Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Dear god you're a dumbass. You could at least try googling it if you really can't work it out.

It's a legitimate question.  What the hell is it?  Is it from the 1st or 2nd Centuries?  Maybe it's something your kid drew up.  It's your evidence so say what it is.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Dear god you're a dumbass. You could at least try googling it if you really can't work it out.

Well, you are talking to a holocaust denier. Stupidity is the norm for them.

Even the Bible says not to believe in Jewish fairy tales.  Didn't you get the memo?

Titus 1:14 (ERV) =  "14 and they will stop paying attention to the stories told by those Jews. They will stop following the commands of those who have turned away from the truth."

[Aractus]

It's a legitimate question.  What the hell is it?  Is it from the 1st or 2nd Centuries?  Maybe it's something your kid drew up.  It's your evidence so say what it is.

It's P66 which I already said, AND linked to. It dates to roughly 200AD. You're the one who claimed that this text wasn't written until "centuries later" so now it's up to you to explain why it exists centuries earlier than you said?

What's that? Could that be because you don't have any clue to what you're talking about? That's what I thought.

[Minimalist]

I really think you only see what you want to see, Danny.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/...-argument/

This papyrus (part of the Bodmer Library collection), which preserves a goodly portion of the Gospel of John, is commonly regarded as one of our earliest NT manuscripts.  In the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Gracece (28th edition), for example, the date given for it  is “ca. 200.”  Various scholars place it in the early 3rd century CE.  The basis for dating this papyrus (and nearly all manuscripts of literary texts) is palaeography:  the scholarly analysis of the “hand” of the copyist.  Nongbri challenges this dating, contending that palaeography doesn’t permit a date as precise as that assigned to P66.  Instead, he argues, the “hand” exhibited in P66 could allow it to be dated anytime from very late 2nd century to the 4th century CE.

Scholars continue to examine this stuff... whether you like it or not.

[Aractus]

While that's interesting it certainly isn't poor or at this stage compelling evidence for a later date:

"So, in my opinion, the way the staurogram is used in P66 still seems to me to suggest a 3rd century date. But, as I say, Nongbri’s full case deserves to be considered. I was particularly impressed with his reference to the shape of the pages in P66 as aligning more with the “squarish” shape of manuscript pages in the 4th century. (But those “squarish” pages of 4th century manuscripts tend more to be skin, not papyrus, which may, or may not, count against Nongbri’s argument.)"

And the post itself acknowledges the c. 200AD date as the commonly accepted date at present (citing Novum Testamentum Graece 28th Ed.). Of course with new research and knowledge this could change in the future, but right now it hasn't. There are other points of view - just as there should be in an academic field such as this - but so far that's all they are. Dating ancient Greek texts by Palaeography is seen to be the most accurate method at present. History is always being revised Min, so while that discussion is certainly interesting and may open the door for further understanding of when this manuscript was written, at the moment it does little more than to offer a fresh perspective on how to treat ancient writings.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's a legitimate question.  What the hell is it?  Is it from the 1st or 2nd Centuries?  Maybe it's something your kid drew up.  It's your evidence so say what it is.

It's P66 which I already said, AND linked to. It dates to roughly 200AD. You're the one who claimed that this text wasn't written until "centuries later" so now it's up to you to explain why it exists centuries earlier than you said?

What's that? Could that be because you don't have any clue to what you're talking about? That's what I thought.

You're the certifiable dumdbass because your phony page is written in Modern Greek.  Now for all of you dumbasses that means that it was written after the middle of the 15th Century.  The con man got away with his forgery because people are ignorant and they believe in fairy tales.  

Now here's a link to the various Greek alphabets.  http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html

Please don't embarrass yourself by posting more BS frauds.

[Aractus]

You're the certifiable dumdbass because your phony page is written in Modern Greek.

Not sure if serious or incredibly stupid Poe. If you can't tell the difference between modern Greek (which has lower-case letters) and what I just posted then you clearly are clueless. Anyway it's written in an ancient Alexandrian alphabet NOT a modern Greek one.

[Cinjin]

You used to be mildly entertaining. Now you just come across as one of those dumb, whiny, fundies who should go eat shit and die.

They probably doubt the existence of L Ron Hubbard, Albert Einstein, and Adolf Hitler as well.

It's remarks like this that make the two of you sound incredibly ignorant.

How can anyone consider your arguments when you resort to the lowest form of debate?

[Aractus]

Wow are you serious? Have you seen the way that Min talks to me - I don't stoop down to his level. And Nestor's comment is rather polite when compared to Min's manner. Not to mention it's hardly out of place considering the comments that Min was making.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You're the certifiable dumdbass because your phony page is written in Modern Greek.

Not sure if serious or incredibly stupid Poe. If you can't tell the difference between modern Greek (which has lower-case letters) and what I just posted then you clearly are clueless. Anyway it's written in an ancient Alexandrian alphabet NOT a modern Greek one.

Please produce a link to the ancient Alexandrian alphabet.