the new new testament???

Roman Catholic monks, by the way. No doubt there was a conspiracy to preserve only the most pro-Catholic texts.

I didn't mean or say anything about access to ALL the books, only specific copies needed for evidence. And I meant it to be hypothetical, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm quite familiar with the issues involving the survival of manuscripts, deal with it all the time at my Bible blog. The point was that there would have been two separate lines of manuscripts if the passage was inserted later, the original without it and the tampered one with it, but that doesn't imply that any of them survived. If you have at least one copy of both then you have the actual evidence I was talking about. If you don't you don't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, Greek Orthodox monks, in the case of Josephus, but still.

That they are immaterial to the validity and primacy of the New Testament is confirmed in that what we already have had for 2000 years HAS been preached over all the world, disqualifying these johnnie come latees.Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;

Of course you see your double talk and standard here correct? When we say you can rely on the NT writers, you say we need cooroborating evidence. When we offer you Josephus, Pliny the younger and other writers that confirm some of the bigger events of jesus life, you say well we need corroborating evidence of the corroborating evidenceyour purpose is not to find truth when it omes to Christianity, its to find fault at all cost, so as to alleviate any responsibility Well, besides this confirming my above statement, your comment here is probably the most moronic Ive ever seen. And of course, none of this has anything to do with the fact that you now have better knowledge and are better able to determine what is a work by Stephen king verses someone 2000 years from now. And without trying you have changed the tenure of the conversation to avoid the main point. We are not talking about whether people are lying or not.Even liars have to have knowledge of the truth to tell a lie. You do understand that simple point correct? So it follows logically that even a liar directly involved in an incident would have BETTER knowledge of the actual events, than some dufus two thousand years latterNice try though you should get points for imaginationLuke said, "We were eyewitnesses of his majesty". So lying or not, someone directly involved with jesus would be in a better position todetermine those kind of facts. can you provide a valid reson from the book of Acts why I should not believe himDawn Bertot

I dont even know what the above statement means. So if you could elaborate I would appreciate it. Simple, by comparing what we have today to the oldest most ancient texts. Only minor grammatical errors and mistakes exist today.The dead sea scrolls move the books back 1000 years and then they are almost verbatim in thier contentWhy should we assume that 1000 years earlier than that 1000 years, they did not follow the same maticulous process. Of course they didAnything yet undiscovered, that will be discovered, will demonstrate that point. Discoveries of this sort never move the text backwards or render it unauthentic or unreliable, it only tends to confirm its reliability by showing the maticulous process involved when you believed you were dealing with Gods WordIf we found an original hand signed letter by Paul himself, you would simply say it was a fake. But Im sure someone then alive would be able to recognize one of Pauls letters and his personal signature or his copistBut this is a good junture to make a very valid point. Only someone directly involved or not far removed from such events would be able to be that maticulous correct. they not only perserved the words but the actual events By your usage of the Unwilling and Unable principle and your inability to provide another category besides the two, to describe my behavior, you now acknowldege the only logical possibilites involvedAnd you didnt think you could learn anythingDawn 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.

Interpretation from what perspective An people cant claim to be authorites, when they make up rules like "falsifiability", then only have it apply to anyone but themselves and to only part of thier theory that they tout, namely biological evolutionThere are no religious claims or scientific methodologies. These are words people made up to specify a simple process called Investigation. "Christians" like "Scientist" are only investigating the validity or invalidity of any principle or pointDawn Bertot

Thats like saying Reagan was an American but not a president.Dawn Bertot

No, it is not like that.Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

So all Christians are Jews? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your logic.

Then follow more closely. When a president is fully inagurated how can he both be a president and not a president at the same time, regardless of nationalityChristian means Christ like. how can Christ both be Christ like and not Christ like at the same time.So if Christ was not jewish, it would have nothing to do with him being Christ like, correct?The real question should have been, what possible application could be drawn from the non-sensical idea, mad e by Jar that Jesus was Jew and not alledgedly a ChristianHis point has no application and it makes no sense, as usualEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A person can be presidential yet not president.Christian is the label of a religion and does not mean "Christ like".A hint might be that they are two different words and the fact that many atheists are Christ like while many Christians are most definitely not Christ like..

Wrong I am a Christian, not because I am a religion, but because ONE person at a time desires to be Christ like.A hint might be that you stick with its root meaning. Wrong again, part of being a Christian is being a part of Christ, bought by the price of his blood and becoming his brother and ChildSince Atheists arent bought with the price, they cannot be Christ likeIf any man is IN Christ he is a new creature (Christian)Dawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your original intimation was that Christ could both be himself and not be himself at the sametime. As usual you make no LOGICAL senseDawn Bertot

More unsupported assertions Dawn