Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 10:31 AM
223 online now:
Aussie, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Son of Man, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 216 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,050 Year: 16,873/29,783 Month: 861/1,956 Week: 364/331 Day: 23/69 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 181 of 226 (705429)
08-26-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by NoNukes
08-26-2013 11:08 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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.

Ok, lets go with your premise and this is just the tip of the iceburg. Its gets even better from here

From that uneducated idiot as one poster here discribed him, F F Bruce, In his book, 'The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable', he states,

Here, in the pages of Josephus, we meet many figures who are well known to us from the New
Testament: the colourful family of the Herods; the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and
Nero; Quirinius, the governor of Syria; Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the procurators of Judaea, the high
priestly families-Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and the rest; the Pharisees and Sadducees; and so on. against
the background which Josephus provides we can read the New Testament with greater understanding and
interest.
When Gamaliel, in Acts v. 37, speaks of Judas the Galilean who led a rising in the days of the taxing, we
turn to the pages of Josephus, and find the story of this rising both in his War (ii. 8) and in the Antiquities
(xviii. 1). Josephus also tells of an impostor named Theudas (Ant. xx. 5.1) who appeared shortly after
AD, 44, but the Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel flourished before Judas the Galilean an (AD 6), and in
any case Gamaliel's speech was made between 30 and 33. It is unnecessary to think that Luke perpetrated
an anachronism through misreading Josephus (the weight of evidence is against Luke's having read
Josephus); Josephus himself tells us that about the time of the death of Herod the Great (4 BC) there
were ever so many such troubles in Judaea, and the activity of Gamaliel's Theudas (which was not an
uncommon name) may belong to this period.
The famine in the days of Claudius (Acts xi. 28) is also referred to by Josephus; if Luke tells us how the
Christians in Antioch sent help to the Jerusalem church on this occasion, Josephus tells us how Helena,
the Jewish queenmother of Adiabene, which lay northeast of Mesopotamia, had corn bought in
Alexandria and figs in Cyprus to relieve the hunger of the Jerusalem populace on the same occasion.'
The sudden death of Herod Agrippa I, narrated by Luke in Acts xii. 19-23, is recorded also by Josephus
(Ant. xix. 8. 2) in a form agreeing with Luke's general Outline, though the two accounts are quite
independent of each other. This is the story as told by Josephus:
'When Agrippa had reigned three full years over all Judaea, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was
formerly called Strato's Tower. There he exhibited shows in honour of Caesar, inaugurating this as a
festival for the emperor's welfare. And there came together to it a multitude of the provincial officials and
of those who had been promoted to a distinguished position. On the second day of the shows he put on a
robe all made of diver, of altogether wonderful weaving, and arrived in the theatre at break of day. Then
the silver shone as the sun's first rays fell upon it and glittered wonderfully, its resplendence inspiring a
sort of fear and trembling in those who gazed upon it. Immediately his flatterers called out from various
http://www.worldinvisible.com/...bruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc09.htm (3 of 7) [21/07/2003 12:16:16 a.m.]
http://www.worldinvisible.com/...bruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc09.htm
quarters, in words which in truth were not for his good, addressing him as a god, and invoking him with
the cry, "Be propitious! if hitherto we have revered thee as a human being, yet henceforth we confess
thee to be superior to mortal nature."
'The king did not rebuke them, nor did he repudiate their impious flattery. But looking up soon
afterwards he saw the owl sitting on a rope above his head, and immediately recognized it as a messenger
of evil as it had formerly been a messenger of good,' and a pang of grief pierced his heart. There came
also a severe pain in his belly, beginning with a violent attack.... So he was carried quickly into the
palace, and the news sped abroad among all that he would certainly die before long.... And when he had
suffered continuously for five days from the pain in his belly, he departed this life in the fifty fourth year
of his age and the seventh of his reign.'
The parallels between the two accounts are obvious, as is also the absence of collusion between them.
Luke describes the king's sudden stroke by saying, in biblical language, that 'the angel of the Lord smote
him'; it is unnecessary to think that there is any significance in the fact that the Greek word for 'angel' in
Luke's account (angelos) is the same as the word for 'messenger' applied to the owl by Josephus, though
some early Christian Fathers seem to have thought so. The Tyrians may well have taken advantage of
this festival to be publicly reconciled to the king.
In general, we may sum up the comparison of the two accounts in the words of an unbiased historian,
Eduard Meyer: 'In outline, in data, and in the general conception, both accounts are in full agreement. By
its very interesting details, which are by no means to be explained as due to a "tendency" or a popular
tradition, Luke's account affords a guarantee that it is at least just as reliable as that of Josephus."
More important still, Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist and of James the brother of our Lord,
recording the death of each in a manner manifestly independent of the New Testament, so that there is no
ground for suspecting Christian interpolation in either passage; In Ant. xviii. 5. 2 we read how Herod
Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, was defeated in battle by Aretas, king of the Nabataean an Arabs, the
father of Herod's first wife, whom he deserted for Herodias. Josephus goes on:
'Now some of the Jews thought that Herod's army had been destroyed by God, and that it was a very just
penalty to avenge John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had killed him, though he was a good man, who
bade the Jews practice virtue, be just one to another and pious toward God, and come together in
baptism.' He taught that baptism was acceptable to God provided that they underwent it not to procure
remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, if the soul had already been purified by
righteousness. And when the others gathered round him (for they were greatly moved when they heard
his words), Herod feared that his persuasive power over men, being so great, might lead to a rising, as
they seemed ready to follow his counsel in everything. So he thought it much better to seize him and kill
him before he caused any tumult, than to have to repent of falling into such trouble later on, after a revolt
had taken place. Because of this suspicion of Herod, John was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fortress
which we mentioned above, and there put to death. The Jews believed that it was to avenge him that the
disaster fell upon the army, God wishing to bring evil upon Herod.'

If we are speaking concerning reliability, you really should read the book. Its not even a contest to oppose its reliabity in confidence of evidental accuracy. But in your disbelief try and find some objectivity

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2013 11:08 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 183 of 226 (705558)
08-28-2013 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
08-27-2013 12:15 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
No, I don't consider the Oxford News "reliable".

This is why we cannot honestly have a discussion, because you will not be objective. Of-course you consider it reliable

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).

Im not sure what close to the samething means

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.

What else do you have of an independent nature. Thats my point. The person that posted the article was estatic that they had found that one document

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.

Ringo

No it wouldn't.

Thats simply not true. You and others have tried to discredit every other piece of corroborating evidence to Eusibeus

No I don't. I said that without an independent source, we can't rule out collusion.

The general rule is ascribed as collusion in one context contradiction in another

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.

Jerusalem was not what I meant and you know it. There is much that has been verified and as of yet you have not provided why the NT writers are unreliable. Perhaps you will do that at some point.

I know why you believe it to be unreliable but you will probably never state it out right

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.

Well its right on the tip of your tounge, but you just wont say miracles

Ive already demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty by pointing out that you presently know for a fact that one is fictional and say the book of Acts is pitted in historical fact. Even if it was just a feeling you know the difference between Shakespear and a probable real story

Ringo writes

Personally, I don't think Jesus was a real person.

From wiki

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.[46][47] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[46]

The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima, now at the Israel MuseumScholarly agreement on the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is widespread, and most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[108][109][110][111] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[112] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[110] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[108] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[111] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[113]

Again I demonstrate you have no objectivity when not only Biblical Scholars but Most scholars generally agree with even the basic facts. You simply play the blind monkeys to avoid responsibility

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.

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

This simple acid test should be simple even for someone like yourself. They used and copied what they knew to be the original material. These two simple points alone establish thier reliability without anything else

Your up

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 08-27-2013 12:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2013 11:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-29-2013 12:35 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 184 of 226 (705560)
08-28-2013 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dawn Bertot
08-28-2013 11:45 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Personally, I don't think Jesus was a real person.

Then why are you trolling?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-28-2013 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 186 of 226 (705904)
09-03-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by kofh2u
08-26-2013 12:32 PM


Re: winning people over...
I asked this before
kofh2u writes:

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.

Please provide these examples from the Talmud. Anyone can make assertions, lets see the actual evidence.

I see you are posting to other threads, but have declined to answer this. No support for your claims?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 12:32 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ramoss, posted 09-04-2013 5:18 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 198 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 4:27 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 187 of 226 (705973)
09-04-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ringo
08-29-2013 12:35 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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 is hardly the point I am making and you it. I am suggesting that from the very begginning of Christianity, we know and have a standard, rule and guide (Which is meant by Canon) that is reliable as being from its original source

I am further demonstrating that the other alledged which claim to be canonical, can make no such claim

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

Why do you refuse to do this? Isnt that what the thread is about

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?

Again, reliability in this instance has nothing to do with human testimony. It only has to do with the fact that we know we have that which is reliable as original

It has to do with the fact that the people of original christianity knew what was considered authentic verses spurious or fake.

Now if you can provide evidence that the other books were readily accepted as those of the canon, Im willing to listen to your argument

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.

You seem to think that reliability and evidence only comes from human testimony and resources

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-29-2013 12:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-04-2013 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 09-05-2013 12:23 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 188 of 226 (705974)
09-04-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
09-04-2013 4:45 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
I am suggesting that from the very begginning of Christianity, we know and have a standard, rule and guide (Which is meant by Canon) that is reliable as being from its original source

If you knew anything about Christianity you would know that is not what Canon means and that there is no universal Canon.

Edited by jar, : move no


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2013 4:45 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 189 of 226 (705977)
09-04-2013 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 9:52 PM


Re: winning people over...
I really wouldn't think that anything that was written in the Talmud would have bearing on this historical value of Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud, which is the one that would have any references , was written between the third, and the sixth centuries. That is more than enough time for stories, and a strong reaction against those stories to develop.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 9:52 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 09-04-2013 5:25 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 190 of 226 (705978)
09-04-2013 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by ramoss
09-04-2013 5:18 PM


Re: winning people over...
I agree. That is why I want to pursue this, to see what kofh2u had in mind when he/she brought up the Talmud. [sarcasm]Maybe there is something he found in the Talmud that no one else has seen before.[/sarcasm]

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ramoss, posted 09-04-2013 5:18 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 192 of 226 (706067)
09-05-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ringo
09-05-2013 12:23 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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.

On the contrary. Reliability has to do with what you can trace back far enough to be convinced that a certain group of people new and understood what was authentic and what was suprious

ill just keep asking you to demonstrate otherwise, besides that which we know to be the truth. 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

If you could have demonstrated otherwise you would have already done it. The reliability attached to this certainty would only be disavowed by a complete moron, or someone trying to avoid abvious truth

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?

There could be several reasons why such records dont exist. They were lost, by time, like most of the reports concerning the bounty. they were destroyed. The trials were illegal to begin with or they were of no significance to report.

As I have pointed out numerous times, no such independent evidence would you accept as reliable in the first place

You would scream it was forged, it was tampered with, or something of that nature

To bolster my case, you and your cohorts have disavowed every single piece of evidence that directly or indirectly corroborates any of these events.

To demonstrate such dealings I only have to point to Jesus prediction of the destruction of Jeruselum. Immediately, liberal "scholars", rush to claim it would have to be written after the event. Because, because, because

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 09-05-2013 12:23 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 09-05-2013 5:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 09-06-2013 12:57 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 193 of 226 (706069)
09-05-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2013 5:10 PM


Common books?
Actually Dawn, the only books that are universally Canonized are the first five books of the Old Testament.

None of the New Testament books are universally accepted.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2013 5:10 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 195 of 226 (706156)
09-06-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
09-06-2013 12:57 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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.

Amazing. What you have stated here is palpably false and you know it. 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

But here we go again. There is a clear pattern and trail of evidence that allows us to know what the people that knew the apostles and those that followed them knew as reliable sources to be trusted as from the Apostles hands and by direct inspiration

Duplicating nearly all of the NT from just a few of the earliest fathers is indicative of this point.

The fact that while a few of the spurious books were in existence, not long after the originals, but were not used quoted or accepted by any majority of Christianity or what are known as heritics, should clue you in a bit

Were you able to produce evidence that this was not the case you would have already done it.

Direct access at times to the Apostles, people that were contemporaries of the Apostles and the such like, could only come about as a result of having direct access to information and writings that put any objection to rest

But you feel free to present otherwise if you think you can

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.

Plain hogwash. What evidence do we have that compares to the recieved books by the earliest followers of Apostles?

The mere fact of thier existence (spurious books)is not what I hope you are reaching for here. Ill expect allitle better

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.

How many times do I need to present it before you will respond to it

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?

That is is excally what we can trace

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 09-06-2013 12:57 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ringo, posted 09-07-2013 11:49 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018