the new new testament???

He's probably talking about Alexander the Great. And besides getting the putative author wrong, Bertot has managed to undercut his entire line of argument, which was not entirely meritless, by using this example.ABE:
What we have regarding Alexander the Great seeing UFOs is a couple of people saying that Alexander the Great describing UFOs without even a single reference or pointer to Alexander's writings or any contemporary writings.http://www.openminds.tv/...the-alexander-the-great-ufo-story

quote:

---

We have to agree with Deliyannis. Until ufologists and ancient astronaut writers find legitimate historical accounts that back up the alleged UFO incidents of Alexander the Great, the story should not be repeated as factual.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you claiming to have done some research? Tell me why this goofy incident with 'Napoleon' does not illustrate how you form your opinions and beliefs?

Mark and Luke are generally not claimed to be eyewitnesses. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sorry,I edited my post to delete John and Matthew because many Christians believe that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. Luke pretty much admits that he was not, and the case for Mark being an eyewitness is weak to non-existent.ABE:
Dawn's reputation arrives here well before any of Dawn's posts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Surely even you can see the circular nature of this argument. Using your reasoning every time we see a written description of an event with a large number of people in it, the description itself would be self validating because each of the people in the description is a witness to said event. So for example the baseball games in the movie 'Bull Durham' must have actually happened.

What I actually said was that it is impossible to tell whether a described event actually happened simply by noting that the description of the event includes the presence of lots of people. I see that you use "proofs" in quotation marks. Actually, the events you describe are evidence of their faith, and as the Bible repeatedly states, faith fulfills the role of evidence in belief. Of course, the most direct expression of such are in Hebrews 11 and in Christ's statements to doubting Thomas.The deaths of martyrs are strong evidence that those people believed that those things had taken place. It does not demonstrate the basis for their belief. And let us be quite frank. Very few Christians today believe what they believe because of anything we would reasonably consider evidence.Have you ever seen or participated in a winning of a soul for Christ? What kind of 'evidence' was involved? I have never seen anything except personal anecdotes involved.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is complete nonsense. It turns out that eye witness accounts and testimony are the least reliable evidence of all types. The most reliable evidence is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Ringo has said nothing about requiring eye witness testimony as evidence. Instead he has talked about methods of buttressing purported eye witness testimony, most of said methods not involving witnesses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you agree that evidence is not the proper term. That's the sole point at issue here. The question is not whether Christ is real or whether you can persuasively advance that proposition. The sole question involved in this discussion is whether there is evidence for the proposition.I take it from your choice to talk about everything but evidence that you don't have any contrary answer.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are wrong. Eyewitness testimony is less reliable than evidence that does not require us to determine the honesty, and human accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The point is that the only evidence that I've seen you cite is testimony purported to be eyewitness testimony and hearsay, which is essentially testimony of non witnesses. Edited by NoNukes, : 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.

Really? From the earliest times? So what books were in the Bible at the Chruch of Ephesus back during Paul's visits, Bertot?Your answer does not even address the question and is in fact historically inaccurate. We know that the process of canonization included disagreement and debate. It is foolish and ignorant to imply otherwise.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The obvious point is that at the time of the earliest points, many of the books in your Bible had not even been written. So the earliest fathers could not have made the decisions about those books. What you are describing are the factors that were considered when the canon were established. And what you chose to ignore was that upon considering those factors, different people came up with different lists.And it is not just a matter of semantics. You are pretending that the process of adoption never occurred. Yet your statement actually distinguishes the canons from the history. In short your own statements are completely inconsistent.As usual.