the new new testament???

I'm sorry but that is simply another example of you lying. I never said or intimated that.I said that Jesus was a Jew not a Christian. Christianity did not even exist at anytime while Jesus was alive and in fact for hundreds of years after he died.

Im sure you are aware that there are other ways of establishing the reliability of the authenticity of Josephus, even aside from his manuscripts, correct?With the New Testament we use both the early christians and even enemies of Christians, Gnostics and other sources that duplicate what the manuscripts have already in them.As with Eusebius or anyone else commenting on Josephus, those sources tend to be much older than the manuscrpts themself. Still yet there should be some controversey over Eusebius' alledged mishandling and additions of Josephus' textEusebius wasnt exacally a minor character, surely some of his ememies could have used this against him. Surely a later writer (enemy), not far removed from Eusebius could have an indication of his alledged interpolationsThere seems to be no controversy in that time period concerning Josephus' text Yet we know there were many claims made against Christianity besides Celsus that survied, correct. So your earlier point does not follow that text do not survive, whether by Christians or notThe reason no text survived concerning Eusebius' alledged mishandling of Josephus, either by Eusebius or other Christians is because there were no such accusations to begin with.One would think there would be somethingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since he was the Messiah, it follows it existed both during his stay on earth and afterwards

Right.
This fellow is a fool who has no respect for the truth and believes that nothing can stand up against lies when one intends to keep stringing things out.These kind of people will just never change their erroneous positions because they advocates of the bashing of the bible.

Again, what you post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and is just silly. Even if Jesus was the Messiah that says nothing about whether or not Christianity existed at the time or whether Jesus was a Christian instead of a Jew.

Yes, that's how scientific research and historical research works. All evidence needs corroborating evidence. Neither Josephus nor Pliny nor anybody else forms an absolute basis of unassailable truth from which we can start.And no, that doesn't mean it's "turtles all the way down". You can think of knowledge as a geodesic sphere with every datum attached to other data. If your datum is only attached on one end, even if it is to Josephus or Pliny, it isn't very secure. And when you find that Josephus himself is only attached at one end.... Don't you read your own posts? Sure we are. Lying is one possibility. Making up fiction to make an honest point is another. Simply being mistaken is another. And yes, being truthful and reliable is another possibility.The point is that we can't just assume one of those possibilities like you are doing. Exactly. A liar would have better knowledge - but the question here is whether or not he would tell you the truth. All we have here is what he told us, not what he actually knew.Of course, the same principle applies to the other possibilities. Somebody who was mistaken will tell you what he thought he saw, not what actually happened. Somebody who was writing fiction might honestly believe that you would understand it as fiction. I have no doubt that a lot of the cheers I get are for style rather than substance. Can you provide a valid reason from Treasure Island why I should not believe Long John Silver?

From a Jewish perspective, Jesus did not qualify to be a messiah, much less "The Messiah. He did not perform the needed tasks for being "THe Messiah", and he did not qualify to be any 'anointed one'.

It appears you can not understand the comparison.SOmeone can act presidential.. but not be president. Someone can act 'christ like', but not be a christ.

Odd then that it was precisely from a Jewish perspective that He was recognized to be the Messiah, by, you know, all those first generation Christians who happened to be Jewish, even including some leaders of the Pharisees.

Well, that is what the Gospels claim.Seems to me , most of the so called Christans were Gentile converts.

Interesting approach. First you claim we cant establish what the actual truth is from the Gospels. Then you tell us confidently and with great assurance that the jewish people didnt believe this or that about Jesus.Where did you get this assured knowledge about what the jews believed.. If not from the Gospels then it must be from one of the outside sources about what happened to Jesus. But I thought we could not trust them eitherSometimes people dont actually think through to a logical conclusion, statements made of an absolute or very confident nature. They then then become trapped in an argument from which they cannot extricate themselvesIts like Ringo's use of someone lying. Clearly he dindnt think through the idea that even when someone is lying they are closer to the truth than someone distantly removedYour using the cherry picking processDawn Bertot

If we followed this principle past a reasonable doubt then it would be impossible to confidently teach any point of history as truth in the classroom anywhere.How many ends would need to be attached before someone could be acceptable as believable and demonstratable as historically accurate? 10 12 15, what?Your principle only has application where you want it to apply. Its a type of intellectual evasion and dishonesty.We know about and have enough "ends" as you call it to establish the validity and authenticity, of the NT documents as reliable as given Even if we were I have already dismissed this as plausible alternative as to who would better know the truth, us or them Im not assuming anything because i didnt introduce that as an alternative. It has nothing to do with time and distance. What people knew or did not know is a part of history. Not my perception of itLying always has to be a part of the truth, otherwise its just ignorance, stupidity and complete unawareness So when you drop you kids off at the daycare, and they tell you they are very safe hands. Do you turn right around, change your mind and say well, they could be telling the truth, but they might be lying. Since they might be lying and you have no way of knowing otherwise, shouldnt you just go ahead and take them home.Since we can establish beyond any reasonable doubt the validity and accuracy of the NT documents, why dont we cut throgh all this crap and you just tell us what really bothers you about them and why you dont believe them You cant be serious. First, because the author does not claim it as a true story. Secondly, everyone knows it to be a fictional story On the other hand there is every reason to believe the facts from what is called the Mutiny of the Bounty. Even without divine guidance in this instance, you dont even question the facts contained in the basic storyFrom wiki Why do you think Ringo, that no one remotely questions these facts. Because the people there accurately communicated the facts which were inturn handed down with little or no alteration. Indeed, why would they need to alter it?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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At least two - but they have to be independent lines of evidence, not just two people repeating the same rumour. Well, it's also a Biblical principle:

quote:

---

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

---

The Levites understood that individual witnesses are not reliable.And there's a whole commandment against false witness. There would be no point in devoting ten percent of the legislation to false witness if witnesses were individually reliable. What you're assuming is that there are no alternatives to reliable testimony. In fact there are alternatives, so your assumption renders your conclusions invalid. You have to address the alternatives. We have several different lines of evidence for the Bounty story: the Admiralty records, Captain Bligh's personal journal, the subsequent discovery of the surviving mutineers on Pitcairn's Island, etc. People do question the facts of the Bounty story because there are discrepancies. "The facts" are what is left after the unreliable parts of the testimonies have been weeded out. I haven't said that anything "bothers" me about the NT documents (presumably you mean the canon of the King James version). The topic is about whether or not we should include some other "apocryphal" documents whose validity and accuracy have been established in the same way. The discussion between you and me has been about clearing up your misconceptions about how that validity is established.

I can't tell you what the truth about what the GOSPELS say, but I know what the attitude of the Jewish faith is. There is a difference.As for 'cherry picking'... why.. I pick the Jewish intepretation, and also what we know about Jewish laws and tradition.Frankly, the Gospels lie about a lot of that.

Hogwash. We already have two in Josephus and the NT writers. Josephus. Pliny, Sutoneious and many others and all you do is find fault with every single one.You have now involved yourself in the worst form of intellectual dishonesty, by demonstrating you have no intention of going by your own made up rules quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.Could you atleast try and stay consistent, atleast in the same breath. Isnt this just two or three people moputhing the same thing? Who is your other source to know the Levites said this in the first place All of which were on the same boat knothead. This is like rejecting Mathhew Mark luke and John, Peter and Paul, then accepting the stories of bunch of nut Jobs, that thought it would be a good idea to cram a bunch of criminals in a boat without the company of women for months on end. yeah lets sign up for that vouageYeah lets believe these guys but not a bunch of Godly men You know that is not true. The basic tenets of the story and the majority of its facts are accepted without question. And there are no independent sources to boot Hardly, without even trying you have demonstrated my point about proximity, by even your own examples.Youve demonstrated that claiming there were independent souirces for the bounty you cant even go by you own rulesBy citing the scriptures you use an illustration which you claim to not be reliable to begin withIOWs you dont whether you are coming or goingSorry for the Knothead comment.
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.