which version of christianity is correct?

[Jehanne]

then one class of sycratic text. over all there are 25,000 manuscripts available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_N...anuscripts

so everything you said and assumed is wrong.

I know you people like to pretend I am the dumb one here, but how do you reconcile mistakes like this? How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

Try clicking your own link, Drich, and let me know the earliest extant NT manuscripts.

[EgoDeath]

I played this game last time, and your video didn't answer any of my questions, and nor did you. You flat-out ignored my very simple, articulate questions and kept insisting that the video already addressed what I was asking. You know what they say... Fool me once...

[Drich]

what do you mean

when i say document facts, i am speaking of the literal documentation of a dozen other classifications of manuscript aside from.. papri.




(me thinks.. we are discussing a subject, way way over your head... maybe shut up and learn something so you don't look as stupid as your peer who just got their ass handed to them)

I mean what I mean. That you are entirely and too easily impressed by anything that correlates with your belief system, despite the absence of actual evidence to verify your claim.

And when you refer to documents, are you referencing mythological stories or objectively verified historical references?

I just bet you couldn't hand my ass to me even if you tried.

the funny thing is it has been handed to you, and what's more you are not even smart enough to know.

As those documents are older and in larger number than another historical figure of that time aside from caesar himself. and that's only after you disqualify any church held documents as being bias. in truth, to question Christ historically is to question every other figure of that time.

but again you do not know this and are far to dense to have check any of this before speaking.. IE ass handed to you and you were not smart enough to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_fo...y_of_Jesus
Boom!!
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/artic...-compared/
Boom shacka!
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
boom shacka locka!!!!

"fierce," but blind resistance to documented fact with ad hom and personal feeling in 3... 2... 1...

[no one]

Bozo just called, he said this doesn't count as extra credit, you're still flunking out of Clown College.

In a historical epic fashion he added.

[Drich]

Lol, it’s cute (scary) how Drich thinks he wins debates here.

if providing three points of reference against a personal attack is loosing a debate in your mind... then there is nothing i can help you with

---

glob...

proof
/pro͞of/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk00AdZMMJsr6k_DoDz4bpmh5VRlt4w:1583869079330&q=how+to+pronounce+proof&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52ItKMrPT7NiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvABTNywfqSFUAywMAitty_FUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghuCO1JDoAhWlmuAKHTASC6kQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAQ]
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   
   
   Similar:
   evidence
   
   
   verification
   
   
   corroboration
   
   
   authentication
   
   
   asking for proof IS IN FACT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!!!
   

---

Sorry Dritch, but when I am having discussions or debates, I avoid colloquial definitions. It helps to avoid equivocation fallacies, as theists are known to use (Kalam cosmological argument; I'm looking at you).

Proof has a very specific definition when discussing philosophy and math.

With regards to epistemology and existential claims, we are not looking for proofs, only good standards of evidence that warrants acceptance for the claim under discussion.

But even if we use your definition of proof (meaning the same as evidence), that doesn't help the point you were attempting to make anyway. The evidence I am looking for, is the evidence that supports all the supernatural claims being made in the Bible.

hey retard, i took the definition from the google dictionary, which makes it an official not colloquial definition...

rest and try a different argument.

Lady for campus: this is exactly what i am talking about..

Doom-mas moon want to pretend in his mind I am using an unofficial/my own personal meanings, which invalidate my arguments.
when in fact I used an official term and provided a link.

Doom-mas moon is arguing from what he feels. I used fact and verificable definitions. He looses because he clearly does not know what he is talking about, and is arguing against documented fact and reference material with his gut feeling and a dunning kruger internal sense of self superiority. he doesn't need to look up a term he misused 3 times now.. he knows he is right. not only that he can claim his definition used internally and approved by his dunning-kruger set of checks and balances blows past my documented and linked definition and proudly proclaims victory based on his own internal feeling.

but to you.. this is a loss to me. 

not buying trollina.

[Abaddon_ire]

Lol, it’s cute (scary) how Drich thinks he wins debates here.

if providing three points of reference against a personal attack is loosing a debate in your mind... then there is nothing i can help you with

Your three points of reference do not support your argument. 

#1. Josephus is of dubious authenticity and Tacitus merely observed that christians existed.

#2. Flat out states that "Here we mostly rely on the four Gospels." as it's evidence. Ignoring the fact that nobody has a clue who wrote them

#3. States that the available manuscripts are a whole fucking century after the supposed jebus.

Now, I personally have no problem with the notion of a historical jebus. Why not? The levant at the time was chock full of apocalyptic prophets. What's one more? I could list many others that have far more evidence for their historicity. But you don't believe any of those messiah claimants that have better evidence, do you? Why not?

[Drich]

then one class of sycratic text. over all there are 25,000 manuscripts available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_N...anuscripts

so everything you said and assumed is wrong.

I know you people like to pretend I am the dumb one here, but how do you reconcile mistakes like this? How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

Try clicking your own link, Drich, and let me know the earliest extant NT manuscripts.

the list says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Co...anuscripts

now what did you say? You thought only the papyri existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

don't try and play it off. everything you said was/is documented. you did a quick google search, having no back ground in hermeneutics you clearly have no understanding of the source material, and you went with a number and a word you thought to be representative of what you have been told.

---

I played this game last time, and your video didn't answer any of my questions, and nor did you. You flat-out ignored my very simple, articulate questions and kept insisting that the video already addressed what I was asking. You know what they say... Fool me once...

look you are maybe one of 50 people asking me questions. some of you fall through the cracks.

Give me the questions again if you want an answer..

or just keep repeating yourself if you need the win, i don't care either way.

---

Bozo just called, he said this doesn't count as extra credit, you're still flunking out of Clown College.

In a historical epic fashion he added.

1950 called they want their clown reference back...

then 1980 called they want there so and so call... and want it back.

then 2008 Instant messaged me and said they want their word epic fail back...

Then I wonder to my self where the hell am i going to find all of these severely dated references in one place? who has lived that span of time and who is still using these general pop catch phrases still? who could still understand them?

then you posted.

---

if providing three points of reference against a personal attack is loosing a debate in your mind... then there is nothing i can help you with

Your three points of reference do not support your argument. 

#1. Josephus is of dubious authenticity and Tacitus merely observed that christians existed.

#2. Flat out states that "Here we mostly rely on the four Gospels." as it's evidence. Ignoring the fact that nobody has a clue who wrote them

#3. States that the available manuscripts are a whole fucking century after the supposed jebus.

Now, I personally have no problem with the notion of a historical jebus. Why not? The levant at the time was chock full of apocalyptic prophets. What's one more? I could list many others that have far more evidence for their historicity. But you don't believe any of those messiah claimants that have better evidence, do you? Why not?

again smart person... the gospels are not being disqualified here unless you then also disqualify all of known history of anyone else living in the 1st century as those gospel accounts represent more in the way of period manuscripts of that time than of any one else living in that period. More is written about Jesus closer to his life than any other person. including the caesar of rome!

why can't you seem to absorb this information? why do you keep returning to your argument as if I did not just obliterate it? How is it you are not smart enough to understand when and how you lost this argument? Then why repeat yourself?

[no one]

Wow drick, you're so clever. However do you do it?

[Jehanne]

Try clicking your own link, Drich, and let me know the earliest extant NT manuscripts.

the list says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Co...anuscripts

now what did you say? You thought only the papyri existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

don't try and play it off. everything you said was/is documented. you did a quick google search, having no back ground in hermeneutics you clearly have no understanding of the source material, and you went with a number and a word you thought to be representative of what you have been told.

---

What do you think the earliest sources are of the New Testament?  Please be specific.  In fact, just name a single source or document.

[Drich]

Wow drick, you're so clever. However do you do it?

it's easy really. you google a subject and when you find something interesting you build a subject around this little know fact and support it unknowingly (to them) with tertiary sources at first then make mention to stronger secondary point at which point the fool hardy will think you are arguing your own brand of BS like they are and they will go all in. at which point you reveal the bed of nails you trapped them in and have them over commit themselves.. then you dump in 3 or more credentialed citable sources to really make them impale themselves on the facts the were originally pooping over. Then watch them squirm as they call you names for outwitting them over and over again. It always best to have 5 or more on the line when you bang out a real reveal. Biggest thing, be truthful even if the subject is sensational and begs for more. stay true to the facts as they will be enough.

Then repeat as many times as you can

---

the list says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Co...anuscripts

now what did you say? You thought only the papyri existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

don't try and play it off. everything you said was/is documented. you did a quick google search, having no back ground in hermeneutics you clearly have no understanding of the source material, and you went with a number and a word you thought to be representative of what you have been told.

---

What do you think the earliest sources are of the New Testament?  Please be specific.  In fact, just name a single source or document.

Lets put some of these other subject to bed first. you are spanning 3 different Manuscript subjects.

1You made the assertion that the papyri were the only manuscripts of the NT
Is this true yes or no and do you understand now that the papyri are not the only form of hand written manuscript?

2 the subject matter of the usage and age was open ignoring your first mistake. We need to close the matter of your first mistake before we go in to the second and now this third

3 the third being is you are now asking for source material of the NT..

Again you clearly do not have an understand of this material either otherwise the question would be different. here you assume one complete source.

not the case the NT has several sources. these sources are called codices. they are a collection of manuscripts from across the spectrum of avaible manuscripts. Some are selected for age others clarity other still preuvenuance. there are several different codacees based on which translation IE which NT version you are reading from.

If you want to discuss this new subject put the first 2 to bed be conceding where you were misinformed.

---

Wow drick, you're so clever. However do you do it?

watch im doing it again with jeneha above..