The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

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":

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/

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.

If this is what passes for "evidence" among atheists, I encourage all of you to re-evaluate.

When did the sacrifices offered in the Jewish Temple come to an end? 

Think for yourselves, people. (Or read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Je...28AD_70%29

And why did the sacrificing of bulls and sheep and goats end?

Hebrews 10:11-14
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

After the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, the sacrificing of bulls and goats was no longer required for the forgiveness of sins.

The Jewish Temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Jews know this. Ask them.