VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:16:41 02/23/02 Sat
Author: Rook Hawkins
Subject: Rook adds his comments
In reply to: Rook Hawkins 's message, "Wayne H. Aaland on 'Re: Reply to - Jesus quotes the Scriptures'" on 11:13:03 02/23/02 Sat

Paul writes: I firmly believe at this point you could read 'The Night Before Christmas' and see metaphoric links to Jesus. You also stated to me that your relative was a lawyer and it was common for witnesses to have conflicting testimony, I'm wondering what sort of judge or jury would somehow think conflicting stories are related and of use? If I have three eyewitnesses, one says he saw the defendant kill the victim, one says someone else did, and another says he didn't see anyone kill the victim but he was there at the time and saw the other two witnesses, does that somehow allow the jury to make a judgment?


Rook: I find it hard to believe that a relative of Wayne's was a Lawyer. Any Lawyer would know that if witnesses have conflicting testimony, then in order to prove his case, he must prove one of them wrong. And indeed, one of them must be wrong. Granted, many times in court, witnesses do have conflicting arguments. But Wayne's failure is that he asserts then that both must be right in some way. This is indeed the opposite of reality. Since if, as Paul says, three claim different stories, then two of them must be lying. Or they have mixed something up. If I were prosecuting this case, I would make clear the following issues concerning the three witnesses:

1: What is the reliability of each witness? Is their testimony accurate? Can I in any way prove that this person would have some disability to limit their perception of the scene?
2: Is there any way I can disprove their alibi? Perhaps I can pinpoint them in a different location at the time they claim they were there. Maybe they didn't even leave their beds that day?
3: If all else fails, then is there any way to use their information to my benefit? Maybe their testimony could actually help my case?

And chances are, if all three remain conflicted, the Judge could rule them as hearsay and discard them from the case. Erasing them completely. Or he might let them stand, only to have the jury come out hung. In all my years studying court cases, I don't recall one where the prosecution or the defense has even allowed such a thing to enter the doors of a courtroom. It's bad for both sides.

In the case of Jesus and his witnesses, surely if all of the Gospels can't agree on something as important on the resurrection, then clearly they can't agree on other issues of less importance. And let me remind you, they don't agree. Now have you questioned these problems? Have you treated this issue as if it were on trial? Why not?

Rook Hawkins

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.