|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the new new testament??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Your original intimation was that Christ could both be himself and not be himself at the sametime. I'm sorry but that is simply another example of you lying. I never said or intimated that. I said that Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. Christianity did not even exist at anytime while Jesus was alive and in fact for hundreds of years after he died.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The oldest surviving manuscripts of Josephus are from the 11th century. Anything older than that is gone or lost. Im sure you are aware that there are other ways of establishing the reliability of the authenticity of Josephus, even aside from his manuscripts, correct? With the New Testament we use both the early christians and even enemies of Christians, Gnostics and other sources that duplicate what the manuscripts have already in them. As with Eusebius or anyone else commenting on Josephus, those sources tend to be much older than the manuscrpts themself.
You've made reference several times to the idea that, if there was controversy over a work, we would have access to all the books arguing this controversy, but we know for a certain fact that this is not the case. Texts generally do not survive. Still yet there should be some controversey over Eusebius' alledged mishandling and additions of Josephus' text Eusebius wasnt exacally a minor character, surely some of his ememies could have used this against him. Surely a later writer (enemy), not far removed from Eusebius could have an indication of his alledged interpolations There seems to be no controversy in that time period concerning Josephus' text
Consider Celsus. Celsus was an anti-Christian who wrote a work in the days of the early Church fathers explaining why Christianity was absurd in its claims and dangerous to the stability of Rome. Yet we know there were many claims made against Christianity besides Celsus that survied, correct. So your earlier point does not follow that text do not survive, whether by Christians or not The reason no text survived concerning Eusebius' alledged mishandling of Josephus, either by Eusebius or other Christians is because there were no such accusations to begin with. One would think there would be something Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Christianity did not even exist at anytime while Jesus was alive and in fact for hundreds of years after he died. Since he was the Messiah, it follows it existed both during his stay on earth and afterwards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Of course you see your double talk and standard here correct? When we say you can rely on the NT writers, you say we need cooroborating evidence. When we offer you Josephus, Pliny the younger and other writers that confirm some of the bigger events of jesus life, you say well we need corroborating evidence of the corroborating evidence your purpose is not to find truth when it omes to Christianity, its to find fault at all cost, so as to alleviate any responsibility
Right.This fellow is a fool who has no respect for the truth and believes that nothing can stand up against lies when one intends to keep stringing things out. These kind of people will just never change their erroneous positions because they advocates of the bashing of the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, what you post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and is just silly. Even if Jesus was the Messiah that says nothing about whether or not Christianity existed at the time or whether Jesus was a Christian instead of a Jew.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes, that's how scientific research and historical research works. All evidence needs corroborating evidence. Neither Josephus nor Pliny nor anybody else forms an absolute basis of unassailable truth from which we can start. When we say you can rely on the NT writers, you say we need cooroborating evidence. When we offer you Josephus, Pliny the younger and other writers that confirm some of the bigger events of jesus life, you say well we need corroborating evidence of the corroborating evidence And no, that doesn't mean it's "turtles all the way down". You can think of knowledge as a geodesic sphere with every datum attached to other data. If your datum is only attached on one end, even if it is to Josephus or Pliny, it isn't very secure. And when you find that Josephus himself is only attached at one end....
Dawn Bertot writes:
Don't you read your own posts?
... your comment here is probably the most moronic Ive ever seen. Dawn Bertot writes:
Sure we are. Lying is one possibility. Making up fiction to make an honest point is another. Simply being mistaken is another. And yes, being truthful and reliable is another possibility. We are not talking about whether people are lying or not. The point is that we can't just assume one of those possibilities like you are doing.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Exactly. A liar would have better knowledge - but the question here is whether or not he would tell you the truth. All we have here is what he told us, not what he actually knew. So it follows logically that even a liar directly involved in an incident would have BETTER knowledge of the actual events, than some dufus two thousand years latter Of course, the same principle applies to the other possibilities. Somebody who was mistaken will tell you what he thought he saw, not what actually happened. Somebody who was writing fiction might honestly believe that you would understand it as fiction.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I have no doubt that a lot of the cheers I get are for style rather than substance.
Nice try though you should get points for imagination Dawn Bertot writes:
Can you provide a valid reason from Treasure Island why I should not believe Long John Silver?
can you provide a valid reson from the book of Acts why I should not believe him
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
From a Jewish perspective, Jesus did not qualify to be a messiah, much less "The Messiah. He did not perform the needed tasks for being "THe Messiah", and he did not qualify to be any 'anointed one'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It appears you can not understand the comparison.
SOmeone can act presidential.. but not be president. Someone can act 'christ like', but not be a christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
From a Jewish perspective, Jesus did not qualify to be a messiah, much less "The Messiah. He did not perform the needed tasks for being "THe Messiah", and he did not qualify to be any 'anointed one'. Odd then that it was precisely from a Jewish perspective that He was recognized to be the Messiah, by, you know, all those first generation Christians who happened to be Jewish, even including some leaders of the Pharisees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, that is what the Gospels claim.
Seems to me , most of the so called Christans were Gentile converts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
From a Jewish perspective, Jesus did not qualify to be a messiah, much less "The Messiah. He did not perform the needed tasks for being "THe Messiah", and he did not qualify to be any 'anointed one'. Interesting approach. First you claim we cant establish what the actual truth is from the Gospels. Then you tell us confidently and with great assurance that the jewish people didnt believe this or that about Jesus. Where did you get this assured knowledge about what the jews believed.. If not from the Gospels then it must be from one of the outside sources about what happened to Jesus. But I thought we could not trust them either Sometimes people dont actually think through to a logical conclusion, statements made of an absolute or very confident nature. They then then become trapped in an argument from which they cannot extricate themselves Its like Ringo's use of someone lying. Clearly he dindnt think through the idea that even when someone is lying they are closer to the truth than someone distantly removed Your using the cherry picking process Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes, that's how scientific research and historical research works. All evidence needs corroborating evidence. Neither Josephus nor Pliny nor anybody else forms an absolute basis of unassailable truth from which we can start. And no, that doesn't mean it's "turtles all the way down". You can think of knowledge as a geodesic sphere with every datum attached to other data. If your datum is only attached on one end, even if it is to Josephus or Pliny, it isn't very secure. And when you find that Josephus himself is only attached at one end.... If we followed this principle past a reasonable doubt then it would be impossible to confidently teach any point of history as truth in the classroom anywhere. How many ends would need to be attached before someone could be acceptable as believable and demonstratable as historically accurate? 10 12 15, what? Your principle only has application where you want it to apply. Its a type of intellectual evasion and dishonesty. We know about and have enough "ends" as you call it to establish the validity and authenticity, of the NT documents as reliable as given
Sure we are. Lying is one possibility. Making up fiction to make an honest point is another. Simply being mistaken is another. And yes, being truthful and reliable is another possibility. Even if we were I have already dismissed this as plausible alternative as to who would better know the truth, us or them
The point is that we can't just assume one of those possibilities like you are doing. Im not assuming anything because i didnt introduce that as an alternative. It has nothing to do with time and distance. What people knew or did not know is a part of history. Not my perception of it Lying always has to be a part of the truth, otherwise its just ignorance, stupidity and complete unawareness
Exactly. A liar would have better knowledge - but the question here is whether or not he would tell you the truth. All we have here is what he told us, not what he actually knew. So when you drop you kids off at the daycare, and they tell you they are very safe hands. Do you turn right around, change your mind and say well, they could be telling the truth, but they might be lying. Since they might be lying and you have no way of knowing otherwise, shouldnt you just go ahead and take them home. Since we can establish beyond any reasonable doubt the validity and accuracy of the NT documents, why dont we cut throgh all this crap and you just tell us what really bothers you about them and why you dont believe them
Can you provide a valid reason from Treasure Island why I should not believe Long John Silver? You cant be serious. First, because the author does not claim it as a true story. Secondly, everyone knows it to be a fictional story
Where is Treasure Island? That question has been asked ever since Robert Louis Stevenson published his Treasure Island book in 1883. The answer to that question has now been discovered by Outer Banks NC author, John Amrhein, Jr. In 1750, fifty-five chests of silver pieces of eight were stolen from a Spanish galleon at Ocracoke, North Carolina, and carried to the West Indies where most of it was buried on Norman Island, a deserted key in the British Virgin Islands. Robert Louis Stevenson published a fictional tale of adventure about an expedition to an unnamed Caribbean island to recover a treasure that had been buried there in 1750. The map that was in Stevenson’s Treasure Island book was drawn by him and his father and is probably the most famous treasure map in the world. In the story, the map was discovered in a dead pirate’s sea chest by a young teenager named Jim Hawkins. Guided by the map, Stevenson’s remarkable cast of characters sails the Hispaniola to the Caribbean in the hopes of recovering the treasure. Who hasn’t heard of Long John Silver? He is more famous than the author himself. On the other hand there is every reason to believe the facts from what is called the Mutiny of the Bounty. Even without divine guidance in this instance, you dont even question the facts contained in the basic story From wiki
The Mutiny on the Bounty was a mutiny aboard the British Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty on 28 April 1789. The mutiny was led by Fletcher Christian against their captain, Lieutenant William Bligh. According to accounts, the sailors were attracted to the "idyllic" life and sexual opportunities afforded on the Pacific island of Tahiti. It has also been argued that they were motivated by Bligh's allegedly harsh treatment of them. Eighteen mutineers set Bligh afloat in a small boat with eighteen of the twenty-two crew loyal to him. To avoid detection and prevent desertion, the mutineers then variously settled on Pitcairn Island or on Tahiti and burned the Bounty off Pitcairn. In an extraordinary feat of seamanship, Bligh navigated the 23-foot (7 m) open launch on a 47-day voyage to Timor in the Dutch East Indies, equipped with a quadrant and pocket watch and without charts or compass. He recorded the distance as 3,618 nautical miles (6,710 km). He then returned to Britain and reported the mutiny to the Admiralty on 15 March 1790, 2 years and 11 weeks after his original departure. The British government dispatched HMS Pandora to capture the mutineers, and Pandora reached Tahiti on 23 March 1791. Four of the men from the Bounty came on board soon after its arrival, and ten more were arrested within a few weeks. These fourteen were imprisoned in a makeshift cell on Pandora's deck. Pandora ran aground on part of the Great Barrier Reef on 29 August 1791, with the loss of 31 of the crew and four of the prisoners. The surviving ten prisoners were eventually repatriated to England, tried in a naval court with three hanged, four acquitted and three pardoned. Descendants of some of the mutineers and Tahitians still live on Pitcairn. The mutiny has been commemorated in books, films and songs. Why do you think Ringo, that no one remotely questions these facts. Because the people there accurately communicated the facts which were inturn handed down with little or no alteration. Indeed, why would they need to alter it? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
At least two - but they have to be independent lines of evidence, not just two people repeating the same rumour.
How many ends would need to be attached before someone could be acceptable as believable and demonstratable as historically accurate? Dawn Bertot writes:
Well, it's also a Biblical principle:
Your principle only has application where you want it to apply. Its a type of intellectual evasion and dishonesty. quote:The Levites understood that individual witnesses are not reliable. And there's a whole commandment against false witness. There would be no point in devoting ten percent of the legislation to false witness if witnesses were individually reliable.
Dawn Bertot writes:
What you're assuming is that there are no alternatives to reliable testimony. In fact there are alternatives, so your assumption renders your conclusions invalid. You have to address the alternatives.
Im not assuming anything because i didnt introduce that as an alternative. Dawn Bertot writes:
We have several different lines of evidence for the Bounty story: the Admiralty records, Captain Bligh's personal journal, the subsequent discovery of the surviving mutineers on Pitcairn's Island, etc.
On the other hand there is every reason to believe the facts from what is called the Mutiny of the Bounty. Dawn Bertot writes:
People do question the facts of the Bounty story because there are discrepancies. "The facts" are what is left after the unreliable parts of the testimonies have been weeded out.
Why do you think Ringo, that no one remotely questions these facts. Because the people there accurately communicated the facts which were inturn handed down with little or no alteration. Indeed, why would they need to alter it? Dawn Bertot writes:
I haven't said that anything "bothers" me about the NT documents (presumably you mean the canon of the King James version). The topic is about whether or not we should include some other "apocryphal" documents whose validity and accuracy have been established in the same way. The discussion between you and me has been about clearing up your misconceptions about how that validity is established.
Since we can establish beyond any reasonable doubt the validity and accuracy of the NT documents, why dont we cut throgh all this crap and you just tell us what really bothers you about them and why you dont believe them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I can't tell you what the truth about what the GOSPELS say, but I know what the attitude of the Jewish faith is. There is a difference.
As for 'cherry picking'... why.. I pick the Jewish intepretation, and also what we know about Jewish laws and tradition. Frankly, the Gospels lie about a lot of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
At least two - but they have to be independent lines of evidence, not just two people repeating the same rumour. Hogwash. We already have two in Josephus and the NT writers. Josephus. Pliny, Sutoneious and many others and all you do is find fault with every single one. You have now involved yourself in the worst form of intellectual dishonesty, by demonstrating you have no intention of going by your own made up rules
Well, it's also a Biblical principle: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Could you atleast try and stay consistent, atleast in the same breath. Isnt this just two or three people moputhing the same thing?
The Levites understood that individual witnesses are not reliable. And there's a whole commandment against false witness. There would be no point in devoting ten percent of the legislation to false witness if witnesses were individually reliable Who is your other source to know the Levites said this in the first place
We have several different lines of evidence for the Bounty story: the Admiralty records, Captain Bligh's personal journal, the subsequent discovery of the surviving mutineers on Pitcairn's Island, etc. All of which were on the same boat knothead. This is like rejecting Mathhew Mark luke and John, Peter and Paul, then accepting the stories of bunch of nut Jobs, that thought it would be a good idea to cram a bunch of criminals in a boat without the company of women for months on end. yeah lets sign up for that vouage Yeah lets believe these guys but not a bunch of Godly men
People do question the facts of the Bounty story because there are discrepancies. "The facts" are what is left after the unreliable parts of the testimonies have been weeded out. You know that is not true. The basic tenets of the story and the majority of its facts are accepted without question. And there are no independent sources to boot
The discussion between you and me has been about clearing up your misconceptions about how that validity is established. Hardly, without even trying you have demonstrated my point about proximity, by even your own examples. Youve demonstrated that claiming there were independent souirces for the bounty you cant even go by you own rules By citing the scriptures you use an illustration which you claim to not be reliable to begin with IOWs you dont whether you are coming or going Sorry for the Knothead comment.Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024