The written records as evidence

[Aractus]

The sources quoted are bias. Of course they are going to make those claims. Again no different than Muslim "historians" pointing to their books and claims and "history".

Dude, it makes no difference where the images came from, they are all authenticated ancient artefacts from the period-correct time which you requested. Most are beyond any dispute whatsoever, you asked for outside evidence and I gave it to you.

None of the objects you showed in those pictures proves anything about invisible sky heros anymore than pointing to Iraq or Iran or Mecca proves Allah to be the one true god.

Stop trolling. That wasn't your question, I listened carefully to your enquiry, and I responded with hard evidence, and I never claimed it was hard evidence for supernatural activity, etc. So either your strawmanning - which I despise - or you're trolling, and that I also despise. Which is it?

Otherwise because the Egyptians depicted their royalty and priests interacting with gods must make their gods real.

You're just trolling. You well know the difference between a royal decree and contemporary records written by ordinary citizens and civilians.

It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby, so your magic baby Jesus is a bullshit story. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis so your zombie god death story is also bullshit. Regardless of existence. Humans are not gods and gods do not exist, not yours not any.

You're clutching at straws, you're diverting attention away from the crust of the argument and the topic of this thread. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it's completely off-topic and belongs in a separate thread.

The sources you quoted are bias. All they prove is that humans are capable of making up bullshit. Just like the sun is not a god.

You're a complete idiot. You're a troll, and your straw man arguments are futile, weak, pathetic and transparent.

It doesn't matter how biased a source is, it can still be a valuable resource. We don't throw out written records from the Holocaust by the Germans because they were "obviously biased", we don't discard evidence because it's biased full stop. All a bias means is that it may not be useful for everything found within, but it can still be very useful.

Let me give you an example. Codex Bezae (D). An early fifth century codex containing part of the NT, it contains the four gospels, acts and part of 3 John written in Greek and Latin. There are 406 extant leaves.

One of the interesting things about D is that it contains an anti-Semitic strain found only in Luke-Acts and not the other Gospels, and as it's been well established that the four gospels were bound together by mid 2nd century, this means that sometime prior to them becoming bound together when a scribe was transcoding Luke-Acts he must have inserted it. This must be the case as it is not an original part of Luke-Acts hence why it differs from most manuscripts. However the scribe could not have been transcoding Matthew, Mark or John otherwise we would have found that anti-Semitic strain in there too. Therefore, he was transcoding a codex containing only Luke-Acts, and he was transcoding it prior to mid 2nd century (ie late 1st century or early 2nd century). So there you have it - biases can be an extremely useful piece of information, in this case, the bias proves beyond doubt that prior to D the Luke-Acts component was a separate codex bound together and written no later than mid 2nd century.

Either reply intelligently on-topic, or fuck off and start your own bullshit thread, thanks.