?

You do know that not one chapter in The Babble is an actual eyewitness account don't you?

Even the Catholics, hardly a sect known for being tight with historical accuracy, do not claim that Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses.