Do we actually know that we will die?

[bhsmte]

Yes this is understandable. Does the veracity of this diet and exercise regime promoted increase if there are many books which contain the same regime, and if so why ? Also if the diet regime produces the claimed results does it increase the veracity of the books, and if so why ?

If scientific evidence supports what the 2000 year old diet book claims, yes, the book would have credibility.

Sometimes there is no forensic evidence ( no body, no weapon, no dna etc ) and rulings must be made by other means. I agree it becomes more difficult in these cases and jurers are harder to convince, but the case still proceeds.

Yes, cases do go forward and this is where, that cross examination of just eye witness testimony is so crucial.

This isn't entirely correct because diaries etc of the deceased are also used as evidence , in court. When addressingt the NT specifically we can corroborate the eye witness accounts by comparing the data between the separate recordings. We can also compare some extra Bible data for corroboration and the first such suspect would be Josephus, in my memory.

Sorry, this doesn't fly. Diaries are used in court cases, when it can be proven, the diary was indeed written by the deceased and there are various ways of doing so. Furthermore, portions of the gospels matching up is meaningless, because the first gospel could have been used, as a source for the subsequent gospels and especially so, since considerable time passed between the writing of each gospel, where using the first as a source, is quite likely. In a court of law, not knowing who the authors of the gospels are, the time that passed since they were written and the time between the gospels, would allow even a novice attorney, to seriously question their credibility.

This process is used in court when interrogating a diary, for instance.

See above.

Yes they could be rejected as hearsay, depending on the jury, but that doesn't necessarily imply that it is.

I would look up the definition of hearsay.

This is incorrect because some trials are conducted long after all eye witnesses are dead. Are you familiar with the Nuremburg trials ?

They had witnesses from the concentration camps that testified at those trials and boatloads of evidence, including paper trails, regarding who was in charge.

This is incorrect. Do you accept that the diary of the deceased ( or any other communications such as emails, telephone conversations this is big in counterterrism atm, and even witness accounts of what was said by the deceased) can be used as evidence in court ?

Already addressed. If emails dairies and the like, can be proven to come from the source the attorney is claiming, then it can be used as evidence. The key here, proving what the source was!!!!

 

[agua]

If scientific evidence supports what the 2000 year old diet book claims, yes, the book would have credibility.

Can you tell me how you will scientifically evaluate if Plato wrote Apology, and if what he wrote was accurate, or not ?

"The Apology (Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους; Apologia Socratis[1]) is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defended himself in 399 BC[2] against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel"

Wiki

Yes, cases do go forward and this is where, that cross examination of just eye witness testimony is so crucial.

How do you suggest a case can proceed if there are no living witnesses ?

Sorry, this doesn't fly. Diaries are used in court cases, when it can be proven, the diary was indeed written by the deceased and there are various ways of doing so. Furthermore, portions of the gospels matching up is meaningless, because the first gospel could have been used, as a source for the subsequent gospels and especially so, since considerable time passed between the writing of each gospel, where using the first as a source, is quite likely. In a court of law, not knowing who the authors of the gospels are, the time that passed since they were written and the time between the gospels, would allow even a novice attorney, to seriously question their credibility.

How do you prove any ancient document, or diary, was written by the claimed author? The argument suggesting the Gospels were "copied" from eachother doesn't seem reasonable because they vary, quite a lot. It's a usual witness test to see if there has been collusion by interrogating if the accounts are too identical.

I don't accept that the time lapsed since penning in any way reduces the veracity of a document. This seems a strange concept to me and if held to be the standard then we might need to reject most all ancient documents, under the same burden.

I would look up the definition of hearsay.

Ok yes I see I misunderstood hearsay. I don't see how it can apply to what we're discussing though; here you tell me.

"Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence."

The legal dictionary

I warn you we may spend many pages discussing the boundaries of hearsay, and its application; please don't make me

They had witnesses from the concentration camps that testified at those trials and boatloads of evidence, including paper trails, regarding who was in charge.

There weren't eye witness for every conviction, at all, but yes there was paper evidence.

Already addressed. If emails dairies and the like, can be proven to come from the source the attorney is claiming, then it can be used as evidence. The key here, proving what the source was!!!!

How do you prove the source of any ancient document ? I don't see how filling your burden of proof is an acceptable method in such examinations, because simply, we only have copies of any of them ( Including Plato's 7 works ), and corroboration is mere.

 

[bhsmte]

Can you tell me how you will scientifically evaluate if Plato wrote Apology, and if what he wrote was accurate, or not ?

"The Apology (Greek: Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους; Apologia Socratis[1]) is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defended himself in 399 BC[2] against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel"

Wiki



How do you suggest a case can proceed if there are no living witnesses ?



How do you prove any ancient document, or diary, was written by the claimed author? The argument suggesting the Gospels were "copied" from eachother doesn't seem reasonable because they vary, quite a lot. It's a usual witness test to see if there has been collusion by interrogating if the accounts are too identical.

I don't accept that the time lapsed since penning in any way reduces the veracity of a document. This seems a strange concept to me and if held to be the standard then we might need to reject most all ancient documents, under the same burden.



Ok yes I see I misunderstood hearsay. I don't see how it can apply to what we're discussing though; here you tell me.

"Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence."

The legal dictionary

I warn you we may spend many pages discussing the boundaries of hearsay, and its application; please don't make me



There weren't eye witness for every conviction, at all, but yes there was paper evidence.



How do you prove the source of any ancient document ? I don't see how filling your burden of proof is an acceptable method in such examinations, because simply, we only have copies of any of them ( Including Plato's 7 works ), and corroboration is mere.

Lets make this simple, as you claim to know how evidence is used and accepted into a court of law.

Since you are using the NT as evidence of events occurring, pretend you are an attorney in a court of law and you want to admit the NT into evidence, as proving certain points in your case. How would you go about arguing, the NT should be accepted in the court, as credible evidence?

 

[agua]

Lets make this simple, as you claim to know how evidence is used and accepted into a court of law.

Since you are using the NT as evidence of events occurring, pretend you are an attorney in a court of law and you want to admit the NT into evidence, as proving certain points in your case. How would you go about arguing, the NT should be accepted in the court, as credible evidence?

To be fair Bsmte I insist that you address my questions concerning how you will validate any ancient writings, matbe using the example of Plato's Apology. We're having a discussion here not an interrogation, do you think ?

Firstly I would present the number of separate writings/books ( 27 of them ) and suggest that these books have 8 different authors. I will suggest that the writings corroborate the existance of Jesus Christ which is coherent with extra NT sources. ( this is a beginning point )