Sentences with phrase «of eyewitness testimonies»

Everything indicates that Paul himself interpreted the lightning - struck encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus as an appearance which links his experience to the chain of eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus and of the resurrection (Acts 22:14, 15; 26:15 - 20).

However, recent scholarship which focuses on literary details within the Gospels themselves has demonstrated that they are in fact the product of eyewitness testimony — which was best historiographical practice at the time.

The second half of the lecture goes on to make the case for the authentic historicity — the truth — of the Gospels as reports by or of eyewitness testimony to the ministry of Jesus.

Yet if grand juries and courts were to be deprived of all evidence subject to that reproach, a significant amount of eyewitness testimony would be eliminated.

Not the first person as would be expected of eyewitness testimony.

Juries are told to discount the value of eyewitness testimony and ignore how confident the witnesses may be about whom they think they saw.

«Misidentification: The Caprices of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Cases» An article published by the Center for Criminal Justice Advocacy.

Perry appealed his conviction, claiming that the federal and New Hampshire constitutions prevented the use of eyewitness testimony when police have manipulated the identification procedures making it more likely that the eyewitness would select a specific person as a suspect.

In order to cite adultery, there must be some evidence, but not to the extent of eyewitness testimony.

Here's a summary of eyewitness testimony from Mashable, with pie charts.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has released an enhanced jury instruction warning of the lack of reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Ongoing projects include maximizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony, anticipating risks and benefits in synthetic biology, and preparing policymakers for science - based decision - making.

Not exact matches

Some of that evidence includes, «the empty tomb, the early belief of the disciples in the resurrection of Jesus due to eyewitness testimony, the transformation of the disciples, the conversion of Paul, and the conversion of James» I understand that many have died in the name of faith and religoun throughout time and still do, but they have died wholeheartedly believing that their way was the truth.

We have proof in the form of credible eyewitness testimony of Jesus» resurrection and ascension.

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?

Besides, much eyewitness evidence is highly unreliable, as demonstrated by the hundreds of death row inmates who, in recent decades, they're convicted by eyewitness testimony and later exonerated by DNA analysis.

There is no presentation of evidence from both parties, there are no legally - appointed juries or judges, and very little eyewitness testimony is presented.

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).

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.

If one compares the supernatural claims of the gospels to those of Joseph Smith, the 11 witnesses claimed to be direct eyewitnesses, their testimonies were contemporaneously recorded, and there is an external record corroborating they were in the right place at the right time; the gospels were recorded second hand, well after the alleged events, and there is no extrinsic record corroborating their presence at the right place at the right time.

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.

Some of Joseph Smith's «eyewitnesses» even recanted their «testimonies» and still there are over 14 million Mormons today, after only about 150 years.

Primitive Christianity never perceived any fundamental difference between the eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus and the encounter with the resurrection Lord.

The eyewitness character of testimony can doubtless be extended and stretched rather far thanks to a corresponding extension of the notion of appearance.

It's possible that the DNA could be wrong, or that the reenactment models could be off, but in the absence of any actual eyewitness (and even that testimony is not as reliable as once assumed) testimony to an event it is the best we have to go on, right?

Bater pertinently comments, «If there was that much ambiguity about the resurrection of Jesus for the eyewitnesses, on whose testimony all the succeeding ages must depend, do not the efforts twenty centuries later to establish it as demonstrable and unambiguous take on a certain comical effect?»

The notion of the eyewitness is thus profoundly overthrown by the dual theme of Christ — a faithful witness — and of testimony — testimony to the light.

The meaning of testimony seems then inverted; the word no longer designates an action of speech, the oral report of an eyewitness about a fact to which he was witness.

The bible was AT BEST based on the oral transmission of alleged eyewitness testimony.

The second argument turned on the fact that the New Testament itself; and more especially Luke, appeals to the testimony of «eyewitnesses and ministers of the word» (Luke 1.2).

@ Bruce «A couple of things about belief and evidence for belief from the scriptures: (1) the gospel of John encourages us to believe based on the testimony of others who were «eyewitnesses» to key events»

You said:» the gospel of John encourages us to believe based on the testimony of others who were «eyewitnesses» to key events,»

«54 In this modern perspective we discover that what we have to interpret is the testimony not for the most part of eyewitnesses and followers of Jesus in the days of his flesh, but «the witness of the apostolic community.

I can find more living people who can give eyewitness testimony to voodoo magic actually working than all the witnesses of Jesus in the bible.

Yet, Protestant / evangelical Christians will believe as absolute fact, that a first century dead man walked out of his tomb after three days of decomposing, ate a broiled fish lunch with his friends, and then levitated into outer space based on the testimony of... one..., possible, eyewitness» testimony!

Dozens of Romans senators claimed that the first Roman king, Romulus, was snatched up into heaven right in front of their eyes... but no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.

Thirteen men living in the early nineteenth century signed legal affidavits, swearing under oath, that they personally had seen the Golden Tablets delivered to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni with their own two eyes, and three of these men signed affidavits that they had seen the angel Moroni himself with their own two eyes... but yet no Christian believes this eyewitness testimony.

Were his sources eyewitnesses themselves or were his sources associates of eyewitnesses giving him «eyewitness» testimony from their source or sources, which would make Luke's information, at best, second hand information.

P.S.: eyewitness testimony is one of the worst kinds of evidence.

We have four first century books describing the alleged facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but only one, (maybe), claims to be an eyewitness testimony.

In the absence of historical evidence to the contrary, our views are formed by the clear tradition of near contemporary accounts, preserved that our faith might be well founded on eyewitness testimonies within the Tradition of the Church.

Third, Barnhart ignores the wealth of evidence that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

Testimony after testimony of independent eyewitnesses, survivors and journalists attest to the premeditated, systematic targeting of Sikhs on the streets and in theTestimony after testimony of independent eyewitnesses, survivors and journalists attest to the premeditated, systematic targeting of Sikhs on the streets and in thetestimony of independent eyewitnesses, survivors and journalists attest to the premeditated, systematic targeting of Sikhs on the streets and in their homes.

«Today's key eyewitness testimony that implicates Governor Cuomo in the cover - up of Bridgegate is another example of his political thuggery at the expense of New Yorkers,» New York State Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox said in an emailed statement.

We are promised «eyewitness testimony, gritty reconstruction and compelling storytelling, taking you on a rollercoater of suspense and jeopardy, right to the heart of each courageous story.»

So perhaps a hypothetical «ear - witness» testimony wouldn't be perfect, but the witness would have a decent chance of being correct — just like with eyewitness testimony.

When Lara Frumkin, then at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, set up mock trials using videotaped eyewitness testimony, the jury perceived the same person to be less credible if they spoke with a foreign accent (Psychology, Crime & Law, vol 13, p 317).

In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.

For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate — and sometimes no more so — than those who are less confident.