the new new testament???

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.

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. 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.

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)

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.

LOLDr. 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... PPoint 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.

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.

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.

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 objectivityIve 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 itIve also demonstrated by argument, example, illustration and history that the canonical books have very high quality of evidence as reliableperhaps if you would actually take up an argument and address it, you would demonstrate yourself as some form of debaterBTW rocket scientist, non-canonical books can be of worst quality evidence, thats why they are non-canonical The standard is history itself and what emerged through the doorway of history and the related evidenc ethat followedSeriously Ringo, atleast addressed some evidence presented to you, or show counter-factual evidence that that history is inaccurateDawn Bertot

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.

There are a lot of posts in this thread that you haven't answered. Try looking for the evidence there. What you've demonstrated is that you don't know what "reliable" means. 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.

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 scienceSure there were some people that for personal beliefs that rejected this or that, but the corpus was unanimousYour looking at a snap shot of time and a snap shot of events, the sameway people 2000 years from will be looking at thingstry and put yourself in that time period and its simple to figure outTrying to decide what should still go in the canon now is nonsensicalDawn Bertot

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 Absense of evidence is not lack of evidence. Reliability comes in many forms 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 obviousLets 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 historyYour 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 othersRemember 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 addI doubt any of this is hard to understand for you, but I suppose you are obligated to defend the position you have chosenDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You really don't know shit about the Bible, Canons or Christianity do you? 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. 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.

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

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.