the new new testament???

No I am suggesting that I have more than one data point to begin with. Ive given you those data points.But for the sake of people watching I will give them to you again. We have the eyewitness testimony, with even variance in the stories, ie, evidenceNow remember here we are speaking concerning the reliabilty of the text and what should constitute the NT.Secondly we have the faithful, accurate, reliable transmission of documents, from thier original sourcesI dont need anyother data point to back that up, its called evidence of the highest orderYou have categorically evaded the evidence concerning the reliability and transmission of the text itselfBut before I forget let me address the issue concerning the Mutiny and lines of evidence.My reason for bringing in the Mutiny to begin with was to demonstrate that you are not far removed from that event, so while there are some lines of evidence concerning it, those lines of evidence fade as time passesAlso those lines of evidence are also basically from the same source, those involved with and around the story itself. IOWs there is no outside corroborating evidence, only those directly involved. Just like the NTNow imagine 2000 years from now, when some of that evidence is lost. The story becomes less belivable, because the documentation, graves, he said she said fades.Now the NT is of higher order in reliability than even that story, even 200 years or so removedIf your intent is to conceed that the reliabiltiy of the NT is such that you cannot deny, by moving to the actual stories contained therein, then you should say soIs this your intent? You seem to be switching gears and ignoring the topic and argumentsI appreciate your illustrations but they have nothing to do with the immediate discussion on what evidence there is for the NTs existence and why it is the way it isDawn 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.

You have no eyewitness testimony. The identity of the witnesses (even their existence) can not be substantiated. You have purported eyewitnesses. You need evidence that they were eyewitnesses. Since we don't have the original sources - e.g. the gospel in Matthew's own handwriting - your statement is false.And fictional documents such as Treasure Island can also be faithfully transmitted. Faithful transmission says nothing about the veracity of the content. Evidence that doesn't have other evidece t back it up is evidence of the lowest order.

Ill try this again, since Ramoss wasnt able to respond to it maybe you will give it a shot. Since you were not an eyewitness to the events of the mutiny, you did not actually see the events, you did not know the people that alledgedly reported the events, you did not see them write any of the things down. You do not know "they" actually wrote it downYou did not know the Admiralty or the people that actually made counter contentionsIt follows that you do not actually have eyewitnesses, if we follow your line of reasoning. Your assuming these events happened and the people that reported it are telling the truth.Yet for some odd reason you believe the events without question Thats nonsense. Look at the long list of people that alledgedly wrote during the 1st 2nd and 3rd century, which according to the one poster here, did not mention Jesus, but could have as he alledgesWhen you were reading that list, did you for a moment doubt that the authors on that list actually worte what they were purported to have written? Of course you dont, you accept it without really questioning that they didBut for some odd reason when it comes to Matthew, Paul and Peter, everything gets thrown out the window Thats non-sense. There is no amount of evidence right now or 2000 years from now that will prove that the events of the Mutiny actually happened.The only real question to ask, is there any good reason for not believing them, given the evidence that surrounds it.The only evidence that backs up the Mutiny story that makes you actually feel confident in it, is that you are not so far removed from it. Thats the actual truthAs I said previously evidence is just evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Bligh was an eyewitness. The mutineers were eyewitnesses. The Admiralty has records showing that they all existed.You have no such confirmation of your so-called "eyewitnesses". Where are the records to show that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even existed? Where are the Jewish records to correspond to Bligh's journal? Where are the Roman records to correspond to the Admiralty records?All you have is the mutineers' account. You were the one who brought up the mutiny as an example of a historical event that is accepted as authentic. I explained that the reason why it is accepted is because there are separate threads of evidence to confirm each other.I am obviously not assuming that all of the eyewitnesses were telling the truth because they were telling diametrically opposite stories. The mutineers said it was Bligh's fault and Bligh said it was the mutineers' fault. The Admiralty backed up Bligh's official authority but considerd him a weak leader in some ways.Three different viewpoints give us a clearer perspective of the big picture. Where are the corresponding different viewpoints in the New Testament? Of course I did. I have said more than once in this thread that we have to question everything. We need independent corroborating evidence for everything.

You forget all the other independent lines of evidence.The pay records and manifest of the vessel show who was hired and onboard.The people on the Topaz and their report to the Admiralty.The report sent to the Admiralty by the flotilla under Sir Thomas Staines.The wreck of the Bounty that is still there.The DNA of the Pitcairn Island inhabitants itself.Note that all of these and many more are separate, independent lines of evidence.There is nothing comparable when looking at the stories found in the Bible.

The funny/sad part is that Dawn Bertot holds up the Bounty as a historical incident which "is not questioned" but he doesn't understand why it isn't questioned any more - because the questions have been answered.

Mark and Luke are generally not claimed to be eyewitnesses. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But Dawn claims they are.

Sorry,I edited my post to delete John and Matthew because many Christians believe that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. Luke pretty much admits that he was not, and the case for Mark being an eyewitness is weak to non-existent.ABE:
Dawn's reputation arrives here well before any of Dawn's posts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is nothing wrong with reports in the gospels.Whether what we read was actually observed by the particular bible writer or not does discount a word.
Many if not most reports in own newspapers today are written up by people who were actually there themselves.People in field call ion the news, or even citizens will call the studio.But the gospels were a report on an event where everyone MUST had a pretty good idea what was happening, especially since crowd of 5000 and 7000 people was a mega mega event by the standards and population Israel in 32AD.The stories in the gospels were surely common knowledge and verified by a multitude of witnesses all saying they saw the same thing.
But more important, we KNOW that by 60AD, seven separate congregations of people, large masses of believers were already reading from some written reports of the NT that they were using.But there is enough evidence to support that Matthew appeared as early as 54AD. And Mathew was there.

Today, Jesus would not need focus attention to the subject of Religion in order to make his point in Philosophy.Today its unnecessary, because Jesus already has collected the whole world into a classroom, where everyone has done the homework of at least hearing about the subject of Gods and whether that is an important matter for people to even care about.We can all see what with Sunni killing Shiite, and Terrorism facing civilization as a man made problem.
This is important to straighten people out on "God(s)".hat Jesus would say today about god(s) is that Reality is the almighty that day by day unfolds with the facts of life that can threaten us and yet be used to make life better.
He would say only insane people would avoid living in Reality so that they could deal with the actual problems of survival.He would that Truth is the light into that reality, and Truth is the messiah and savior for us all, as Rev Martin Luther King demonstrated for us setting his people free.Truth is the son of the ever unfolding Reality that sire that truth in its wake.
Jesus would applaud modern science and academics and technology as positive uses of The Truth.

Surely even you can see the circular nature of this argument. Using your reasoning every time we see a written description of an event with a large number of people in it, the description itself would be self validating because each of the people in the description is a witness to said event. So for example the baseball games in the movie 'Bull Durham' must have actually happened.

You are just saying that we can't believe everything we read in the Newspaper.We really don't have a choice, though, because we do rely upon what others report even when we write History books, as we examine the past in many ways and piece together how the present reasonable seems to have become what it is.That we saw martyrs die under the persecutions of Rome, early on, in what became Christianity, our understanding of human nature convinces us that those people were powerfully influenced to have placed their lives in jeopardy, willing, for some reason or another.
Believing in the gospel stories s what we understand explains their behavior.This is very strong evidence that those people had their "proofs" that these things had taken place.
They had enough proof that millions eventually converted the whole world of their over their own dead bodies.I don't believe everything I read in the Newspaper, but when a starling event like the fall of Rome, and the accompanying total conversion of that previous decadent culture with all its beliefs in mythological Gods just changed, by a vote to willing do so, I must take the reasons of the Gospels seriously as what caused this.They SEEMED to have enough PROOF that this happened.
They were the JURY in that day.

You really need to study some history. People of the Roman Empire and its successor states did not become christian, because they felt some great spiritual change. They became christian because their rulers became christian and they were told to be christian.Many of the barbarian tribes responsible for bringing down the empire were not christian. Those that were tended be Arians.
If your argument were true than the empire would have survived after the Emperors became christian.

-qsIf your argument were true than the empire would have survived after the Emperors became christian. [/qs]The empire DID survive as Universal Christianity for the 1000 years that had been predicted:Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches), of them that were beheaded for color=red>neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they lived (as angels in the minds of Christians who have followed, these beheaded saints, in the memories of congregations who worship
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

​

Study History more yourself, and you will see that the millennium kingdom of Jesus was not forced but agreed to by and large.
The masses rose up and overturned the vested interest f the pagans , their temples, and their priests.