the new new testament???

I don't know why I even bothered trying to engage you.You know nothing about history and you will distort anything to fit your beliefs.

Probably we talk to one other ONLY because Percy has suspend enough people for infractions of having an opinion that irritates him and there is hardly anyone else to interact with.I find you to be rather shallow and quickly reduced to demeaning the person who has the urge to respond to many many biased and even uniformed statements found here, as would be expected when censorship protects such crap and promotes propaganda safe from exposure.

What I actually said was that it is impossible to tell whether a described event actually happened simply by noting that the description of the event includes the presence of lots of people. I see that you use "proofs" in quotation marks. Actually, the events you describe are evidence of their faith, and as the Bible repeatedly states, faith fulfills the role of evidence in belief. Of course, the most direct expression of such are in Hebrews 11 and in Christ's statements to doubting Thomas.The deaths of martyrs are strong evidence that those people believed that those things had taken place. It does not demonstrate the basis for their belief. And let us be quite frank. Very few Christians today believe what they believe because of anything we would reasonably consider evidence.Have you ever seen or participated in a winning of a soul for Christ? What kind of 'evidence' was involved? I have never seen anything except personal anecdotes involved.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Winning souls for good behavior depends upon the presence of a Conscience inside the person which I identify with the Good Shepherd some people have a personal relationship with.Winning people over and into a particular church is hardly different than winning people over to join a country club or the into the Democratic Party, otherwise.People are intellectually "won over" in every discipline, whether it be theological, scientific, philosophical, etc, by arguments.As you noted, I had place the word "proof" in quotes.
I did that because their is no such a thing as offering someone else "proof," unless the person to whom the proof is offered has already agreed to some frame of reference in one discipline or another.I can prove congruence of triangles if you will learn the Geometry the precedes my proof, but otherwise, you can deny and argue and come back with almost any response to avoid say, "I agree."So my direct answer here is that I have had people take my position on many different issues concern the events of 32AD, but what proved my point to them was something they accepted out of the evidence of my arguments.

Lets try this again. I know in your own special way and way of thinking you think you have independent wittnesses. You dont actually, not according to your hard line of evidence gatheringYou did not witness these events. You are assuming what you can gather are the factsThe Admirilty, loyalists and mutineers are a part of the story. What you need is what you require of me. Independent news reports of the event. Other people not connected with the story, that are reporting the story.Now, Im not saying you cant produce something of this sort and even if you can it will be scant. Most if not all of the accounts and news reports are slowly fading from existenceImagine two thounsand years from now trying to find a news account of that event. It would be nearly impossible These are not independent sources, according to your definition of independent. Where are the outside sources, that did not know or were not involved with bligh and ChristianMaybe you can get some native testimony thrown in there Wrong. Differing stories or agreeing stories do not make or break the testimony. You seem to believe that because you have disputation in the stories that that counts as evidence. Seriously?Also, I keep noticing that you ignore my point concerning the contention of the thread. 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 accuracyIll keep bringing up that point in hopes that you will atleast address it in some rational form.. Thats unless you have conceeded that fact and are now wanting to move to the present discussion Again you did not witness these events, thats my reason for bringing it up. You did not posit the type of indepentdent evidence, that you require of everyone elseHere is an illustration. The Gospels report on numerous occasions, the Christ and the disciples were drug in front of the jewish councils and that at one point Gamaliel said certain things about other alledged Messiahs that tried and failedWere 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, that this particular writer was telling the truth, atleast about what Gamaliel actually saidAny outside evidence brought to light is immediately dismissed by you fellas becasue you have no intention of being objectiveThings not previously believed and only mentioned in the Bible, then latter discovered to be accurate are quickly dismissed by you fellas as inconsequential. But when the Bible is the only source saying these events and people took place and existed, you say its inaccurateBut when its corroborted, you say its inconsequential, it doesnt make a difference. Where is the objecitvityThe type of evidence you use, then ask for from us has been provided. But every single example is simply dismissed. Now, its not dismissed in actuality, only in your mindsAs an example of your intellectual blatant dishonesty and laziness, I cite again your unwillingness to even acknowledge that we have nearly word for word what the original letters contained. You know that we do, you just dont like itDawn 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.

Now notice Jar and pay very close attention, you probably wont, but Ill try anyway.Two or three thousand years from now, some of if not of these lines of evidence will be lost destroyed or reduced to ambiguity.BTW, these are not actually evidence as Ringo requires, if you did not actually witnesse the eventsMost of them will be dismissed as lies, interpolations, changes or myth. What then will remain to make the story believable. From an evidenntial standpoint nearly nothing.The NT already has in place more physical evidence than will remain for the Bounty, in two thousand years of its events. The faithful trail of accurate transcription being the best.IOWs, I would immediately disbelieve its content, if it demonstrated itself to be inaccurate on the surface or in its testimony.Historical accuracy another. Places and people not previously beileved to exist and mentioned only by the Bible, discounted as disaccurate by historians, then discovered to be trueThe list just gets better and better. Ignoring it or pooh poohing it away as evidenceis not a response.Just like the bounty, we have to ask ourselves, is there any reason to doubt its accuracy and reliability as time passes and things are lost This would be comparable to the trail of accuracy concerning the scriptures Compared to who? Eyewitnesses that no longer exist?One moment you want physical evidence, the next you reject it.Dawn 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.

That is complete nonsense. It turns out that eye witness accounts and testimony are the least reliable evidence of all types. The most reliable evidence is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Ringo has said nothing about requiring eye witness testimony as evidence. Instead he has talked about methods of buttressing purported eye witness testimony, most of said methods not involving witnesses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you agree that evidence is not the proper term. That's the sole point at issue here. The question is not whether Christ is real or whether you can persuasively advance that proposition. The sole question involved in this discussion is whether there is evidence for the proposition.I take it from your choice to talk about everything but evidence that you don't have any contrary answer.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, sorry but that is nonsense.Your "trail of accuracy concerning the scriptures" is evidence of nothing except that some tales were copied accurately. They offer no evidence that the stories themselves ever happened.The Bounty shows that the vessel really did arrive at Pitcairn and was scuttled at Pitcairn. Yes, of course.The DNA of the original mutineers who settled on Pitcairn was transmitted to their descendents and can be compared to living relatives in England.It is the same way paternity is determined or that the recent find was identified as Richard III.

Yup. Got 'em. Right here. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

Evidence of Christ, yes,... not proof, since you can reject the evidence for any reason you my dream up and still say its not proof to you.We know that Pontius Pilate existed. (See wikipedia article on pontius pilate: an emerald stone was found with a letter of praise given him by Caesar Tiberius which authenticates his existence)According to George H. Duggan, the gospels began as oral tales until they were written. The earliest dating analysis on the "Jesus Papyrus", fragments of the Gospel of Mark and Matthew found in Luxor, Egypt--under a confocal laser scanning microscope by C.P. Thiede in the Magdalen College, Oxford revealed the fragments to be no older than July 24, 66 AD."Dating the Gospels" by George H. Duggan...and, of course the well known:External References to Jesus and the Christian Church.Josephus.
Born to priestly family in A.D. 37. Commanded Jewish troops in Galilee during rebellion. Surrendered, and earned favor of Emperor Vespasian. Wrote 20 books of Antiquities of the Jews. Refers to John the Baptist (killed by Herod) and to James, the brother of Jesus (condemned to death by stoning by the Sanhedrin).He referred to Jesus in his Antiquities 18:63. The standard text of Josephus reads as follows:"About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him, and the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." (Josephus The Essential Works, P. L. Maier ed./trans.).But the BEST testimony to Jesus is the Jews themselves, who have reported against him and what he said from the very beginning and recorded it in their Talmud.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).

Please provide these examples from the Talmud. Anyone can make assertions, lets see the actual evidence. LOL. You are a piece of work aren't you. As I have stated before, you will shoehorn anything in to support your out there beliefs.

Yup. I was actually hoping you would find something of this nature because it will go along way in demonstrating my point exacally.Imagine now we are hiftorians in this prefent day looking for fources to fupport and report on an event three hundred years removed. ofcourse we come upon this scant hard to find article and ofcourse we use it because it tends to be reliableNow imagine Josephus barely removed from events and Eusibeus 300 years removed and all the people inbetween.The sources available to Josephus must have been many, the sources to Eusibeus scant, but nonetheless reliable, just like you article concerning the bountyThe story of the bounty and its support, while scant, are now reliable. This is ofcourse exacally how we detemine the reliability of the NT. From sources that were not far removed from the events that depended on other reliable sources.We consider the earlier sources as reliable the same way you consider the Oxford News paper reliableI did notice you said "em". 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)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 storyBesides as I have indicated finding a Sahedrin account or some Roman record or file would only be rejected by you as evidence. You say it would count but knowing you fellas history it would notCan you provide any piece of obvious evidence that has and does support the Bible in any way that you fellas have not picked apart, without results or justification My point exacally but when its done in and by the Bible writers you call it collusion or contradiction Uh yeah that is the point I was making, because they are not canonical, they are not considered reliable as what was from the beginning LOL. Name one thing you consider reliable as evidence that supports the Bible. thats the point of your and my discussion, to demonstrate you are not objective from or in any sense My guess is that the people two thousand years from now will still believe the account of the bounty when all the evidence you suggest above is removed or unavailable directly. Why you say?because they will follow the trail of evidence from other reliable sources. Man Im good Seriously? I cant ftop laughing to write By comparison you illustration of the treasure Island with the NT documents is silly at best idiocy at worstTwo thousand years from now if it is even remembered treasure Island of course will not have a trail of evidence to support it like the NTthats the point of manuscript evidence supporting the NT, especially from different geographical locationsSecondly, stories like the Iliad and treasure Island do not have a trail of historical information following them, that can be cooroborated by reliable sourcesBut this is where your objectivity comes in doesnt it Ringo? 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. But you know without even trying thatJesus and Mohammed were real people, right?But thats assuming one chooses to be objective. Hmmmmm? You see my point, we havent even got started and your assuming its unreliable, even without implying how in your intimation 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 allYou cant even be consistent in your assertionsEdited 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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And we are right back where we started. Of course eyewitness testimony can have no less value than anyother type of evidence, as Evidence. Nobody that we know of witnessed Oswald Shooting JFK, but there were several very reliable witnesses as to shot his brother. No doubt, correct?Your statement above is to categorical This statement may or may not be true. At any rate, you just need get to Ringo to see that concerning the NT. Heck if you could just get him to be objective, that would be a start But thats the point isnt it? Any methods of evidence that support the validity and reliability of the NT, not involving witnesses, are sumarily dismissed by you fellas.As the direct, eyewitness evidence and most of the physical evidence fades for the bounty, most people thousands of years from now will still believe it as an actual event in history, even without gobs of direct evidenceIve only bolstered or used the NT writers as evidence of witness, because there is no good reason to reject them outright. They have not been the sole support for its reliabilityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You are wrong. Eyewitness testimony is less reliable than evidence that does not require us to determine the honesty, and human accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The point is that the only evidence that I've seen you cite is testimony purported to be eyewitness testimony and hearsay, which is essentially testimony of non witnesses. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.