In **Deuteronomy 19:15**, Scripture says: >*“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”* (NIV) This principle is echoed in the New Testament as well (e.g., **2 Corinthians 13:1**, **Matthew 18:16**), and it forms a biblical basis for establishing truth through multiple witnesses. Recently, a group of around fifty schoolgirls claimed to have witnessed what they described as a literal white horse moving in the sky. The account spread quickly, with many asserting that it was a divine or supernatural sign. While some observers dismiss such claims as imagination or psychological suggestion, others argue that the number of consistent witnesses makes the event harder to ignore. This raises the theological question: >**According to Christian teaching, should the testimony of multiple human witnesses—especially when it involves a supposed divine encounter—be taken as credible?** Or are there other tests (e.g., alignment with Scripture, discernment by spiritual authorities, the fruit of the encounter) that must also be considered?

I was listening to a preacher and he made this claim that a woman was the first witness to the risen Christ because traditionally our societies hold the testimony of women to be more credible than that of men. I thought Mary became the first witness because of co-incidence but he suggests otherwise, is he correct that Mary Magdalene being the first witness to the risen Christ was part of God's plan because the testimony of women is more credible?

Simple question: non-LDS Christians believe the testimonies of the apostles, yet they reject the testimonies of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) witnesses to the golden plates. Why? *In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established* (2 Cor 13:1) -- why is this reason not enough? _____ EDIT: Why should they? From a Latter-day Saint perspective, because this is one of the positive arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- which should be of the utmost importance if it happens to be the case. See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) and [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83904/50422) for example presentations of this argument. _____ Related: [Is there anything close to a consensus on how to assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for supernatural beliefs?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84551/50422) _____ For a defense of the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses (the opposite view), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422

I'd like to know what the role is of a witness during wedding ceremony besides signing the wedding paperwork? Is there a spiritual duty of some kind? A godparent or a confirmation sponsor has a role to be a good example of faith for the child they sponsor during the sacrament. What about the brides or grooms witnesses? Are they obliged to do something when the couple are bringing doubts into marriage? I was wondering if the witnesses should/could prevent remarriage of Christians who accept divorce? Should the witness prevent "former" catholic from remarrying by approaching their new ceremony and object to the first marriage? Are these witnesses also approached during the catholic annulment? I'm looking for the **Catholic perspective** for now, even though I understand that this role can reach beyond this denomination.

I'm specifically talking about: - [3 witnesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) : Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. - [8 witnesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) : Hyrum Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Samuel H. Smith, Jacob Whitmer, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Christian Whitmer, and Peter Whitmer Jr. Eleven witnesses in total. Just like the twelve Apostles (minus Judas Iscariot, to make the numbers match). Why should we believe them? To what extent are they credible? What are the strongest arguments for their credibility? ________________________________________________________________ To encourage critical thinking and a healthy dose of [clash of arguments](https://debate-nb.ca/for-judges/during-the-debate/what-is-a-clash/) , I'd be very interested in answers that devote some space to engage common objections from critics. For example, in a related question addressed to non-LDS https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/50422 , some of the main reasons for skepticism put forward were (in my own wording): - The belief that Joseph Smith introduced a new version of Jesus which is irreconcilable with the orthodox understanding of Jesus from traditional Christianity. The Jesus of Joseph Smith is seen as foreign to the Bible. - The presumed evidence of plagiarism from the King James Bible found in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, which wouldn't make much sense if the Book of Mormon predates the KJB. - Skepticism surrounding the mysterious "Reformed Egyptian". - The belief that suspicious edits were made to the Book of Mormon after the fact. - The fact that several witnesses apostatized. - The belief that the witnesses changed the versions of their testimonies. - Controversial theological claims considered outrageous by some traditional Christians, e.g.: > I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse). ([source](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/84583/50422])) - The [Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding%E2%80%93Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship) - Alleged suspicious grammar errors: > A miraculous translation should not produce bad grammar; neither should it produce grammar with a whiplash effect by changing through three hundred years of grammar in the same sentence. ([source](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/84601/50422)) - And any other common objection (feel free to add). I look forward to seeing some interesting rebuttals. __________ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83901/50422

The resurrection of Jesus is the most famous and obvious one, with the apostles being the eyewitnesses. Latter-day Saints would probably put forth the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) witnesses to the miraculous golden plates. Are there any other notable examples in the history of the Church? **Note**: Why two or more witnesses? Because *in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established* (2 Cor 13:1).

1. As, the question asks, can anyone aggregate for me and put a small list of who all witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in the decreasing order of the person's importance (popularity). e.g. First the disciples and then other notable people who witnessed the event in that order. A list of roughly 25 or less number of people would suffice. 2. Also a related question, who exactly witnessed Jesus Christ saying these words at the time of his death, "Father forgive them?". (Please support the answer to this line with **authentic** references)

I've heard, in several informal situations, claims to the effect that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. That many saw him and even interacted with him over the span of many days after his crucifixion. However, I'm not aware of the historical basis for such claims -- if there is, I have not yet had the opportunity to have the evidence presented to me when the claim was made and I asked for the basis. Obviously, I'm fully aware of the writing of the New Testament in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen in resurrected form. For example, we have the eyewitness accounts of the authors of the gospels. We also have the book of Acts, which mentions Jesus' ascension to Heaven in chapter 1. And we also have the testimony of the apostle Paul, who had an extraordinary conversion experience in which he encountered the living Christ on his way to Damascus. So people who claimed to be eyewitnesses definitely existed, but the aforementioned cases only amount to six, not hundreds. **Question**: What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus? Are there independent eyewitness accounts, other than the six that I already mentioned, that have been preserved to this day, in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen alive, in resurrected form, after his crucifixion? Alternatively, have any writings been preserved containing **second hand** accounts? One example is [1 Cor. 15:3-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A3-8&version=NLT) which claims that there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Are there other examples, e.g., the writings of an early church father providing a similar second hand testimony?

Is there any reference that Luke was at the crucifixion of Christ? Or if he had met Jesus face to face? Or was his account of Jesus' life written by research or listening to reliable sources such as Paul?

Historians/writers were able to get written accounts of Jesus's life and acts from the eyewitness accounts of people who had seen Him during His lifetime. It occurred to me that I have not seen or heard claims from people in this lifetime (or a few previous) stating that their ancestors met or saw Him, whether based on story passed down or diary/journal documentation. I know there's got to be an obvious reason, but I'm stumped on why not?

I want to know what guidance the Bible has for Christians who are witness to sin, and adultery specifically.

> And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matt 24:14, KJV) What does "witness" refer to in this verse? Is it a native believer, or any believer, or something else?