Quote:I do think that this is false, there is contemporary evidence from the writers of the new testament.
Hey, asshole. The writers of your fucking gospels do not even claim that they witnessed this happy horseshit. That's your first hurdle to get over.
Recently some apologetic asswipe tried to claim that he had knowledge of a first century version of "mark". This was Dan Wallace of the (where else?) Dallas Theological Seminary during a debate with Bart Ehrman in 2012. No one knew what the fuck he was talking about.
Since Ehrman was the victim of this fraud I'll let him give the final report on the outcome....6 years later.
https://ehrmanblog.org/what-the-new-frag...tury-mark/
Quote:Like many of you I have many questions about the bizarre way the discussion of the so-called “First-Century Gospel of Mark” unfolded. I was intimately connected with the first announcement of the discovery, which was made precisely in order to trump me in a public debate. As it turns out the announcement was based on false information acquired through hearsay. But that’s the past, and Dan Wallace has apologized, so that is that.
There are still questions about how the affair unfolded, but I’m not going to go into that here. What there is now no longer any doubt about is the manuscript fragment that is involved. It is not from the first century but from the late second or early third. That’s not nearly as impressive but it is still mighty impressive. Until now we had only one manuscript of Mark that dated that early. Now we have two.
So Ehrman is being the bigger man and accepting the apology. But I have no doubt that 50 years from now some xtian shithead....you perhaps...will be be ranting and raving about the discovery of a "first century copy of mark." You fucks are so predictable.
