(February 27, 2015 at 12:12 pm)YGninja Wrote: Imagine you are a policeman attending the aftermath of a supposed armed robbery of a shop. If all of the cashiers claimed the masked man entered the building at precisely 20:47, would you be more or less suspicious about their story than if they had given slightly varying times? "10 to 9", "about quarter to 9", "just before closing time at 9"...??
The differences are natural and demonstrate that there wasn't a conspiracy to invent the entire story.
You believers really should stop with the whole eyewitness testimony thing. Time and time again, we've demonstrated the fallibility of human memory and recollection of events. Bottom line? It's poor. Very, very poor. Studies have been done. Papers written. Case closed.
In court, one piece of circumstantial evidence will blow away 50 eyewitnesses. Case in point - all of the convictions overturned with DNA evidence. If the DNA doesn't match, it makes no difference what a fallible, emotional human "testifies" to. "But I SWEARS he done did it! I SWEARS!!" Please.
So, do yourselves a favor and stop with thinking your so-called eye-witless testimony helps your case in any respect. It does not. Not to mention, the eyewitless accounts are relayed by a fucking 3rd party such as Paul. There are no eyewitness accounts of the tales of Jesus and his Merry band. None. Paul never met him in the flesh. Everything else was written post-hoc, decades later - at best.
You really think this is compelling? Maybe if half your brain was knocked out and stomped upon the ground by a herd of escaping llamas and then boiled and served back to you as a breakfast cereal. Then, just mebbe.
