Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 129 of 226 (704699)
08-14-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dawn Bertot
08-13-2013 6:20 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Who gets to decide what constitues ALL the evidence.
Everybody does. You do not get to unilaterally decree what is "enough".
Dawn Bertot writes:
So how would you classify the evidence that the NT can be traced to a faithful transmission from its original source.
Since that evidence represents only the viewpoint of Jesus' followers, I would classify it as insufficient to establish the facts.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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 not
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.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I understand, but why would you get to decide what constitues reliabilty based on one line of evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2013 6:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 8:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 142 of 226 (704920)
08-20-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dawn Bertot
08-19-2013 8:07 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
The question is one of reliability.
Yes it is. And the fact is that no single source is reliable. The reason events like the mutiny on the Bounty are accepted as historically real is because there are multiple independent sources which confirm and/or deny each other. A reliable account is one that is confirmed by at least one other independent account.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The Accuracy that took place over 2000 years is a thing in and of itself Ringo.
You have to consider both accuracy and precision.
Is a soldier or police officer a good marksman if he hits the bullseye once? Not necessarily. He could drop the weapon on the ground, have it fire accidentally and by a fluke hit the bullseye. Accuracy means being able to get on or near the bullseye but precision means being able to do it consistently with a group of several shots.
Our confidence in the "accuracy" of an account is a function of confirmation by separate souces. No single account can ever be considered "accurate" in and of itself. It might by a fluke be near the truth but if it is consistent with other independent accounts we can consider it reliable.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Its evidence of the highest order, whether you believe its content or not
That's exactly what I'm sayig. Evidence of the highest order doesn't depend on whether you believe it or not. But evidence is of a high order if and only if it is confirmed by other evidence.
The evidence of the New Testament is not of a high order because there is no independent confirmation. Where are the contemporary Jewish records? Where are the contemporary Roman records?
It doesn't matter whether you believe the New Testament or not and it doesn't matter whether I believe the New Testament or not. Thin evidence is thin evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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 reasoning
Yes, I know that's been your mantra ever since your first post at EvC.
It's nonsense.
Pure logic or reasoning is worthless without real-world facts to work on. You can have the sharpest saw in the toolbox but it's useless without a piece of wood to saw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 8:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2013 6:01 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 149 of 226 (704968)
08-21-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dawn Bertot
08-20-2013 6:01 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
First you need to demonstrate that the NT writers are not reliable as witnesses to constitute a line of evidence. Whats wrong with thier actual testimony?
You seem to be suggesting that one data point can be reliable in and of itself.
Let's do an experiment: a person goes into a room and fires one shot at a target. Then he takes the target out of the room and you go in. Without seeing the target, can you tell where it was hanging? Maybe. You could guess that the bullseye was right over the bullet hole but how do you know the shooter hit the bullseye? How do you know the gun didn't go off accidentally and miss the target altogether?
That's the situation that you have with the gospels. George may claim to have hit the bullseye and Jim may agree that George hit the bullseye but without the actual target, you have no reason to believe their bare testimony.
Now, repeat the experiment with two shooters. If the two bullet holes are close together, you can have slightly higher confidence that they were both near the bullseye. But what if they're far apart? Maybe one is on the bullseys and the other is right off the target - but which is which? Or maybe both are off the target.
If George claims he hit the bullseye and Jim claims he hit the bullseye, whom do you believe? What if Harry agrees with George and disagrees with Jim? Do you believe the claim with the most proponents?
Okay, now get the maintenance man in to spackle over the holes and repeat the experiment with three shooters. This time, let's send in Tom, Dick and Harry, who can't stand each other. If the three shots are close together, your confidence that they all hit the bullseye increases.
But what if two are close together and the third is far away? Is it likely that the two are close together and off target? Tom, Dick and Harry all claim to have hit the bullseye but at least one of them is wrong/mistaken/lying. Tom, who hates Dick, grudgingly admits that Dick hit the bullseye. Dick, who hates Tom, grudgingly admits that Tom hit the bullseye.
Whom do you believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2013 6:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-21-2013 4:32 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 152 of 226 (704993)
08-21-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
08-21-2013 4:32 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
We have the eyewitness testimony....
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.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Secondly we have the faithful, accurate, reliable transmission of documents, from thier original sources
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.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I dont need anyother data point to back that up, its called evidence of the highest order
Evidence that doesn't have other evidece t back it up is evidence of the lowest order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-21-2013 4:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-21-2013 11:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 154 of 226 (705034)
08-22-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
08-21-2013 11:21 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
It follows that you do not actually have eyewitnesses, if we follow your line of reasoning.
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.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your assuming these events happened and the people that reported it are telling the truth.
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?
Dawn Bertot writes:
When 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 I did. I have said more than once in this thread that we have to question everything. We need independent corroborating evidence for everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-21-2013 11:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 08-22-2013 12:53 PM ringo has replied
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2013 2:15 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-25-2013 7:01 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 156 of 226 (705047)
08-22-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by jar
08-22-2013 12:53 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 08-22-2013 12:53 PM jar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 175 of 226 (705352)
08-26-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
08-25-2013 7:01 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
What you need is what you require of me. Independent news reports of the event.
Yup. Got 'em. Right here.
Dawn Bertot writes:
These are not independent sources, according to your definition of independent.
My definition of independent, as I have mentioned, is people who are trying to kill each other. That's a good indication that they're not in collusion.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The thread posits the idea that we believers cannot demonstrate that the NT as we now have it is what it was from the beginning, to a great degree of accuracy
No, that isn't what the thread posits at all. The thread posits that there are other non-canonical documents that can be demonstrated ato be just as authentic as your canonical documents.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Were we able to find the actual existence of one of these names mentioned in the Bible and thier actions, you would not accept it as evidence....
On the contrary, I accept everything as evidence. What we're discussing in this thread is the quality of evidence.
Eyewitness accounts are by their nature poor quality evidence. Purported eyewitness accounts from people whose existence can not be established are even worse quality. Hearsay accounts that, "so-and-so says he saw such-and-such" are also poor quality.
Other non-canonical documents have evidence of equal quality to the New Testament. Your own example, the Bounty, has better quality evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
As an example of your intellectual blatant dishonesty and laziness, I cite again your unwillingness to even acknowledge that we have nearly word for word the original letters contained.
I have never disputed that we do. I think I have pointed out, though, that that isn't the least bit significant. We also have nearly word for word the original text of Treasure Island but that doesn't mean the text was ever true. Accurate transmission does not indicate truth.
dawn Bertot writes:
You know that we do, you just dont like it
I'm open to the New Testament being accurate. Are you open to it beng inaccurate?
I'm also open to other non-canonical documents being as accurate as the New Testament. Are you?
Edited by ringo, : Removed superfluous word "what". Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-25-2013 7:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-26-2013 7:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 182 of 226 (705451)
08-27-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
08-26-2013 7:13 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
We consider the earlier sources as reliable the same way you consider the Oxford News paper reliable
No, I don't consider the Oxford News "reliable". As I've been saying, no single piece of evidence can ever be "reliable". It's just one piece in the puzzle.
You asked for an independent news source and that's what you got, an account by somebody not directly related to the protagonists.
Josephus actually does come close to the same thing. What's missing in the evidence for the New Testament, as I've been saying, is the opposing viewpoint(s).
Dawn Bertot writes:
Does this mean you have more than this one hard to find article or were you just trying to make an overated point by "em" (them)
It wasn't hard to find; it was the first hit on Google. I wasn't making a point at all. I was just answering your question.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your independent evidence for the Bounty is quickly fading and being lost Ringo, you had better find some more for those people two thousand years from now, to help them believe the story
You keep saying that. Depth of time may be a reason for not having evidence but it's not a substitute for having evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Besides as I have indicated finding a Sahedrin account or some Roman record or file would only be rejected by you as evidence.
No it wouldn't.
Dawn Bertot writes:
My point exacally but when its done in and by the Bible writers you call it collusion or contradiction
No I don't. I said that without an independent source, we can't rule out collusion.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Name one thing you consider reliable as evidence that supports the Bible.
The existence of Jerusalem.
The problem is that there isn't much in the Bible that is verifiable by evidence. There are some things that might be true but haven't (yet) been verified. There are also some things that are definitely false.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You know instinctively that Treasure Island is fictional, not only because of your proximity to its contents, but because there is not a trail of reliable history behind it.
On the contrary, the history behind Treasure Island is more reliable than that of the Bible, even if the individual characters are not evidenced any beter than those in the Bible. You'd be hard-presed to find anything historically inaccurate in Treasure Island, whereas the Bible is full of historical nonsense like worldwide floods.
Dwn Bertot writes:
But you know without even trying thatJesus and Mohammed were real people, right?
I have said repeatedly that we shouldn't accept anything "without even trying".
Personally, I don't think Jesus was a real person. I don't know how Mohammed compares, evidence-wise.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You see my point, we havent even got started and your assuming its unreliable, even without implying how in your intimation
Yes, that's the correct approach. Nothing is assumed to be reliable until it is cross-referenced with other things that are cross-referenced with other things. You need a web of evidence, not just one point. That's the essence of objectivity.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now, how in the world can a man that preaches about and relies so heavily on evidence, claim(in his view) that the NT has no evidence supporting it make the absurd claim that documents, with even less evidence, are evidence at all
I haven't said that the New Testament has no evidence supporting it. I've said that the evidence is no better than the evidence supporting the non-canonical books. This thread is your opportunity to compare those two lines of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-26-2013 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-28-2013 11:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 185 of 226 (705610)
08-29-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dawn Bertot
08-28-2013 11:45 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Of-course you consider it reliable
Maybe you mssed it so I'll repeat it for the nth time: No single source is "reliable". Any source, every source must have other sources to back it up.
What part of that do you not understand?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Thats simply not true. You and others have tried to discredit every other piece of corroborating evidence to Eusibeus
Don't lump me in with "others". I have done no such thing. I have not tried to discredit anything.
What I have done is show that your own example of the Bounty is better evidenced than the New Testament.
Dawn Bertot writes:
There is much that has been verified and as of yet you have not provided why the NT writers are unreliable.
See the first paragraph of this post. Once again, no single source can be treated as reliable and sources that take the same viewpoint can not be considered independent.
What part of that do you not understand?
We don't need to discuss individual details of single sources. They are all inherently unreliable. Charles Manson's testimony is unreliable on its own. So is Gandhi's. Every house needs a foundation.
Dawn Bertot writes:
There are not 5000 manuscripts of the non-canonical books. You cannot reproduce the noncanonical books in the Apostolic fathers back to that time period with repdidity
We've been through that. Accurate copying and large numbers of copies do not indcate reliability of the original. A bestselling novel is still fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-28-2013 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2013 4:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 191 of 226 (706045)
09-05-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
09-04-2013 4:45 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
I have now asked you several times to demonstrate the canonicity of those alledged books with that which we know to be reliable as a standard from the beginning
The point is that we don't know that one particular canon is "reliable". You do know that there are other canons, don't you? You may be convinced that your canon is the one and only "reliable" one but you have demonstrated in this thread that you don't understand what reliability means.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You seem to think that reliability and evidence only comes from human testimony and resources
Why do you keep saying that when I keep telling you the exact opposite? Human testimony is just about the most unreliable evidence there is.
Reliable evidence would be the court records written by some anonymous scribe in a gray flannel toga who couldn't care less about the details of the case he was recording. He'd write down the case of the fake messiah with the same boredom - and accuracy - that he'd write down the case of teenagers drag-racing chariots.
Why don't you have any evidence of that caliber?
Edited by ringo, : Spslling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2013 4:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2013 5:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 194 of 226 (706145)
09-06-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2013 5:10 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes there were other canons that had less or more, but generally the majority of the same books were ascribed to by both Christians and heritics, FROM THE BEGINNING
That's what the topic is about. The majority of the books have the same backing for the same reasons that you're expounding. However, not all of those same books are in your canon. The OP suggests that they should be because they have the same backing.
Dawn Bertot writes:
To bolster my case, you and your cohorts have disavowed every single piece of evidence that directly or indirectly corroborates any of these events.
I have no cohorts and I have not disavowed any evidence that you have presented. Once and for all, I accept every single bit of evidence that you have for the authenticity of the New Testament canon. You can quote me on that, now and forever more.
What I'm saying is that it isn't enough. And a propos to the topic, it's no more than we have for the non-canonical books.
Instead of misunderstanding what evidence is and making excuses for the evidence you don't have, you should be trying to make a distinction between the evidence for your canonical books and the evidence for the non-canonical books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2013 5:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2013 4:56 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 197 of 226 (706180)
09-07-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dawn Bertot
09-06-2013 4:56 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
The books that you suggest that are not in the canon do not have the backing and i have demonstrated that to many times to mention
Please give us a link to those demonstrations and/or reiterate them.
The bottom line is that the canonical books have only the poorest quality evidence for their "reliability"; therefore, the non-canonical books can be no worse.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You do understand Ringo that for there to be a STANDARD, a Canon, rule or a guide, there has to be evidence of a pattern that was followed and that it can be traced, to call it a pattern, right?
Of course not. Don't be silly. There is no single standard. There are many standards, many canons. Each one has its own pattern.
All you need to create a standard, a canon, is an agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2013 4:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2013 4:54 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 205 of 226 (706378)
09-10-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2013 4:54 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you have evidence to the contrary quit with your word exchange and verbosity and get to it
There are a lot of posts in this thread that you haven't answered. Try looking for the evidence there.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Ive also demonstrated by argument, example, illustration and history that the canonical books have very high quality of evidence as reliable
What you've demonstrated is that you don't know what "reliable" means.
Dawn Bertot writes:
ringo writes:
There is no single standard. There are many standards, many canons. Each one has its own pattern.
The standard is history itself and what emerged through the doorway of history and the related evidenc ethat followed
Did you read what you quoted? There is no standard canon. History can not be the standard canon.
You claim to have evidence that the books in your favoured canon are more reliable than the non-canonical books (which are included in other canons). This is your chance to actually demonstrate instead of making empty claims that you "have demonstrated". Pick a specific non-canonical book and show specifically why it has less support than the canonical books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2013 4:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 4:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 211 of 226 (706423)
09-11-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2013 4:58 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
... please point to what Ive missed...
Go to the top of the page and find your name in the list of Participants in this thread. Click "Fetch" for a list of your own posts and look at the bottom of each post for replies.
Dawn Bertot writes:
... Im sure I will be echoing what Ive already said.
I'm sure you will. The problem is that echoed nonsense is still nonsense.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Absense of evidence is not lack of evidence.
Nor is it an indication that there "used to be" evidence that somehow vanished over the course of two thousand years. If you don't have evidence you're story can't be reliable.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Lets do a history and reason lesson with you, like I did with Jar. Imagine that you are now in that time period. Some of the non-canonical books do exist, but like the book of Mormon today we know for several reasons it is not reliable.
You can stop the lesson right there, teacher, and answer the question that I've already asked: How do we know that? What are the reasons?
Just take a specific non-canonical book and give us the specific reasons why it is not reliable.
Dawn Bertot writes:
History and reason lets us know why they accepted certain ones and rejected others
Exactly. The reasons why they accepted certain books and rejected others were religious and political. They were not based on objective scholarship. That's why there are many different canons.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I doubt any of this is hard to understand for you, but I suppose you are obligated to defend the position you have chosen
I haven't chosen any position. I'm just asking you why I should choose yours.
You're trying to sell me a car and you're insisting that Fords are more reliable than Chevys. I'm asking why but all you're telling me is that some guys many years ago decided that they are, so they must be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 4:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:27 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 219 of 226 (706486)
09-12-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 8:27 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well I expected you to be unobjective, but really not that unobjective.
Please tell us what you think "objective" means. Specifically, explain how asking you for reasons indicates a lack of objectivity.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Dont you find it interesting Ringo, that there is very little if no usage of the suprious and non-canonical books.
That's obviously false. If the non-canonical books were so insignificant the early church wouldn't have had conferences to decide which books to include in their canons. AND, a point which you continue to ignore, they didn't all choose the same books.
Dawn Bertot writes:
There were only different canons latter on. Early on and even without canons, they already knew what was authentic for the most part. There was no real test. The body of knowledge that led to latter canons already existed
Yes, the body of knowledge for ALL of the canons already existed. Your task in this thread is to distinguish one canon from another.
By the way, did you even read what you quoted frm Wikipedia?
quote:
Some biblical scholars consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
quote:
The fourth gospel, John, includes a number of historically reliable details, but it differs greatly from the first three gospels, and historians largely discount it.
Note that the claim, "The canonical gospels, overall, are considered to have more historically authentic content than the various non-canonical gospels," has no citation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:27 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2013 4:55 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024