the new new testament???

If there are faults, we ought to find them. The main fault, of course, is that you have "different" sources citing each other. You miss my point. I'm pointing out that you accept the Bible as reliable and yet you denigrate the principle of multiple sources, which is a Biblical principle.Your position is self-contradictory. Knot at all. We have the Admiralty records, which reflect the Admiralty biases. (The Admirality records were used to build a replica of the Bounty for the 1930s movie, so there is external corroborating evidence not directly related to the mutiny.) We also have the testimony of Captain Bligh who was biased against the mutineers and the testimonies of (some of) the mutineers who were biased against Bligh.If you had the records of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate's personal diary, you'd have the equivalent. It's not a question of believing anybody. It's a question of comparing the conflicting accounts and deciding which parts of which testimonies are most likely to be accurate.In your case, all you have is the testimony of some guys who claim to be "Godly men". You have no alternative viewpoint(s) to compare their testmony with. No sensible person accepts anything without question.

Because there is fault with all of them.Josephus we have discussed. But here we go again

quote:

---

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

​

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to acknowledge anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

---

quote:

---

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

​

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

​

So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

---

quote:

---

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

​

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.

​

So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all

---

Kapyong did a number of great post on this back in 2005. Rather than rewrite the arguments, I find his points to be definitive and the best.
Kapyong posts on Jesus

The best is the two witnesses. The house of Judah and the house of Jacob.These two "candlesticks" before the Lord were there.They have never denied that Jesus offended them, and that jesus was in their midst.These two witnesses, in fact, did not oppose an illusionary Jesus, not without mention in the two Talmuds, written, but long edited and under commposition, shortly after the growth of Christianity.Nor in their midrash, either.Certainly, if their testimony of what you say, "no real Jesus," could be heard at this late date, the cross examination would focus upon the delay of the Jews in telling us about this, true?Why hadn't the Jews dismissed Jesus as a fabrication, a joke, an imagination, a historical invention and lie?The BEST WITNESS to a historical Jesus is the two houses of the Jews, the House of Judah and the House if Jacob.
Is it not?NOTE:The Jews testified against Jesus right from the beginning until the day when Israel, itself, would suffer the crucifixion of the Holocaust as a sin offering for their denials, yet recognition and certitude of Jesus:Rev. 11:7 And when they, (the House of Jacob and the House of Judah, the two candlestick witnesses), shall have finished their testimony (against their own suffering messiah), the (seven headed) beast (of Western civilization) that (had) ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (in The Renaissance) shall make (secular) war against them, (these Jews of the diaspora), and shall overcome them (in 1942), and kill them (with gas and starvation and brutalities).

Maybe you should address my post, not preach.

Teach,... not preach.(Preaching will begin when Christians repeat this lesson to you, that the Jews are the best witnesses of a Jesus, who they both condemned throughout history and yet recognized at the same time. The best is the two witnesses.
The house of Judah and the house of Jacob.

No. It is preaching.
You are not imparting knowledge. You are advocating what you feel is truth.
Do you have have anything relevant to my post that you responded to?

Of course what the Jews have said since 32AD is relevant to your post that demands some non-Christian written evidence of a Jesus.(Are you sure that your ego isn't bruised in that this clearly shows you have been dead wrong all along??????)

But alas I was discussing Josephus. Pliny, Sutoneious. So I think that would make you a troll. How would your irrelevant ramblings bruise my ego?I will follow you down your rabbit-hole for a bit. Show something "the Jews" have written that shows a historical jesus.

How can this be a fault when this is exacally what you asked for, independent sources speaking of and talking about events they were a part of and even showing variances and degrees from thier own perspectiveSince I have now fully established that a person directly involved or not far removed from the incident, would be in much better position to determine the truth, it only remains to be seen what actual fault you can find with the gospel writers.You do understand that there is a difference between lack of information and an actual fault. Fault implies something contradictory or outright wrong.In the case of Josephus and Pliny and others there is no actual fault, just a nitpicking to piecies of already existing information.No one has even made an attempt at answering the question as to why no one took the liberty to indite Eusebius for supposedly currpting or adding to Josephus.The reason no one will provide that kind of information, is because the people that were reading and responding to Eusebius already knew what he was communicating was actually a part of the text, even if it did not appear in all copies. Lack of information is not tampering When did I denigrate the idea of multiple sources? Im all for it. Thats what I have been pointing out and all you do is try and kick them out as I bring them up.So your indirect indication is that the Bible writers were atleast correct about this point? But how can we trust them when they made such nutty comments in the same context about miracles and the such like. Of course we have the same type of independent evidence in the variances in the Gospel stories and writers.So, if we have the same type of variances in the gospel writers, why do we not have the same type of evidence, you posit by the admiralty and the sea going mafia.Its my guess that most of the Gospel and canon wroters were much more independent from each other than the admiralty, capt Bligh and the sea going mafiaFirst you reject clearly independent sources in Josephus and Pliny, not to mention the gospel writers themself, by picking them apart, then amazingly claim that the amirality and Capt Bligh would constitute a valid source of information. Not to much objectivity going on there Now this is the funniest part yet. Of course it a question of believing someone. When "we" have varying" stories in the gospels, they immediately become contradictory and faulty, as even writers. Yet, when they agree you want to claim they colaborated in thier efforts, to produce the Gospels. Shouldnt thier stories be exacally alike?Even though they are at times clearly independent of eachother as writers, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. writing in different times and places. And even when they have varying stories about the same events, you say they dont constitute reliable independent sources, but bligh and the admiralty do.When they do agree, you say they are colaborating, when they show variance, you say they are contradictoryYou seem to adjust your methodology as it suits your purposes. In the case of the bounty you adjust your requirments, to meet your need. There are no independent sources for the story but you belief it without even tryingMy reason for bringing in the question of the bounty, was not so you could demonstrate your circus act, fact finding methodolgy. It was to demonstrate that down deep inside you dont question the actual events at all. Even though you have better evidence for the Gospel story of Jesus, both inside and outside of the gospel writersYou believe the Bounty story for three basic reasons. One, there is no reason to doubt its basic tenets. Two, you are not far removed from the actual events. Three there is nothing like the miraculous in its contents, nor does it require anything of you directly.These would also be the basic reasons you reject the Gospel stories, not because there is not actual evidence for its validity This is however, not the equivalent of the evidence surrounding the bounty, as you seem to want it to be. Yet, from a simple psyhcological standpoint you accept its validity, without questionAbsense of evidence is not lack of evidence. Even if we proceeded with the premise that ONLY evidence of the nature, like that of the Sanhedrin and Pilot, that it would validate the Jesus story, we have that independence in the INDIVIDUAL gospel writers and the early church fathers.Assuming that they collaborated, is not the same as showing some valid reason as to why they did. Nor does it establish the fact that from thier writings they should not be accepted as independent witnessesAs the one poster here has already indicated, the Sanhedrin had a golden opportunity to dismiss the Jesus myth, if indeed it and he were a myth. The reason they did not take this golden opportunity, is because they would have been thought of as foolsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong. These are not faults, the are nitpicking observations, all of which could easily be countered by references to to scholarship with alternate opinions. Im more that ready to offer those if need beExample, no serious collective scholarship rejects as unauthentic the references to John the baptist and James. Yes there are disagreements, but the consensus is that they are authentic.Your very serious problem is that you can provide no information concerning the lack of resistence concerning Eusebius' use of Josephus. there is simply nothing and there should beThe second and most serious problem is that you reject the testimony of independent gospel and bible writers that claim to have been a part of the events themself. But there seems to be no serious reason for that within thier pages. That would be a good starting pointDawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Did you decide to throw in John the Baptist to cloudy things a bit. You continue to lump John into the discussion. This just a continuing example of your dishonesty. There is plenty of serious scholarship that rejects the references to Jesus. The reference to James may not even be related to your Jesus at all. Jesus was not a rare name. Or it might be an interpolation also. Plenty has been provided. Why shouldn't I? Why should I trust what they say when there is no independent source backing them up? Even if the Josephus is original, how do it support your claim of the Gospels being correct?

But, only you are suggesting taking this situation Past a Reasonable Doubt. All that is being suggested is to remain skeptical until a preponderance of the evidence points in that direction. It is more similar to a civil trial instead of a criminal trial.I mean, look at the famous poem that many of us learned growing up:"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue..."All throughout grade school, I was taught from historical knowledge that Columbus Discovered the Americas. Which did, at the time, fit with a preponderance of the evidence, although when I was in grade school that evidence was definitely weakening significantly. Then, further evidence, such as: Ancient Migration coming to AmericaFirst Americans arrived as two separate migrationsRadical Theory of First Americans places Stone Age Europeansin Delmarva 20,000 years agoNew North America Viking Voyage DiscoveredSo, as the evidence has built up denying Columbus' claim of Discovering the Americas, history is forced to follow the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, we are forced by the connections to discount the claims of Columbus and those who wish to give him credit for discovering something that had already been discovered multiple times.Ringo mentioned that these manuscripts, the ones you are insisting must be accurate, even though very little corroborating evidence exists, would have been recopied by Monks in the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. As we know from many examples, history is written by the victors, not by those that were defeated. These monks had good cause to want to include statements verifying the authenticity of the religion they had chosen to follow, which makes it suspect when these out of place writings appear. Could it be actual evidence, of course. However, we must be careful to understand that two or three writings are not a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, it is what it is...two or three writings. Nothing like finding out of place settlements, then stone tools, then understanding that the ice caps were lower 20,000 years ago, offering a Northwest passage from Europe to the Americas. Evidence piles up upon itself making the statements more and more likely.And your question of a specific number of threads of evidence is B.S. as well. It is not a specific number, but rather a preponderance of evidence. For help with this concept, here is the definition of preponderance:Preponderance - 1. a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength2. a superiority or excess in number or quantityVerification of the chosen religious texts does not hold up to this standard. A majority of writings from the time period do not discuss Christianity, while a couple of them do. However, the preponderance of evidence, or majority of evidence points to the inaccuracy of the Bible, or at least later rewritings that made the Bible more inaccurate. We would know the truth better, because we have better access to a larger volume of manuscripts, more lines of evidence to look at, more knowledge about the writings of multiple cultures and similarities between different god myths, and more experience verifying authenticity of writings based upon archaelogical research. They have eye-witness testimony, notably the worst line of evidence that can possibly exist and one that can rarely be trusted. Incorrect. What people knew or did not know is a part of history that has been written down and then revised throughout the centuries based upon the whims of the victors. This is how Columbus got away with stealing credit for so long, even with the blatant fact that he arrived on an already populated landmass. Ummmm....always has to be part of the truth?
Bill Clinton: I did not have Sexual Relations with that womanThis seems to have no part of the truth, hence it is a lie and your statement that a lie must always contain truth is debunked. Would you like to try again? A lie can contain kernels of truth, which does add plausibility, but it is by no means a requirement of lying. Comparing the discovery of more and more ancient manuscripts and determining how many lines of evidence point toward certain conclusions is nothing at all like actually meeting an individual and having an opportunity to talk with them. Plus, many parents talk to friends with children to determine a good location to take their children for school or daycare. In other words, you chose one part of the scenario, but left out the other ways a parent can verify the safety of their child at the chosen daycare, plus the fact that they will have personal one on one experience with the individual prior to leaving their child with him or her. In other words, parents dropping their children off at daycare generally have multiple lines of evidence, more than the negative evidence, giving a reasonable expectation of safety. Could it be wrong, yes...but at least there is a preponderance of evidence there. This is simply an empty assertion. No one has ever been able to verify the authenticity of the NT documents with a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. They were written far after the fact by individuals removed from Jesus' time by up to 200 years!!! I don't believe them because there is no evidence that tells me I should. I would have to believe in an incompetent God who let us wander around confused for over 95,000 years and then finally decided, oh I guess I should give them some sort of information but I am going to give different information to different regions of the world. All of these ideas will contradict one another, such as Buddhism, Juddaism, and Hinduism. Then, after I, God, realized my mistake 3,000 years after that, I am going to send a version of myself to die and, instead of combining the religions, I will create another religion, so that I can further divide the people into separate groups. If your God exists, he is the most woefully incompetent, all powerful being that has ever existed. I am going to say because a preponderance of the evidence points to this information, such as:Evidence of the original orders of the ship
Evidence of the orders sent to the HMS Pandora to arrest the Mutineers
Evidence of the settlement built by the Mutineers around the time stated on the Pitcairn Islands
Public trial and hanging of the Mutineers onboard the HMS Brunswick
Death certificates of the Mutineers and reason for execution
Personal accounts of actual Mutineers, written not after their deaths but by the individuals themselves. Mutiny on the HMS BountyShall I continue? Multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. This is how one should look at history rationally, and to accept that the NT has nearly the same amount of corroborating evidence is disingenious in the least and blatant lying at its worst.

You don't have independent sources. You have gospel writers who were all on the same side. Where do you have the other viewpoints represented, the viewpoints of the Jewish leaders and the Roman leaders? Call it a "flaw" if you prefer. Lack of information is a flaw in any reasoning process and can produce flaws in the conclusions. When you said, "Your principle only has application where you want it to apply. Its a type of intellectual evasion and dishonesty." in Message 81 it sounded like you were refering to the principle. I see that you may have meant my supposedly unequal application of the principle. I have shown that I apply the principle equally to the gospels and the mutiny on the Bounty but the gospels by themselves do not meet the standard. There are no opposing viewpoints. How can you say that Bligh and the mutineers are not independent sources? Bligh wanted the mutineers hung. They weren't likely to confirm anything he said. They had good reason to give a biased viewpoint. Yet we don't believe eveything Bligh said and we don't believe everything the mutineers said. We have to try to figure out a compromise about what actually happened and there are some details that we can never be sure whose version was more accurate.As I said, you don't have the records of the Sanhedrin or of Pontius Pilate. All you have is what Jesus' followers said about them. There is always reason to doubt. Without doubt, we have no check on the wildest stories that pople can make up. Smart people doubt plausible stories and implausible stories exactly the same. I'm closer to the Bounty events in that the Admiralty records still exist whereas Pilate's records and the Sanhedrin records (of Jesus' trial) don't. I'm not really concerned about any miraculous content in the gospels. Even if the non-miraculous parts were as reliably documented as the Bounty story, that would say nothing about the reliability of the miraculous parts. After all, you can't document a miracle, can you? You can only document claims about a miracle.

1) Nice try.2) Finding something that the Jews wrote denying Jesus was my argument.
I was saying the opposite, that the evidence against your oft tried and failed attempt to discredit Christianity by demanding hard evidence after 2000 years for his very existence is foiled because the Jews never wrote an argument against his existence.3) I'll go down your rabbit hole, tho,' and point out the recently discovered writings that mention Jesus even though the Jews tried to expunge all negative comments in their Talmud(s), etc. out of fear during the Middle Ages.NOTE:"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)"
That they, themselves, never wrote a such a defense when they were both persecuted because of their crucifixion and debated by proselytizing Christians is my argument.

You seem to be an intelligent person.
Will you continue to maintain your line of argument when it is clear that the two witnesses here are the House of Jacob and the House of Israel itself???