If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Where is the ban hammer on this guy though...seriously? He can't even make a substantial point.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 11:02 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 10:59 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Well if he only has one lego it isn't going to be much fun.

*Sticks out tongue*
LOL
I only let him have one cause If I give him two that's enough lego for him to reach his brain when he inevitably starts shoving them up his nose.

*Sticks out tongue*
Heart

Right?
Yep i agree that he'd keep his legos in his ass.
Praise be to the poor jebus he does embarrass every day. He'll have to answer for his crap someday at the pearly gates.
*Cringe*

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 11:14 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:11 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Moron the Islamic movement was built BECAUSE of Mohammed lmao...

That's a good point you got there, retard.

Now go back to your glue sniffing your disturbing the adults.

If you read Robert Spencer's "Did Mohammed Exist" you'll find that the evidence for him is no better than the evidence for fucking jesus and moreover appears in the same 80-100 year period AFTER he allegedly lived. Because of the shorter life spans and general lack of literacy that time period seems to serve to weed out any inconvenient people with a memory who will say "WTF? That never happened."

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
In keeping with the piss poor dating of jesus freak bullshit we have this recent discussion from real scholars....(i.e. not 'theologians.')

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

Quote:In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
06-11-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 11:11 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 10:56 AM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Everyone loves feeding trolls, but I got to say some of the responses are very good. I'm actually learning a lot from the posts, especially from GWG.

Well, in that regard, consider this:

http://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/libraries-and-a...n-papyrus/

Quote:These three small papyrus fragments are Magd. MS. Gk. 17 (also known as Gregory-Aland P64, the ‘Magdalen Papyrus’ or the ‘Jesus Papyrus’), the oldest item held by Magdalen College Library. They probably date to the late second century AD, making them among the dozen earliest known surviving fragments of the New Testament.


There is real scholarship and then there are bible-thumping shitheads. The shitheads can safely be dismissed.

Too bad you shitheads cant dig up more than 3 manuscripts for Alexander by 1100 AD... and too bad the EARLIEST is 10th century


Too bad too Jesus has 20,000 by that time, with 2, Mark and John as early as mid 1st century.

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-test...t-century/

Quote: I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.

Jesus, 20,000 manuscripts by 1100 ad - Alexander 3 by 1100 ad Laughat
Jesus earliest manuscripts 1st century - Alexanders earliest 10th century Laughat

And yes, the audience loves the quandary your 2 debaters are in... your bluster here helps them not one bit... Those that TRIED to help them earlier... like cj... gave them wrong information and i busted them with it Tongue

Help them MORE please lmao LaughatLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:36 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
The adults are talking, shitface. Fuck off and take your fucking fairy tales with you.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
06-11-2014, 11:36 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
It's back in bot mode I see, just repeating standard lines it's been programmed to post.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elder Cunningham's post
06-11-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 07:43 AM)wazzel Wrote:  Good try, but you are going to get a moron label, enjoy. Wolfie has already dismissed several bits of information showing there are secondary documents from the 1st century BC thru 1st century AD that reference the contemporary primary documents. He has also totally ignored the contemporary archaeological evidence of the existence of Alexander.

It has already been fairly well established in this thread that the troll’s opinion of the robustness of the historical record isn’t worth the dingle berries hanging from its ass. My post was more of an FYI for those who may not know that unlike Jesus there actually is primary source material for the existence of Alexander the Great.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 11:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Where is the ban hammer on this guy though...seriously? He can't even make a substantial point.

Point is, by 1100 AD Jesus had 20,000 manuscripts AND they still exist. The earliest date to the first century... Alexander has 3 manuscripts by 1100 AD, the earliest being 10th century

You are intellectually DISHONEST to reject 20,000 AND mention by more than 12 extrabiblical sources, yet try to say, disagreeing with 90 percent of the world, that Jesus never lived... BUT you have no problem with alexander.

Atheists are hypocrites Smile

You better pray hitchens forgives your lack of integrity Tongue

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 11:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 07:43 AM)wazzel Wrote:  Good try, but you are going to get a moron label, enjoy. Wolfie has already dismissed several bits of information showing there are secondary documents from the 1st century BC thru 1st century AD that reference the contemporary primary documents. He has also totally ignored the contemporary archaeological evidence of the existence of Alexander.

It has already been fairly well established in this thread that the troll’s opinion of the robustness of the historical record isn’t worth the dingle berries hanging from its ass. My post was more of an FYI for those who may not know that unlike Jesus there actually is primary source material for the existence of Alexander the Great.

Hmmm... that's why the OP is no longer siding with you... being convinced by the actual evidence Smile

And you lie... there is no primary manuscript evidence for Alexander the great before the 10th century... provide even 1 moron Tongue

Jesus has 2 from the first century, and 20,000 by 1100 AD... You have 3 from between 1100 AD and 1300 AD
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: