Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 11:39 PM
197 online now:
AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, edge, Faith, RAZD, xongsmith (6 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,191 Year: 17,014/29,783 Month: 1,002/1,956 Week: 505/331 Day: 88/76 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 196 of 226 (706162)
09-06-2013 6:46 PM


Dunno if anyone mentioned this to much to read trough.

But technically the new new testament would be the Quran. It has stuff from the old testament, it contains stuff from the new testament, and some new stuff from the new prophet Mohammed. So my guess is your all talking about the New new new Testament.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15597
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1772 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 198 of 226 (706188)
09-07-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 9:52 PM


Re: winning people over...

KOFH2u:
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.


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

Sorry for the delay, but I only attend occasionally now because there is a restriction on freedom of expression here.

But, yes, the evidence that after Christianity soon turned the tables of the persecution by the Jews, and the Jews themselves became persecuted, the Talmud was censored" and all the derogatory references to Jesus and his followers were eliminated by and large, replaced only with inneudo and non-specific references to Jesus.

....

in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:
"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack.

Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates:
Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.
As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)


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 199 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2013 5:39 PM kofh2u has responded

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


Message 199 of 226 (706196)
09-07-2013 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by kofh2u
09-07-2013 4:27 PM


Re: winning people over...
Sorry for the delay, but I only attend occasionally now because there is a restriction on freedom of expression here.

Don't be ridiculous. Also, you have posted since I originally asked the question, so don't make lame excuses.

I will address your claims, but I see you have no examples from the Talmud, so you have nothing to support your claim.

Your whole next argument is just ridiculous. Did you not give us a link to your source because the next line destroys your argument completely?

I won't go into why your argument is simply foolish, because the next quotation in the source is enough.

Source

quote:
Dr. Robert Morey continues:

"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts any more...


There are other reasons why there are plenty of pre-1631 texts to look. If you want I can go into them.

So lets get back to my original question.

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.

Theodoric writes:


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


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 198 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 4:27 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 9:37 PM Theodoric has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1772 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 200 of 226 (706201)
09-07-2013 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Theodoric
09-07-2013 5:39 PM


no on edenies Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud...
LOL

Dr. Robert Morey continues:
"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one (EXCEPT THEORDORIC) denies these facts any more... P

Point made,....
... minus your arbitrary demand that I find the older Talmud that supports both what I told you, (1) as per the best witness to Jesus being the Jews themselves and(2) the source of my claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2013 5:39 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2013 9:50 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2013 12:24 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

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


Message 201 of 226 (706203)
09-07-2013 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by kofh2u
09-07-2013 9:37 PM


Re: no on edenies Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud...
Then why can't you present them so we can examine them?

ABE
There is nothing in that statement that supports your claim.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


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 200 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 9:37 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 226 (706207)
09-08-2013 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by kofh2u
09-07-2013 9:37 PM


Re: no on edenies Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud...

... minus your arbitrary demand that I find the older Talmud that supports both what I told you, (1) as per the best witness to Jesus being the Jews themselves and(2) the source of my claim.

Are you serious? You think that the best evidence that the statement were in the old Talmud is some guy saying so, rather than the old Talmud itself?

The guy you are quoting claims that the old Talmuds are available. If he's not lying, it should be easy to prove that by showing us.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by kofh2u, posted 09-07-2013 9:37 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 203 of 226 (706328)
09-09-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by ringo
09-07-2013 11:49 AM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
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.

Im not sure what you think debating is or is not, but when you consistently ignore the fact that from the earliest times of Christianity we can see clearly what the majority of books that were considered as authentic by both Christian an heritic, you demonstrate you have no concern for objectivity

Ive provided numerous times now that the earliest fathers substantiated and gave thier approval of certain books that they considered as inspired and authentic.

If you have evidence to the contrary quit with your word exchange and verbosity and get to it

Ive also demonstrated by argument, example, illustration and history that the canonical books have very high quality of evidence as reliable

perhaps if you would actually take up an argument and address it, you would demonstrate yourself as some form of debater

BTW rocket scientist, non-canonical books can be of worst quality evidence, thats why they are non-canonical

Of course not. Don't be silly. 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

Seriously Ringo, atleast addressed some evidence presented to you, or show counter-factual evidence that that history is inaccurate

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by ringo, posted 09-07-2013 11:49 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 4:57 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 09-10-2013 12:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2013 12:30 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 204 of 226 (706329)
09-09-2013 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2013 4:54 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Ive provided numerous times now that the earliest fathers substantiated and gave thier approval of certain books that they considered as inspired and authentic.

But they have never agreed on exactly which books that would be. There is no universal Canon and the only books that are common to all the Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament.


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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 4:47 PM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15597
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 206 of 226 (706389)
09-10-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
09-09-2013 4:57 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
they have never agreed on exactly which books that would be. There is no universal Canon and the only books that are common to all the Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament.

Lets do a little illustration to help make the point. Lets say that for some odd reason I wanted to put in a collection 10 writings of the ten best science fiction writers of our time.

Well the first thing I wouldnt do is run around trying to figure out which writings belong to who. Why you ask yourself? Simply because i already know by being a part of that time period and being close to those events, what goes where. Its not rocket science

Sure there were some people that for personal beliefs that rejected this or that, but the corpus was unanimous

Your looking at a snap shot of time and a snap shot of events, the sameway people 2000 years from will be looking at things

try and put yourself in that time period and its simple to figure out

Trying to decide what should still go in the canon now is nonsensical

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 4:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 09-10-2013 5:01 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 207 of 226 (706390)
09-10-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
09-10-2013 12:00 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
There are a lot of posts in this thread that you haven't answered. Try looking for the evidence there.

Im always open to critic, please point to what Ive missed and Im sure I will be echoing what Ive already said.

But we all miss things

What you've demonstrated is that you don't know what "reliable" means.

Absense of evidence is not lack of evidence. Reliability comes in many forms

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.

Any non-canonical book will suffice. It is easily demonstrated that the earliest church fathers used and quoted or refered to the now existing books with great repetition, acceptance and favor.

How can I give you evidence of something they did NOT do? If they had used , refered to and quoted the non-canonical books with confidence and repitition, it would be obvious

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. Why you ask yourself, because none of its contencs can be verified in the ground or by history

Your trying to elvauate a situation from a perspective and situation that you do not exist in. History and reason lets us know why they accepted certain ones and rejected others

Remember me saying early on that to NOW try and add to the existing canon would constitute a lack of reason? IOWs it would be idiocy at its best, for all the reasons I have stated. Very logically I might add

I doubt any of this is hard to understand for you, but I suppose you are obligated to defend the position you have chosen

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 09-10-2013 12:00 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 12:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

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


Message 208 of 226 (706391)
09-10-2013 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2013 4:47 PM


There is no universal Christian Canon
You really don't know shit about the Bible, Canons or Christianity do you?

Well the first thing I wouldnt do is run around trying to figure out which writings belong to who. Why you ask yourself? Simply because i already know by being a part of that time period and being close to those events, what goes where. Its not rocket science

More bullshit and misrepresentation at best.

No Canon was made by people being part of that time period, what ever that even means. The earliest Christian Canons were created hundreds of years after the fact. In fact, the separation between when Jesus lived and when the first Christian Canon was created is about the same as between today and when Shakespeare was alive, and we still are unsure of who wrote Shakespeare's play.

Sure there were some people that for personal beliefs that rejected this or that, but the corpus was unanimous

Bullshit. There is no unanimous corpus, a fact that as has been pointed out to you. The smallest Christian Canon contains only those books that had been Canonized while Jesus was alive; the first five books of the Old Testament. All of the New Testament is considered extra-canonical. The largest Christian Canon contains over 80 books.

There is no universal Christian Canon.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 4:47 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 5:05 PM jar has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 209 of 226 (706392)
09-10-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
09-10-2013 5:01 PM


Re: There is no universal Christian Canon
More bullshit and misrepresentation at best.

No Canon was made by people being part of that time period

Wow, you really need to pay attention to what I am saying Jar. Didnt any of the illustrations help you. I can make them simpler, if need be

Jar the councils didnt decide which books go in,they simply compiled what was already know to be reliable. Its really not that hard Jar

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 09-10-2013 5:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 09-10-2013 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

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


Message 210 of 226 (706393)
09-10-2013 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2013 5:05 PM


Re: There is no universal Christian Canon
LOL.

There is no list of what is reliable agreed upon in any Christian Canon beyond the first five books of the Old Testament.

They did not compile one list of hat was reliable.

They DID decide what book went into each Canon.

It really is simple.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 5:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018