Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Cinjin]

Wow are you serious? Have you seen the way that Min talks to me - I don't stoop down to his level. And Nestor's comment is rather polite when compared to Min's manner. Not to mention it's hardly out of place considering the comments that Min was making.

If you start from the OP, it is VERY clear that you (and Nestor) brought a hostile and aggressive posture before Min said anything to you.  You were both name calling from your first post, calling anyone who considered Min' side of the argument an idiot etc etc.  

Try again, it is YOU that started the fight in this particular thread.  Go back to the OP and show me otherwise.  You were responded to in equal manner.  You were not attacked first.

[Aractus]

Please produce a link to the ancient Alexandrian alphabet.

NA28 will not only provide you that information, it will tell what text-type every published mss in the volume is, as well as its currently scholarly accepted date.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Please produce a link to the ancient Alexandrian alphabet.

NA28 will not only provide you that information, it will tell what text-type every published mss in the volume is, as well as its currently scholarly accepted date.

Thanks for the info but I'm not going to blow $50 for it.  Until new info comes to light I'll stand by analysis and call the page a fraud that was written in Modern Greek.  The link I gave supports that conclusion.

[Aractus]

If you start from the OP, it is VERY clear that you (and Nestor) brought a hostile and aggressive posture before Min said anything to you.  You were both name calling from your first post, calling anyone who considered Min' side of the argument an idiot etc etc.  

Try again, it is YOU that started the fight in this particular thread.  Go back to the OP and show me otherwise.  You were responded to in equal manner.  You were not attacked first.

This is not the first thread that Min has started on this topic. He's TROLLING and I've called him out on it several times. To say that the conversation starts here in this thread is wrong, it's a continuation of all the other bullshit threads he's posted on this same topic. He can't back it up with peer-review material or anything of an academic standard.

Min is an idiot because he has been pointed to academic literature and refuses to look at it just like say what a holocaust denier does when pointed to peer-reviewed WWII literature, and just like what 911 truthers do when pointed to evidence. He stomps his feet and claims that the "Bible isn't evidence" which is a statement refuted by any decent modern scholar no matter what their personal convictions are. He never answers the questions put to him, and he goes and starts new threads on the same topic and posts unscrutinised works which are written by authors who are discredited in their fields by their peers... hmm... JUST LIKE WHAT A HOLOCAUST DENIER DOES!!

There are way more bona fide historians who doubt the holocaust than there are that doubt the existence of Jesus.

It's funny how these people always claim to be the real "objective" ones in their fields whilst the majority of their academic peers label them as quacks.

[Aractus]

Thanks for the info but I'm not going to blow $50 for it.  Until new info comes to light I'll stand by analysis and call the page a fraud that was written in Modern Greek.  The link I gave supports that conclusion.

No it doesn't, plus you're a fucking idiot if you actually think it's modern Greek (800AD or later).

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap66.html

I guess it's true what they say. Ignorance is bliss.

http://youtu.be/fcaRVblliCE

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Thanks for the info but I'm not going to blow $50 for it.  Until new info comes to light I'll stand by analysis and call the page a fraud that was written in Modern Greek.  The link I gave supports that conclusion.

No it doesn't, plus you're a fucking idiot if you actually think it's modern Greek (800AD or later).

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap66.html

I guess it's true what they say. Ignorance is bliss.

http://youtu.be/fcaRVblliCE

That's good.  Con men claiming that the forger's work is legitimate.  I'll bet that you believe that the shroud of Turin is legit.  At one time the Catholics had over a dozen of baby Jesus' foreskins floating around at the same time.

[Aractus]

God you're a fuckwit.

Textual criticism:

"No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived. This situation, which may seem unusual to us, is actually quite normal for ancient writings, and even for those from only a few centuries ago. For instance, none of Shakespeare’s plays is available in the original manuscript from Shakespeare’s hand, and for most of them there are two or more early printed versions with many differences between them. For the biblical books, numerous copies or partial copies, varying greatly in age and quality, have been preserved in various parts of the world. Occasionally, as with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Qumran documents) in the mid-twentieth century, new copies turn up. Nevertheless, for the entire text of the Bible, scholars are faced with a situation in which they have multiple manuscripts that have been copied by hand so that each is a unique product, unlike a modern printed book, and therefore the copies differ among themselves in many places, some diff erences being trivial and some important. Given this situation, scholars have had to develop a methodology for deciding which wording should be followed in cases where the copies disagree. This methodology is called textual criticismbecause it is a way of assessing a text through critical comparison of its different copies.

"Textual criticism is not used only on religious writings. Any important text where there is not a definitive, printed edition backed up with an author’s manuscript or corrected by the author may need to undergo textual criticism." (New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Ed.)

Try this article on mss dating by Peter van Minnen on the subject. This is a scholar who is qualified to determine the likely date of an ancient manuscript by looking at the style of lettering/handwriting/phrasing (emphasis added):

"In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century.

"How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.

"For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved."
As a bonus he also gives you the date for P66 on that same page.

[Iroscato]

This is one shitcarriage of a thread...*shakes head sadly*

[Wyrd of Gawd]

God you're a fuckwit.

Textual criticism:

"No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived. This situation, which may seem unusual to us, is actually quite normal for ancient writings, and even for those from only a few centuries ago. For instance, none of Shakespeare’s plays is available in the original manuscript from Shakespeare’s hand, and for most of them there are two or more early printed versions with many differences between them. For the biblical books, numerous copies or partial copies, varying greatly in age and quality, have been preserved in various parts of the world. Occasionally, as with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Qumran documents) in the mid-twentieth century, new copies turn up. Nevertheless, for the entire text of the Bible, scholars are faced with a situation in which they have multiple manuscripts that have been copied by hand so that each is a unique product, unlike a modern printed book, and therefore the copies differ among themselves in many places, some diff erences being trivial and some important. Given this situation, scholars have had to develop a methodology for deciding which wording should be followed in cases where the copies disagree. This methodology is called textual criticismbecause it is a way of assessing a text through critical comparison of its different copies.

"Textual criticism is not used only on religious writings. Any important text where there is not a definitive, printed edition backed up with an author’s manuscript or corrected by the author may need to undergo textual criticism." (New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Ed.)

Try this article on mss dating by Peter van Minnen on the subject. This is a scholar who is qualified to determine the likely date of an ancient manuscript by looking at the style of lettering/handwriting/phrasing (emphasis added):

"In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century.

"How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.

"For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved."
As a bonus he also gives you the date for P66 on that same page.

Do you even read the crap you post?

"No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived."

So as I pointed out the page you originally posted is a fake that is written in Modern Greek, which means that it was written after the middle of the 15th Century.  It was not written in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Centuries.  And since no original manuscripts have survived it also means that the papyrus documents are also fakes.  

What you have is a case in which con men wrote a bunch of crap in the Middle Ages and even later to support their favorite BS stories.   Remember Ben Hur?

[Aractus]

You're a cunt Wyrd; a particularly uninformed, ignorant and incredibly stupid cunt; there's simply no point in trying to talk sense to you.