the new new testament???

While Jar's last post makes no sense as usual, I will try and provide you with a simple answer to your query, Zen Deist2000 years from now if things were lost, people then, might debate the validity of a quote as to wheather it should be attributed to Shelly or Keats.But at this time we are confident because we have the original sources and can confirm the reliabilty and to which writer a statement should be attributedHere is an illustration. In an effort to discredit the long ending of Mark, Modern day "Scholars" will complain that it is not a part of the oldest manuscripts we have knowledge ofHowever, several of the ancient witnesses refer to or directly quote the long ending. Making it a mute point as to whether it is in the oldest manuscriptsthier quotes preceed the formation of those manuscriptsIt is very concivable that Irenaeus and others before him had access to the original writings that were confirmed by miraclesNext is the biased theory. that the early Christians excluded things becuse of........Which makes no sense if they did not know what was original, to be biased aboutYou cant be biased if there is no Standard to be biased about.the earliest Christians were familiar, not only with the Apostles, but thier writings as well.Paul said once in defense of his Apostleship, "Remember I come not only in word, but in power and DENONSTRATION of the Holy Spirit"When a phony came along, it was immediately recognized as irrelevant, as would someone today claiming to be Stephen King and then claiming to have writings from someone that is not actually him, would be immediately recognized as phonyWhile, 5000 years from, now they may need to go through the same rational process we do now, to actually determine wheather something is from King or not. thats assuming anyone gives a Rats behind about King in 5000 yearsThese are the first two steps to know what is to be believed, not believed or acceptedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

have you abandoned your challenge

You intial concern should be why should we abandon the very elabrate and historical process, that brought the veracity, to the books that have now stood the test of time.Your ignoring painstaking processes and research that has stood the test of time.sure there were other writings and Im sure there will be even more discovered, but none that will undo the standards that produced the now accepted canonwithout repeating my earlier points maybe you could review them first, before simply reminding me that there were other writingsAn illustration would be that that I have already presented. Im sure 3000 years from now people will dig up things that claim to be from this writer or that writer, but with just a little research, they will be able to see that such is not the casethey will be able to see that the people 3000 years ealier did not attribute those writings to SAID authorIts really, rather a simple process that makes spurious writings spurious or objectionable at best Again, no problem here. Im sure there were thousands of non-apostolic writings that were benificial and useful in those times. But the people closest to the Apostles and earliest church fathers would have a better perspective to decide which were considered inspired, or atleast from the hands of the Apostles themselfIt should greatly interest you that most of the spurious gospels once read, dont even sound similar in content or they appear nonsensical in contentThe bottom line is that the earliest associated people would be in a much better situation to decide acceptability than we are. that is unless you are ready to introduce the 'biased' perspectiveBut i think I have pretty much eliminated that as any serious considerationHere is another illustration nonetheless.Imagine someone today trying to pass off an alternate version of the declaration of independence. While it might still exist in some form somewhere, no one would take it seriouslySo what if someone 3000 years from now dug it up, we know now, as would they with a little research, balserdashDawn 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.

My harangue, as you you call it, is the simplest, best and most logical way to way to determine why a canon came about as it did.As I have now demonstrated, there is NO other course of action, but the tried and tested one. Scholars today cannot make that determination, no matter how many you have on your council.. Time and history decided what is acceptable and applicable, not people or scholarship.In fact the writers of the New Testament and the Apostles themself, rejected the new gospel (as you call it) when it was presented to them, initially.It was time and history that allowed the tested text to emerge. Not even they decided what was attributable and acceptable. They simply assisted by putting into logical fashion and in writing what everyone already knew to be the caseIts not, what should the content or teaching of the Gospel be, but what actually emerged, how did that happen and why.The answer is a simple logical one. Sayings that were known to be from Jesus and writings from the Apostles were immediately and forever stamped with approval of time and history itself.Example. I did not make Abraham L's, Gettysburg address what it is. It did not need my approval to be authenticated It did not become a part of History becuse, anyone then or I decided it should be what it is.It did help however, for there to be thousands of people around to say, oh yeah ole Abe made that speech, back wheneverNow you can imagine that there were few people around at that time that didnt pay to much attention to what was going on in those days and they mistook Mr Douglas for making the speech and then numerous people chimming in and saying, no no no, it was ole AbeIt just happened, correct?Dawn 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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Without sounding condesending and I certainly dont mean to in any way, but i doubt seriously you understand even the elementary elements of debate.It is customary in debate to actually address directly the arguments your opponent has set out, then make cursory and more declarative statements, in an affirmative fashionWithout addressing a single thing I actually covered or argued you proceeded with a dissertation ,while related to the topic, out of context with the arguments I presented I addressed and answered most of what you have asked HERE in my first response to RAZD. I guess you werent paying attention, so ill answer it againNot books but letters and communications of the earliest Christians and even the actual autographs, were available to them, so as know what was from the hands of the Apostles, to distinguish it from a fragulent letter, much the same way, you could distinguish a fraud, from an author presentlyNotice, most if not all of the early apologist and heritics arguments were not about what constituted the gospel but the interpretation of its content.Yes there were some suprious gospeld out there, but usually not even the heritics, took them seriously enough to quote or refer to themReproduction of nearly all of the NT, in the early communications of the earliest fathers, is a good indication that there was no need to take seriously the so-called gospelsThe silence you experience concerning say the Gospel of Thomas, is much the same silence, you would experince, if someone today were to claim to be from an author, but they were not. IOWs, there is no need for extensive investigation, when you know its not from the source it claims How much more informed information would you need to know,to know that this far removed from George Washington, that something was not actually apart of his communications. If something arose we could with little evaluation, dismiss it as spurious correct?IOWs, who would be in a better position to know whether the long ending of Mark, should be apart of the Gospel of Mark, Irenaeus or Bart Erdmans. Ireneaus must have known something, we did not. Atleast at that point in history, 177AD, it was known to be a part of the Gospel of Mark.Its my guess that he had access to much of the original autographs and earlies t traditionsOnly silliness would contend, that the earliest Christians were ALL evil and power hungry. Some were just people incidently writting what they knew to be accurate and the truthBTW, the Catholic Church did not exist when most of the earliest letters and communications that contain a reproduction of the NT qoutes, when they were written.You challenge, if decide to accept it is to demonstrate why we are in a better position to know what was accurate verses the actual people that were thereBias and power hungry arguments will only get you so farDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You still have not addressed direct arguments I have made. Look at them carefully, pull them out and answer them directly. Generally refering to something I said is poor form RAZD.You are better than that and I expect out of others but not you. Seriously RAZD read carefully, I have made no argument about interpretation, only that history is the only and best indicator as to what should be accepted and whyPull out my actual arguments then you will have an actual debateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Absolutely not. While you are correct about you assumtion of time, youve missed the whole point about history itself.lets assume for a moment, that presently we were going to compile a bible of poetry and we wanted to include most of the influential poets of the 19th and 20th centuryWe listed certain welll known poets, then we wanted to include only specific writings of specific poetsHow much effort would it take to distinguish between what was Henry W Longfellow's and that only claiming to be from the same writer. Not much effort at all, correct?History and the unadulterated influence of the past can make that determination. Imagine the Apostles sitting around enjoying a meal and someone runs up to Thomas with a copy the supposed letter penned by him, they read it, all have good laugh, or prayer for concern and then quickly dismiss it as nonsense as quickly as it came into their view.There would be no need to dwell on that known to be unauthentic, anymore than we we would have anything other than a laugh, reading something claiming to from the hand of LongfellowThe very idea of trying to decide what should be accepted as authentic and reliable, presently, makes no sense at all. History and time made that determination a long time ago.History and reason will only give an odd glance at your "new" bibleDawn 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now the above statement is with out a doubt the sillest I have ever witnessed. Do you mean to tell me that a historian 2000 years from now would know more about what the bullets wizing by your head and the artillery taking limbs off, is like than a guy that was acually on OmahaThat someone today would be better able to distinguish between Pauls letters and style of writing, verses someone that knew himthat somone today would be better suited to know what writings actually belonged to who and whySurely you gest Ringo. Did you read anything I wroteThis should clue you in Ringo. That is why historians presently go to people that were actually there , if possible, to see what actually happenedIm pretty sure people that were there dont SEEK OUT scholars. Its the other way aroundDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not only different it makes Ringo's comment nonsensical at least in this instance Have you been paying any attention at all? Long before canons and traditions, there was simply what happened. People were aware of and familiar with writings, the same way you are familiar with writings of certain authors todayNo one questions the validity and certainty of the certainty of things today because there is no reason to do so, correct?history and reason will not allow you around this point. Your verbosity, notwithstanding You know full well that we can reproduce most of the NT just from the ancient wittnesses, the manuscripts notwithstandingfrom this we gather two things. First, we know what the general consensus was and why. second that the manuscripts and canons were based on this historical situationYour attempt at eloquence and verbosity, will not remove this fact Perhaps you could show how I have not done that, to this point The same easy way you differentiate between the events that you are closely related to at any given timeI appeal to the people that were there and get an nearly accurate sensus of what the actual situation probably wasThat is unless we are going to say they were all self-motivated, self-involved. power hungry, raving lunitics. Which will be your second contention, because you cant actually respond to the first argument concerning simply historyIn truth no amount of evidence will be sufficient, because your every desire is for it not to be true to begin with. now theres some truth for you, ehDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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.

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.

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.

Again making it look like you are responding to a direct argument, verses actually doing it are two different thingsJosephus cant be both a reliable historian when you want him to be, then unreliable when it suits your purposesAs a reliable historian he would have sought out information that was one, so accesible to him, it would not be necessary to question its authenticityTwo, he would have immediately rejected anything that was questionable or unreliableJosephus was as closely related to reliable sources, because they werent even a generation removedIt would be like you seeking out some document from the turn of the century (1900) In debate this is known as misirection or a dodge. Its one thing to assert there are other Historians, but only sheer inability to acknowledge the truth of who is in a better position to know or not know something is plain just dishonesty If the county clerk later records and the police later arrest this imposter and the court officials convict him, who would better be able to detemine the facts. The people there or someone three thousand years later? And clearly your still participating in circumvention and evasionI noticed you didnt clarify whether the impartial observer was actual there, not far removed or 2000 years removedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.