(February 22, 2017 at 10:19 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: On two you're wrong, badly so. The gospel of John was written, at the earliest in 125CE. The earliest plausible date for Mark is75CE. And both those dates are being very generous to theologians, because the earliest gospel text we have that is more than a couple of words on a badly fragmented scrap of paper dates to 200 CE.
When you lie so badly on basic things such as dates, why the fuck should I believe you have a shred of integrity about the more involved stuff, steve?
A few points:
1. Historians don't date a work based on the earliest fragments you find.
2. Using Wikipedia out of convenience gives me dates of 90-110. Since Jesus died around 30, that is 60 years. I can find other technical analysis that go as early as 50 AD. What source are you using?
3. While you might disagree with a date I am using for one component of my argument, it is childish to react the way you did. I get better reasoning from my teenagers.
