which version of christianity is correct?

[Drich]

then one class of sycratic text. over all there are 25,000 manuscripts available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_N...anuscripts

so everything you said and assumed is wrong.

I know you people like to pretend I am the dumb one here, but how do you reconcile mistakes like this? How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

Try clicking your own link, Drich, and let me know the earliest extant NT manuscripts.

the list says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Co...anuscripts

now what did you say? You thought only the papyri existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

don't try and play it off. everything you said was/is documented. you did a quick google search, having no back ground in hermeneutics you clearly have no understanding of the source material, and you went with a number and a word you thought to be representative of what you have been told.

---

I played this game last time, and your video didn't answer any of my questions, and nor did you. You flat-out ignored my very simple, articulate questions and kept insisting that the video already addressed what I was asking. You know what they say... Fool me once...

look you are maybe one of 50 people asking me questions. some of you fall through the cracks.

Give me the questions again if you want an answer..

or just keep repeating yourself if you need the win, i don't care either way.

---

Bozo just called, he said this doesn't count as extra credit, you're still flunking out of Clown College.

In a historical epic fashion he added.

1950 called they want their clown reference back...

then 1980 called they want there so and so call... and want it back.

then 2008 Instant messaged me and said they want their word epic fail back...

Then I wonder to my self where the hell am i going to find all of these severely dated references in one place? who has lived that span of time and who is still using these general pop catch phrases still? who could still understand them?

then you posted.

---

if providing three points of reference against a personal attack is loosing a debate in your mind... then there is nothing i can help you with

Your three points of reference do not support your argument. 

#1. Josephus is of dubious authenticity and Tacitus merely observed that christians existed.

#2. Flat out states that "Here we mostly rely on the four Gospels." as it's evidence. Ignoring the fact that nobody has a clue who wrote them

#3. States that the available manuscripts are a whole fucking century after the supposed jebus.

Now, I personally have no problem with the notion of a historical jebus. Why not? The levant at the time was chock full of apocalyptic prophets. What's one more? I could list many others that have far more evidence for their historicity. But you don't believe any of those messiah claimants that have better evidence, do you? Why not?

again smart person... the gospels are not being disqualified here unless you then also disqualify all of known history of anyone else living in the 1st century as those gospel accounts represent more in the way of period manuscripts of that time than of any one else living in that period. More is written about Jesus closer to his life than any other person. including the caesar of rome!

why can't you seem to absorb this information? why do you keep returning to your argument as if I did not just obliterate it? How is it you are not smart enough to understand when and how you lost this argument? Then why repeat yourself?