the new new testament???

WHy, you response is quite telling, .. because, you see, I said you can't show that those miracles actually happened. The fact you basically are saying 'Prove they didn't', is indeed proof that you can show they happened.Your very response is evidence.

True but this immediate and directly involved discussion has to with what should be constituted from a historical context as the NT and how that came about, why that came about and why it is what it is todayThe reason you can confidently belief that what is shakespear's, is his, is because it was faithful transcribed and sttributedThe distinguishing mark between a fictional account and an account believed to be true (non-fiction) is that the writer will indicate it as suchThere is no reason to believe the biblical writers were indicating something was fictional or that they would give there life for fictionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You know that is not what I argued or what i said. I said and to which you paid no attention, that no one could prove anything in history that they did not witness, whether it was 2000 years ago or a week agoI also said that miracles or the fanciful should not be the deciding factor as to whether an event happened in history. I did say the facts surrounding it should be what validates it reliabilityYou know full well I am not saying, "prove they didnt", if I dont believe you couldnt do it or that you shouldnt be required to do so.You misrepresented me and my argumentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I personally am not talking about 'what happened in history' I am talking about miracles that are alleged to 'prove' that Jesus was God. Without that claim, and without the associated theology that goes with it, there isn't any meat in Christianity that isn't found elsewhere, and phrased better.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Sure you are. Do you know of anything that doesnt happen in history. Again like you I am not required to prove every detail in history for it to be believable Again like all history, I have to ask myself, is there enough evidence, presently to demonstrate that certainly people at a certain time in history witnessed miracles to prove Jesus was God. Answer for me yesIs there enough evidence that Napolean wittnessed certain flying metal discs in the sky at a certain battle. Answer probably yes. Atleast he saw something to make him speak of it and record it.Now, he probably took one to many shots to the head and saw something, even if he was hallucinating. But I know he existed, he fought battles and saw thingsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What is this all about?ABE
Oh and are you talking about Napoleon?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Yes it is. And the fact is that no single source is reliable. The reason events like the mutiny on the Bounty are accepted as historically real is because there are multiple independent sources which confirm and/or deny each other. A reliable account is one that is confirmed by at least one other independent account. You have to consider both accuracy and precision.Is a soldier or police officer a good marksman if he hits the bullseye once? Not necessarily. He could drop the weapon on the ground, have it fire accidentally and by a fluke hit the bullseye. Accuracy means being able to get on or near the bullseye but precision means being able to do it consistently with a group of several shots.Our confidence in the "accuracy" of an account is a function of confirmation by separate souces. No single account can ever be considered "accurate" in and of itself. It might by a fluke be near the truth but if it is consistent with other independent accounts we can consider it reliable. That's exactly what I'm sayig. Evidence of the highest order doesn't depend on whether you believe it or not. But evidence is of a high order if and only if it is confirmed by other evidence.The evidence of the New Testament is not of a high order because there is no independent confirmation. Where are the contemporary Jewish records? Where are the contemporary Roman records?It doesn't matter whether you believe the New Testament or not and it doesn't matter whether I believe the New Testament or not. Thin evidence is thin evidence. Yes, I know that's been your mantra ever since your first post at EvC.It's nonsense.Pure logic or reasoning is worthless without real-world facts to work on. You can have the sharpest saw in the toolbox but it's useless without a piece of wood to saw.

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.

I am amazed the crap people will repeat without even looking to make sure they even have the story correct.I was aware of the Alexander story. I came across it on the internet a couple years back and tried to follow the story back to an original source. It ended up being circular sourcing. There were three sites that basically cited each other as a source. There is no historical source at all.Now a Napoleon story is new to me. I have read a few bios on him and have done some study of the Napoleonic wars. I have never come across anything like this. I guess a confusion with Alexander is probably the most likely explanation. That Napoleon could be mistaken with Alexander is stunning. They are greatly removed form each other in time and space. But they both are associated with Egypt so I guess therein lies the confusion.

Since Ramoss has been unable to continue with his line of assertion concerning miracles and there application to reliabilty, I will now continue to hopefully educate you Ringo on evidence and how exacally to conduct a debateIts obvious you have paid little or no attention to what I have actually said about how logic is established and what it actually is or is not.I have maintained and demonstrated exacally what you said, that logic is no good without some physical aspect attached to itI have maintained that contrived logic or man made rules for logic are not actually real things, but rules we have set up to help us communicateYou really should pay attention RingoIn that context I will now hopefully help to educate you with the rules of actual debate. Heres oneYou cant just keep repeating yourself without actually responding to my actual arguments.First you need to demonstrate that the NT writers are not reliable as witnesses to constitute a line of evidence. Whats wrong with thier actual testimony?Secondly I have demonstrated that time, distance, accuracy, location, transcription of the NT documents is a line of evidence seperate from and independent of the actual writers themself.You need to show how this is NOT actual with that evidence itself, not simply say it needs something attached to itThirdly, I have made it clear by both observation and argument that while independent human sources help a situation, they are not necessary to establish reliabilityFourthly, you have not demonstrated why if people agree in a situation, even with variance (which Ive pointed out) why they should be discounted as reliable. You cant just say its not reliable because they happen to agreeThis is exacally where logical percision verses perception of evidence comes into play. Assuming that we need your specific rules of evidence, while helpful are not logicalThere is not a type of evidence, there is just evidence, whether it comes in one line or many. The fact that you will not even admit the reliabilty demonstrated by the accuracy of trannscription over a 2000 year period, says something about your ability to reason correctly Yes, this is a good way to proceed. However, Ive given you two seperate sources, neither of which will you admit as evidential, not because there is no good reason to do so, but simply because you dont like what it impliesBut to avoid its conclusion you cant just disagree with it, you have to show why in and of itself it is not actual evidence. See the difference? Saying it needs something attached to it doesnt make it non-evidential And on top of all of your blunders and evasion, you misrepresent me as well. Where did I ever say, that belief in the NT accounts was or should be coounted as evidence?What I actually said was, because of the corroborating evidence, there is no good reason for not believing themWhat I actually said was that you are unwilling to agree with or show objectivity even when the evidence is obviousWhen I asked you about the transcription accruacy, amazingly you attributed it to Jesus followers, forgetting the actual PHYSICAL evidence involved in such a feat and the things that could have happened over that time periodObjectivity is of great value when youare actually debatingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hardly, I was not ascribing to Alexander the great (sorry my mistake) and the ufo incident the same evidence I do to the NT reliability, I was simply using it as an illustrationI agree however that alittle more research inthat area would have been usefulUndercut? Not at allDawn Bertot

Yes and also lame.You made a claim without any historical source. Therefore all it did was make you look silly, ignorant and uneducated.Not bad for one post.Please show us any evidence for Napoleon(notice the spelling) or Alexander seeing "flying discs". If you do not have any, then what was the purpose of even mentioning something so stupid.

I love how you try to turn it around.. but. alas, you can't show that any of these supposed miracles happened, and neither can anyone else,The fact, that after 2000 years, there still isn't 1 iota of anything beyond the claims of the bible is indeed evidence that those incidence never happened.Nor, can it show that they are even possible

You seem to be suggesting that one data point can be reliable in and of itself.Let's do an experiment: a person goes into a room and fires one shot at a target. Then he takes the target out of the room and you go in. Without seeing the target, can you tell where it was hanging? Maybe. You could guess that the bullseye was right over the bullet hole but how do you know the shooter hit the bullseye? How do you know the gun didn't go off accidentally and miss the target altogether?That's the situation that you have with the gospels. George may claim to have hit the bullseye and Jim may agree that George hit the bullseye but without the actual target, you have no reason to believe their bare testimony.Now, repeat the experiment with two shooters. If the two bullet holes are close together, you can have slightly higher confidence that they were both near the bullseye. But what if they're far apart? Maybe one is on the bullseys and the other is right off the target - but which is which? Or maybe both are off the target.If George claims he hit the bullseye and Jim claims he hit the bullseye, whom do you believe? What if Harry agrees with George and disagrees with Jim? Do you believe the claim with the most proponents?Okay, now get the maintenance man in to spackle over the holes and repeat the experiment with three shooters. This time, let's send in Tom, Dick and Harry, who can't stand each other. If the three shots are close together, your confidence that they all hit the bullseye increases.But what if two are close together and the third is far away? Is it likely that the two are close together and off target? Tom, Dick and Harry all claim to have hit the bullseye but at least one of them is wrong/mistaken/lying. Tom, who hates Dick, grudgingly admits that Dick hit the bullseye. Dick, who hates Tom, grudgingly admits that Tom hit the bullseye.Whom do you believe?

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?