the new new testament???

Who did you call to find out Abraham L, was shot at Fords theater

We're not talking about feelings. We're talking about events. Yes, a historian 2000 years from now will most likely know much more about the causes and events of our world wars than anybody who was there. They don't though. William L. Shirer didn't ask a bunch of Nazis what went on in Germany. He went to the documents and he decided which ones were more reliable than others. That's why he knew more about what happened in Germany than the people who were there.

Unfortunatley, the simplicity and evasion you are exhibitiing in this instance should be obvious to anyone paying any attention at all.Of course we are not talking about feelings, I agree. however to intimate that the earliest Christians that were associated with both Jesus, the Apostles and those immediately following them, a relative short time period of time,were not, knowlegable and comfortable with what was considered authentic, accurate and reliable, is ludicrousThis point cannot be dismissed, ignored or changed.Very quickly a core of knowledge about what was authentic, was established at the earliest possible time periodNow watch. Not because they were under some restrain to do it that way, but only because thats how events and facts are established, by simple day to dealing with what is accurate and what is not.Yes, they were in a better position to know what was accurate and what was not, more so than we areThats how you recognize a phony in your time period, by being familiar with and closely associated with the actual facts.Once that happens, two things flow out of it. The core is established and a phony can easily be dismissed as such.Facts, truth and accuracy are not established 2000 years later, they are assertained ONLY by the historical truth all ready in placeWho would know better whether Alexander the great actually saw some flying discs during one of his battle, ws today or a guy standing right beside him either witnessing it or notEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You missed the point altogether. My point was that the people that were there already know what the truth and facts are, they dont try and seek out someone across the ocean to figure out what facts and truth are about thier gegraphical location. Why would theyThe facts and truth that you know presently, without a doubt, about things in your immediate area will flow into history. If there is enough consensus or corroborating evidence, historians 1000 years from now will be able to assertaing a simlitude of its accuracyThats what we have concerning the reliability of the NT documents.An illustration would be like this. Neither Jesus or the Apostles quoted or refered to Apocryphal books, even though there were some present at those time periods. They simply werent accepted by the general consensus.Now, how would they know they werent reliable, depndable, acceptable or authentic? Because they were actually living in a time when they were composed or a had a reliabe tradition that when they were compsed, the people of that time rejected them as unauthentic and objectionableBottom line, we cant make a determination better than the people that existed and were present when such things were composedDawn 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.

On the contrary, what's ludicrous is to take what was written as a given when the very existence of the authors is questionable. So at a crime scene, you would take the word of the alleged perpetrator over the word of an impartial observer? After all, he was there. You wouldn't even consider the possibility that he had an adgenda to spin the "truth" in his own favour?

Seek and you shall find. Don't seek and you're less likely to find. That's why people seeking 2000 years later are more likely to find the "truth" than people who aren't looking for it. One of the greatest tragedies of the human race is that people think they have "the truth" so they don't bother to learn anything. They didn't refer to every book in "the" canon either. You might as well say that Japan didn't exist because neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned it.

Actually Jesus and the Apostles seems to have referenced books that did not even make it into the Apocrypha like The Book of Enoch.

No they don't. They have a subjective idea of what went on within their senses of sight and hearing. They know nothing that happened over the next hill. In the cases of warfare it is call the "fog of war". That is why eyewitness testimony has been shown repeatedly not be reliable.If your premise was correct, then there would not be so much conflicting testimony in the Zimmerman trial. Also, the personal stories from war do not reflect what really happened. Historians take the personal reflections and action reports and construct what really happened out of them.Maybe you should not spout of about things you seemingly know nothing about.

Just to point out.. you cna't show that ANY of the aposltes actually wrote any of the New testament. We have a tradition that Mark was written by the student of Peter, and Matthew and luke copied from him.John is far out, and was modified quite a lot.Except for the some of the letter attributed to Paul, we don't know who wrote any of the books of the NT.

Ah the ole bob and weave by Ringo. Now that he knows he cannot resist or contradict the force of my argument, concerning who would be more informed, us or they, he quickly reverts to an ole debating tactic called "moving the goal posts"Without knowing it thoug he has stepped right in a pile of his own crapola.Now Albert E, who would know better the existence of these authors, the people then or the people now? Who would be in a better place to identify a phony, us or they.Im sure if Josephus, knew who John the baptist and James the brother of Jesus was, it wouldnt be to hard for the people directly involved to figure out who Paul, Peter, Matthew or John were, correct?You simply have no course of action in this instance, except to accept what history offers youUnless again I issue you the challenge to prove these fellas were all frauds and fakes.Of course you cant even get passed the first argument to address the fraud and fake contention Ah he's showing a little intelligence now. So you admit you would FIRST interview the people directly involved. He's getting it folks, slowly but surely And right when I think he's getting it, bam desperation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

We would be better at detecting whether or not the material was actually written by the alleged author than anyone living 1900 years ago.We know more, have better techniques and far more experience.

Josephus knew who the alleged characters John, James, etc. were but neither he nor anybody else had any actual evidence that they existed. History didn't stop at Josephus. The point here is that historians have been studying the evidence for the past 2000 years, which puts them in a better position than Josephus to determine who existed, who did what, etc. If a guy comes to my door to read the water meter, it isn't up to me to prove he's an imposter. It's up to him to pony up his ID. Clearly I didn't say any such thing. I asked if you would take the word of the alleged perpetrator - who might put his own interests above the truth - over the word of an impartial observer.Edited by ringo, : Selling.

You seem to be implying that Josephus had first hand knowledge of James the brother of Jesus. John the Baptist seems to have been a historical figure so you are just trying to muddy the waters by putting the two together.Nothing Josephus wrote, or even what he has been reputed to have written, shows that he knew who this James guy.

Sorry for the lateness of the responses to these post It seems fitting to start my response with the sillest of all the comments, not unsurprisingly by jar himself. I just concluded watching the Craig-Sprong debate on the ressurectionJar you must be a part of some Jesus Seminar Group like Sprong, he sounds just like youIts truely amazing how a man like Srong and the Jesus Seminar can be and sound so irrational, so illogical and nonsensical on just about every single point.Here is a sample of Mr Srong's reasoniing abilities. I dont believe in a bodliy resurrection, but I do believe there is a soul and it goes on to heaven.Almost in the same breath he tries to convince us that we cannot actually know which words are Jesus words, or which words were put there by later followers of Jesus, but we have a sound belief for beliving some of the miraculous in the Bible, yet he never gives a sound way of how he came to this conclusionBut he is convinced by certain passages in the NT that, there is an after life, a soul and a heavenly home.And people like Mr Sprong actually present themselves as rational thinkers and leaders. Of what?Then we have Jar ASSERTING, not explaining why we today would be better off deciding who the actual author MIGHT be, verses someone that was there basically right on top of itDid you and Bishop Sprong go to the same school of reasoning Jar?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Other than trying to Palm the Pea and misdirect attention; other than misrepresenting and lying about what I actually said, it seems you have no response to what i posted even when you quoted what I said.Did I or did I not say "We know more, have better techniques and far more experience."?