Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by DBT


Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc,
which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.

We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.


\...--every court would examine eye-witness accounts and testimonies to establish evidence--.

the same video I posted earlier which has 50,000 + views or eye witnesses? to a bird being 'resurrected'
would any jury or judge buy it? ...Do you consider it a hoax?.....How much evidence do you need to 'believe' what you see..?

nOw if you don't believe such video evidence is that of a resurrection , would you believe peoples written or verbal testimonies of same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxQc3HbHJ88


Originally Posted by Thunderstick
testimonies to establish evidence--which is what the dictionary says.


Don't forget the range and quality of testimony that required to convince a court

a bunch of largely illiterate superstitious long dead no name peasants questionable reputation testimony without affidavit or deposition
are not the same as A range of living persons and/or expert testimonies and forensic testimony present in court under oath and subject
to cross examination.

-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.