The Gospel of Peter versus the Gospel of Matthew.

[Drich]

The footnote ascribes the comment to Pheme Perkins - a professor of....guess what?...."theology."

As noted elsewhere, theologians have a driving wish to push this horseshit into the first century when the plain fact of the matter is that we have no evidence at all for first century dates.



That is "0," in the first century.

As in Not Fucking One!  And precious few in the second.

please bruh.. we have 15 of the 27 books represented in this so call "few second century fragments" and we also have several thousand first century and pre first century documents in the dead sea scroll and in the silver scrolls which all very accurately repeat what has been written in our latest versions of the bible.

No other document on earth has a provenance like this. to doubt the legitimacy of the bible is to doubt all other documents from 1700 back as nothing has been written copied and accurately recoppied till the invention of the printing press, for this length of time.. and even then the bible can still exceed in total manuscripts of works like shakespeare. we are missing entire acts and whole plays have been lost to time. yet we tell the tales of shakespeare as if those are all his words!

Show me a graff or a pie chart of what is left of the odyssey (the next closest period piece of literature) which has maybe 625 total fragments leaving upto 1/3 of it unknown yet taught as if the oddesy as we know it was complete works of Homer Himself.

You douche bags always like to show where the bible lacks... now show me what the secular libraries have to compare apples to apples. show me something greater than the bible or sit down and shut up mud duck. we have over 5000 documents that support the NT add another 20K if you include the whole bible! Nothing you have compares! why doesn't you ever talk about that?