Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[FallentoReason]

I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT.

The earliest "manuscript" we have is a postcard sized fragment of John which dates anywhere from 125-225 AD. It is a handful of lines from two different verses and doesn't tell us much of anything.


http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

The general dating noted above indicates that xtianity became a going concern in the 2d century...not the first.

This means that all of their bullshit seriously post-dates the events they claim to describe. In any event, they can speculate about original texts but much like the tachyon no one has ever seen one!

It's true that manuscripts found aren't dated any earlier than ~125A.D. but I'm pretty sure there's evidence to suggest that they were written before then.

Clement of Rome and Ignatus of Antioch regularly quoted the Gospels in their letters.
http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers.htm

Could someone confirm this though? This is only the second source I've seen that claims this. The first was an apologetic book (back when I was a theist) that boldly claimed (amongst other assumptions) that it was known exactly how all 12 Apostles died. It was an extremely biased book..

---

I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT. As in, "the NT was perfectly and faithfully preserved through the ages so we know exactly what Jesus said and did..." etc. As I said, I know of two great examples, the second edition of the resurrection account in Mark and the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story.

So... Doesn't that mean I can choose anything within my Bible from the NT? Our english copies come directly from the earliest manuscripts. Or is that not the case?