Quote:What is the source of your dating estimation?
A. The basis for most of that is the alleged destruction of the temple in 70. Since even these bible translators don't buy the prophecy shit they attribute the supposed prophecy against the temple a being written after the Romans sacked and burned it. The problem is that "jesus" did not "say" it would be sacked and burned. He "said":
Quote:13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
g-mark
That did not happen in 70. But it DID happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the site in order to build Aelia Capitolina. Xtians have a built in bias to want to push their shit as far back as possible but we do have a historical occurrence where precisely what was "predicted" did occur.
B. No one heard of these "gospels" before the 2d century. Justin Martyr writing in 160 never mentions them most likely because Irenaeus did not name them until 185. Further, Justin never heard of any "paul" either. Which is even more amazing.
C. No Roman writer prior to Celsus ( coincidentally c 180 ) mentions anyone named "jesus." They did mention "Christus" or more probably "Chrestus" but "jesus?" Nope. Not a word.
D. Prior to Marcion's issuance of his canon c 140, consisting of the "Gospel of the Lord" (supposedly "luke" in an original form, and ten epistles from this "paul" character we have no indication that xtians were very much impressed with written books. After Marcion they started writing shit down...apparently recognizing a good idea when they saw one but before that? Zilch.
E. The fact that later xtian writers tried to forge references to their boy in Josephus or in total fabricated documents like the Acts of Pilate is indicative of the fact that legitimate references did not exist. If they had, they would not have needed to forge some.
F. Scholars are pushing back against the xtian claims to have first century documents.
http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/
Quote:The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the dates proposed by COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001, and JAROŠ, 2006 are often too early.
You can't credit the claims of these bible-thumping shitheads just because they oh-so-desperately want their bullshit to be true.
