the new new testament???

An argument? Are we married? How 'bout you just provide some evidence as to how reliable they were? Calmly. No yelling. Nicey nicey.- Oni

No. I'm not rejecting the type of evidence that you present. I have said that we have to look at all of the evidence.What I'm doing is refusing to accept that evidence as sufficient to establish the facts. The testimony of the accused is not sufficient to determine the facts of the case. Neither is the testimony of the accuser. You need both. Of course I haven't demonstrated that human testimony is an absolute requirement. I have said, I think, that it is second-rate evidence. Physical evidence is superior because it doesn't have an agenda. If a case could be made entirely without human testimony, that would be ideal. For example, if you had the official records of Jesus' trial, that would be worth more than the testimony of legions of his followers. Once again, it is not about rejecting Josephus. Josephus presents one point of view just fine, the point of view that you advocate. But where does he present the opposite point of view? Where does he report that Jesus was a charlatan or a madman or anything else but what you believe he was?Captain Bligh said that the mutineers were the bad guys; the mutineers said that Captain Bligh was the bad guy - two diametrically-opposed point of view. That's the rule of evidence that I'm using. Where's the equivalent in Josephus?

Well anyone that considers F F Bruce an idiot, is not worthy of attention or reply. Enough saidDawn Bertot

Wow I didnt know we could actually discuss those things here at the EVC, I thought they were taboo. Oh Im more than happy to address them. Im confident I can win that argument also.Your really should pay attention though, we hadnt actually got to that point. Actually we have more to discuss of a historical context firstRamoss kept up with the sarcastic comments about the historiscity, so I thought that was the direction he wanted to go actuallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What your doing Oni, is what I call the classical Jar debating tactic. You keep repeating yourself without addressing a single argument, point, illustration, example or anything. Then hope no one pays attention the fact that you never address anything.Heres a hint Oni. Respond to anything Ive said, then you can actually say your are debatingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If you will remember me asking you, i said how many ends do we need to tie up a fact beyond any resonable doubt. You said, two. I gave you atleast three. All of which demonstrate themself as reliableSo what part and type of ALL the evidence supporting the scriptures, is not enough?Who gets to decide what constitues ALL the evidence. You see Ringo, when evidence is sufficient enough, its enough Wow thats a switch. i thought you were hipper on the human factor. So how would you classify the evidence that the NT can be traced to a faithful transmission from its original source. thats got to be very impressive as evidence, wouldnt you agree? Again Ringo while this might be a helpful way of establishing facts further, I dont see it as an absolute requirement. That is, unless you get to decide alone what the rules of evidence are or are notFurther, I dont see why a passing statement's reliabilty, as that of Josephus, would be based on point counter point within a historian. I also, doubt that this would add to the believability of Josephus' comments about Jesus I understand, but why would you get to decide what constitues reliabilty based on one line of evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I see. You can't show that the supernatural claims for the bible are more than a myth, so you go into full attack against the person who pointed that out to you.Very transparent . And you still can not show that any of the supernatural claims are anything more than stores.

Thank you for your careful consideration of my points.

No. I said we need at least two independent lines of evidence, preferably with different or opposing viewpoints. What part of "opposing viewpoints" do you not understand? Everybody does. You do not get to unilaterally decree what is "enough". Since that evidence represents only the viewpoint of Jesus' followers, I would classify it as insufficient to establish the facts. You're the one who has been using the Bounty as an example of an event whose basic facts are accepted. I have pointed out why the Bounty has a better train of evidence than the New Testament events. In case you've forgotten since the last paragraph, it's because the Bounty presents different, i.e. opposing, i.e. independent points of view while the New Testament documentation does not.Different points of view are not an absolute requirement but they are an improvement on only one.They are not my personal rules of evidence. It's a simple comparison of two cases, like determining that an elephant is bigger than a mouse. There's no such thing as "reliabilty based on one line of evidence". That isn't my decision. It's the practice of anybody who honestly looks for the truth.

Hardly, I believe I said I would be able to win that argument as well.Why would anyone one make a claim that I should be able to show that the miracles are any different than any other thing no one wittnessed as past historyAnd why would that be the detemining factor as to whether an event actually happened.So you require information, details and evidence from me that you cannot provide yourself.Since you cannot provide exact details and a blow by blow discription of what happened on the Mutiny, the whole thing falls to the ground as believable?So you see your problem is that once again I am required to provide evidence, the likes of which you could not provide if asked you to do the sameYou really shouldnt make miracles anymore different as a historical event, that no one presently witnessedits the evidence surrounding alledged events that cooroborate it, not something you didnt witnessI told you it wouldnt take very much effort to win that argument. Im really looking forward to see exacally how you intend to respond to this delimmaDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your POINT was that a renound scholar was an idiot. That tells me something about your lack of judgement or obvious prejudiceDawn Bertot

No, my point was that the authenticity of classical texts is regularly questioned, and that people who claim the Bible is subjected to greater scrutiny only do so because they have no interest in the debates over secular texts. Calling Bruce an idiot was a hyperbolic assertion by way of introduction to this point.

Ohhh I think you are missing the point greatly here. The question is one of reliability. the ability to trace a now existing document to its source, with nearly pinpoint accuracy is more than good evidence. you just dont like its conotation and implication, so you try and dismiss itSorry that wont workBeing a specifically physical object, that is time, transmission, distance, location (geography) and the such like, it becomes an independent line of evidence in and of itself.You cant simply remove what is and how that has taken place.My goodness man, that is why people accept it as reliable. You need to have atleast some objectivity to be taken seriously Wrong again Ringo. My point was that no one gets to decide what is enough, evidence is either evidence or it is not, no matter the amount This is just intellectual dishonesty an unobjectivity on your part. The Accuracy that took place over 2000 years is a thing in and of itself Ringo. Nobody was forced or compelled to do it that wayBut here is the point. Once it reaches this far out with that much reliability, it becomes an evidence of fact, not possibility, likelyhood or anything like that.Now watch pay close attention. Its evidence of the highest order, whether you believe its content or not Your point here is fallacious and unreasoned for two reasons.Your assuming that evidence is not evidence, If it is not of your type. Evidence is just evidence. Second, the New testament writers constitute a line of evidence, even if there are no opposing views and unless you can demonstrate why they should be ignored as reliableOpposing views dont add to the exact content of evidence as evidence. As a matter of fact, if they are involving the same context and story, they arent a different line of evidence at all. Wouldnt you agree? Sure someone should look for truth, but the way to start the whole process and incidently, the way most here at this fourm ignore, is pure logic or reasoningWatch how easy it is to render your above comment as invalid concerning the unreliabilty of evidence based on one lineSince the NT documents we have today, atleast those in the 27 books can be traced back with 97% accuracy from thier original source, it follows logically that this single line of evidence demonstrates them as ATLEAST reliable from that perspectiveUnless you can demonstrate otherwiseDawn BertotEdited 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.

Well Ramoss, since I have now responded to your direct assertion concerning miracles are you not willing to follow through with your original complaint.Still awaiting your response with great anticipationDawn Bertot

Tracing something back is not necessarily a test of anything but accurate copying.We can trace the writings of Shakespeare back with pinpoint accuracy, but that doesn't make it something other than fiction...