Yellum Notnef

First it's not a religion, it's a relationship.

And now Jesus isn't a god-man.

What will the next tactic be to help sooth the believers into thinking their religion is special, different from all others and somehow true?

Truly pathetic.

Maybe next we'll hear how there where two Mithras. A Persian and a Roman one that share nothing but coincidence of name between them. Oh yeah, we've already heard this.

mountainman

We have no dated papyri fragments other than those which
I have attempted to collate, alongside other archaeological
evidence in this review..


Out of this list, my favorite is P.Oxy. 4365, written in
twenty-one words, in six lines, on the back of a piece
of papyrus cut from a roll that contained a petition
written in the late-third century. It reads simply
as follows:

"To my dearest lady sister, greetings in the Lord.
Lend the Ezra,
since I lent you the little Genisis.
Farewell in God from us."

The flagrantly waved brigade of NT papyri purported to
be pre-Constantinian "NT papyri fragments", such as the
Rylands papyrii, the Bodimer, etc, etc, etc --- none of
these physically contain any literal date, and their
dating, as such, has relied on what is termed "paleography".

The story is the same: buyer beware.

Here is a list ....




Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Clivedurdle

I am a graduate of Manchester University and it is therefore prudent to be aware of the real world of research into ancient documents!

http://www.srs.ac.uk/scienceandherit...ea_Scrolls.pdf

youngalexander

Good one Clive.:thumbs:

spin

Well, sadly, after creating a whole thread on a discussion mailing list, to deal with an ill-conceived understanding of the discussion in this thread, Jeffrey Gibson hasn't been back to clean up and answer the questions that were posed to him.

I gather that he still seems to think that he can blithely assume that a naive literalist reading of the gospels (at least regarding the existence of Jesus) is functional. This includes the assumption that undated, unprovenanced, ungenred texts from unknown authorship are evidence for something in real world history. Oh, he does say "prima facie" evidence, ie from first impression. But would this be on the par of prima facie evidence that Lemuel Gulliver existed, or even Superman?

What happened Jeffrey Gibson? Did you realize that you misunderstand something? And did you decide that you didn't feel able to make a serious case for your assumption that Jesus must have existed? Did you realize that you couldn't understand idiomatic structures if you didn't have any way to unpack them, such as from a native speaker?

Jeffrey Gibson, you have been picking on what people say for quite a while here, expecting them to answer, yet when asked to do the same thing you suddenly become thin on the ground. Where are you Jeffrey Gibson? Can't you answer what has been asked of you?


spin

Magdlyn

He's been nitpicking at me on another thread.

David

All Jeffrey has in his bag, it would seem, is the world's largest library card. I only wish more posters would realize that he's much better at asking questions than he is at answering them, and boycott his endless questions at least until he's done some answering of his own.

Solitary Man

He could possibly be preparing for the SBL conference upcoming this weekend... Or perhaps he's busy with real life. I've seen some questions to you, spin, go unanswered, but I don't think anybody started picking on you because of it. Why are you picking on Jeffrey when you're guilty of the same thing?

Magdlyn

Naw, he posted 15 times today, helping me with my Greek on another thread or two. Just click on "find all posts" in his profile...

spin

You won't find too many examples, Solitary Man, but do try. Besides, when have I tried so hard to get some dirt by going off and starting a misguided thread on a scholarly forum in order to try to make a point here? Jeffrey Gibson wanted to do more than he could in this thread, it seems. He did try some stuff about not responding to unsigned posts while responding to unsigned posts right left and center. Thing is we know that there is no substantive evidence for Jesus as a real person. Jeffrey Gibson knows as well. That's why he won't defend it. He won't admit that he misunderstood the discussion about unknown idioms, despite his having started the tangent. Why am I "picking on Jeffrey"? I'm not. I'm just extending the same courtesy he does to everyone.


spin