the new new testament???

But, only you are suggesting taking this situation Past a Reasonable Doubt. All that is being suggested is to remain skeptical until a preponderance of the evidence points in that direction. It is more similar to a civil trial instead of a criminal trial.I mean, look at the famous poem that many of us learned growing up:"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue..."All throughout grade school, I was taught from historical knowledge that Columbus Discovered the Americas. Which did, at the time, fit with a preponderance of the evidence, although when I was in grade school that evidence was definitely weakening significantly. Then, further evidence, such as: Ancient Migration coming to AmericaFirst Americans arrived as two separate migrationsRadical Theory of First Americans places Stone Age Europeansin Delmarva 20,000 years agoNew North America Viking Voyage DiscoveredSo, as the evidence has built up denying Columbus' claim of Discovering the Americas, history is forced to follow the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, we are forced by the connections to discount the claims of Columbus and those who wish to give him credit for discovering something that had already been discovered multiple times.Ringo mentioned that these manuscripts, the ones you are insisting must be accurate, even though very little corroborating evidence exists, would have been recopied by Monks in the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. As we know from many examples, history is written by the victors, not by those that were defeated. These monks had good cause to want to include statements verifying the authenticity of the religion they had chosen to follow, which makes it suspect when these out of place writings appear. Could it be actual evidence, of course. However, we must be careful to understand that two or three writings are not a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, it is what it is...two or three writings. Nothing like finding out of place settlements, then stone tools, then understanding that the ice caps were lower 20,000 years ago, offering a Northwest passage from Europe to the Americas. Evidence piles up upon itself making the statements more and more likely.And your question of a specific number of threads of evidence is B.S. as well. It is not a specific number, but rather a preponderance of evidence. For help with this concept, here is the definition of preponderance:Preponderance - 1. a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength2. a superiority or excess in number or quantityVerification of the chosen religious texts does not hold up to this standard. A majority of writings from the time period do not discuss Christianity, while a couple of them do. However, the preponderance of evidence, or majority of evidence points to the inaccuracy of the Bible, or at least later rewritings that made the Bible more inaccurate. We would know the truth better, because we have better access to a larger volume of manuscripts, more lines of evidence to look at, more knowledge about the writings of multiple cultures and similarities between different god myths, and more experience verifying authenticity of writings based upon archaelogical research. They have eye-witness testimony, notably the worst line of evidence that can possibly exist and one that can rarely be trusted. Incorrect. What people knew or did not know is a part of history that has been written down and then revised throughout the centuries based upon the whims of the victors. This is how Columbus got away with stealing credit for so long, even with the blatant fact that he arrived on an already populated landmass. Ummmm....always has to be part of the truth?
Bill Clinton: I did not have Sexual Relations with that womanThis seems to have no part of the truth, hence it is a lie and your statement that a lie must always contain truth is debunked. Would you like to try again? A lie can contain kernels of truth, which does add plausibility, but it is by no means a requirement of lying. Comparing the discovery of more and more ancient manuscripts and determining how many lines of evidence point toward certain conclusions is nothing at all like actually meeting an individual and having an opportunity to talk with them. Plus, many parents talk to friends with children to determine a good location to take their children for school or daycare. In other words, you chose one part of the scenario, but left out the other ways a parent can verify the safety of their child at the chosen daycare, plus the fact that they will have personal one on one experience with the individual prior to leaving their child with him or her. In other words, parents dropping their children off at daycare generally have multiple lines of evidence, more than the negative evidence, giving a reasonable expectation of safety. Could it be wrong, yes...but at least there is a preponderance of evidence there. This is simply an empty assertion. No one has ever been able to verify the authenticity of the NT documents with a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. They were written far after the fact by individuals removed from Jesus' time by up to 200 years!!! I don't believe them because there is no evidence that tells me I should. I would have to believe in an incompetent God who let us wander around confused for over 95,000 years and then finally decided, oh I guess I should give them some sort of information but I am going to give different information to different regions of the world. All of these ideas will contradict one another, such as Buddhism, Juddaism, and Hinduism. Then, after I, God, realized my mistake 3,000 years after that, I am going to send a version of myself to die and, instead of combining the religions, I will create another religion, so that I can further divide the people into separate groups. If your God exists, he is the most woefully incompetent, all powerful being that has ever existed. I am going to say because a preponderance of the evidence points to this information, such as:Evidence of the original orders of the ship
Evidence of the orders sent to the HMS Pandora to arrest the Mutineers
Evidence of the settlement built by the Mutineers around the time stated on the Pitcairn Islands
Public trial and hanging of the Mutineers onboard the HMS Brunswick
Death certificates of the Mutineers and reason for execution
Personal accounts of actual Mutineers, written not after their deaths but by the individuals themselves. Mutiny on the HMS BountyShall I continue? Multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. This is how one should look at history rationally, and to accept that the NT has nearly the same amount of corroborating evidence is disingenious in the least and blatant lying at its worst.