Thousands trace Jesus' footsteps on Good Friday in Jerusalem

[Clutch]

George Carlin sums things up.

[Scotwight]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

There is plenty of proof that he existed, in multiple written records made at that time. Non-believers simply don't accept that he was anything more than an ordinary man. I've never heard any truly educated person attempt to debate whether he existed. There were thousands and thousands of people who witnessed him and that is in the records too.

Cheers.

I am truly educated and I have never read a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, during his entire lifetime. So I don't believe he existed.

[Trentham]

Isn't it grand that we can have loaded discussions about Christianity without risking getting our heads chopped off!

Personally, I don't really care what you believe or don't believe as long as you don't impose your dogma on others.

Personally I do not care either. An earlier poster says I resort to snide sarcasm. That is true. I confess to my sin ha ha. I hope now that I am forgiven. I believe that way back when we were crawling out of the trees and were totally confounded by in-explainable phenomena such as earthquakes, lightning and thunder, eclipses etc. some men found a way to use those things to their advantage by claiming to control them and threaten people with them. People believed in a supernatural answer to these phenomena because there was no other answer. Thus was born religion.

If Jesus as the son of God is true then ask yourselves why did not God also send a saviour to the Eskimos, the Australian aborigines, the primitive tribes in the north of Europe and South America and so on? Why was it only to the Jews in the Middle East?

As was mentioned earlier, the Catholic Church basically invented Christianity. Christianity is only based upon what the bible tells us and earlier posters have already shown that to be unreliable. However the church has plowed on with its invention and invented Purgatory, sainthood, the ability to pray to Mary and the saints, holy water and countless other rites and sacraments that are nowhere mentioned by Jesus.

The Catholics claim the infallibility of the Pope and his leadership ordained by the laying on of hands passed down since the apostle Peter first, was supposed do do it. But has not that continuity of line been broken by many of the popes who were in no way holy, killing people, fathering children, starting wars and on and on.

Now we have countless Christian religions and sects who all claim to be the right one in their interpretations of the bible. We have the church leaders guilty of the horrific abuse of children in their care and it is vast and widespread and has been going on for centuries.

SO call me snide and sarcastic. If I could have my way with the church I would be much worse than that. However I know that I fight a losing battle because humanity's fear of death is such a powerful psychological driver to a belief in something more than the empty void that awaits us after death.

Just don't try and ram the sh.t down my throat and forgive me if I am angry about all the horror, evil and crime the church is responsible for committing.

[ldiablo]

There are also written records which suggest he wasnt crucified / died or resurected, therefore there is no premise for Christianity

I could accept that the person concerned from a historical perspective being a Jewish terrorist in Romes eyes, and he may or may not have been executed for his actions against the Roman state, the rest of it, son of of god, resurection etc is all Walt Disney, fairy stories for adults

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views.

However, they are views. Views come from all kinds of sources, written, spoken, gossip etc. Some sources also come from visions during prayer.

Scientists will admit that they know less than 10% of what happens in the human mind, they freely describe their knowledge of the human mind as "the tip of an iceberg." Scientific knowledge about mind-related visionary effects is even more sketchy. Scientists do not have explanations for the 3D Stereo dreams you have at night, or indeed the 3D Stereo memories you might have, of things that occurred 50 years ago. Science can not explain dreams or memories, these most non-contentious facts of our daily lives. So how could they possibly hope to explain religious visions?

Many sceptics have become devout Christians after having visions, in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of Biblical scenes, depicting scenes from a book they have never read, or film versions they have never seen.

I have had visions, and I am in no way special, they are more common than many people in today's world may think. My faith is based more on my visions than on what other people have written. I believe that Satan was cast down, and the world became his kingdom. However, he envied Jesus, because Jesus was still all-powerful, and safe from harm. Jesus chose to become mortal, weak, and exposed to all the evil and harm. God and the angels were dead against this move, but Jesus was to show the world some things that will be remembered forever. He cast aside all his power, and embraced fragile mortality, in the life of a poor and humble fishing family. He was inviting all the evils of the underworld to take their best shot, which he would face with courage and humility, with nothing but cloth and ligament to protect him.

His words and actions that followed, are still the most beautiful words and actions, and they will be remembered forever. If we choose to listen to those words, is of course another matter, and is always a truly personal choice.

Great script for a hollywood B movie.

[augustwest]

Isn't it grand that we can have loaded discussions about Christianity without risking getting our heads chopped off!

Personally, I don't really care what you believe or don't believe as long as you don't impose your dogma on others.

Personally I do not care either. An earlier poster says I resort to snide sarcasm. That is true. I confess to my sin ha ha. I hope now that I am forgiven. I believe that way back when we were crawling out of the trees and were totally confounded by in-explainable phenomena such as earthquakes, lightning and thunder, eclipses etc. some men found a way to use those things to their advantage by claiming to control them and threaten people with them. People believed in a supernatural answer to these phenomena because there was no other answer. Thus was born religion.

If Jesus as the son of God is true then ask yourselves why did not God also send a saviour to the Eskimos, the Australian aborigines, the primitive tribes in the north of Europe and South America and so on? Why was it only to the Jews in the Middle East?

As was mentioned earlier, the Catholic Church basically invented Christianity. Christianity is only based upon what the bible tells us and earlier posters have already shown that to be unreliable. However the church has plowed on with its invention and invented Purgatory, sainthood, the ability to pray to Mary and the saints, holy water and countless other rites and sacraments that are nowhere mentioned by Jesus.

The Catholics claim the infallibility of the Pope and his leadership ordained by the laying on of hands passed down since the apostle Peter first, was supposed do do it. But has not that continuity of line been broken by many of the popes who were in no way holy, killing people, fathering children, starting wars and on and on.

Now we have countless Christian religions and sects who all claim to be the right one in their interpretations of the bible. We have the church leaders guilty of the horrific abuse of children in their care and it is vast and widespread and has been going on for centuries.

SO call me snide and sarcastic. If I could have my way with the church I would be much worse than that. However I know that I fight a losing battle because humanity's fear of death is such a powerful psychological driver to a belief in something more than the empty void that awaits us after death.

Just don't try and ram the sh.t down my throat and forgive me if I am angry about all the horror, evil and crime the church is responsible for committing.

Bravo

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[canthai55]

Good Documentary here. Compelling. Believable. http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

[augustwest]

Good Documentary here. Compelling. Believable. http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

Excellent!!!

[stillbornagain]

When someone wrote that something he did was witnessed by a gathering of 5,000 people, and wrote it when those witnesses were alive, he would have been laughed out of the country if it wasn't true. That type of thing happened a number of times and never were those writings condemned.

I really think you should let up on your comments because you obviously haven't really studied any part of the history.

He really did live, he really did travel around to speak to people and sometimes it was thousands of people. He had so much impact that he started a new religion called Christianity. Scholars at the time wrote volumes about him called The New Testament. I truly have never met a scholar of any persuasion who argues that he didn't exist.

Cheers.

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

That is true. But the first books of the New Testament were written by people who knew him and traveled around with him. Those books have the story of his life and travels and those are the ones I was referring to. The people who were in those large crowds he met with were mostly alive at the time of the writing.

Actually JC, if he ever existed, never started Christianity, it was a Jewish sect he preached in which was reputably started by John the Baptist, who was also Jew...the Christianity scam was put together by St Peter to make a Jewish sects beliefs more palatable to the gentiles, by stealing existing pagan holidays etc etc

He was a Jew, of that you are correct. The people he was surrounded by were Jews. But as I already mentioned his teachings were witnessed by thousands of people and the writings about it were done by people who knew him. There was no Christianity "scam" as there was no Christianity. I agree that this came later and was badly perverted. I agree that all of Christianity today is a far cry from what he taught. If you want to know what he taught, read the Gospels at the beginning of the New Testament. They were written by people who knew him and lived with him. They all agree with each other in describing what and who he was. I don't know how anyone who hasn't read them could call himself educated much less be critical of what he said.

Cheers.

I'm surprised that you believe that there are contemporary written accounts of Jesus. I thought it was common knowledge that there are none. Below is a quote from the Wikipedia entry Historicity of Jesus. Complete with lots of footnotes.

One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus, like that of the historicity of King Arthur, is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence.^[3] Like many genuinely historical figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to AD 59, who discusses his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Bobotie]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

There is plenty of proof that he existed, in multiple written records made at that time. Non-believers simply don't accept that he was anything more than an ordinary man. I've never heard any truly educated person attempt to debate whether he existed. There were thousands and thousands of people who witnessed him and that is in the records too.

Cheers.

I am truly educated and I have never read a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, during his entire lifetime. So I don't believe he existed.

From what i have read, my belief is that the myth of "JC" is a construction based on one or more jewish rebels who where fighting the Romans, no more no less, the messiah stuff was attached to fullfill certain proficies that where written in the old testament in order to garnish support for the cause

In a similar way one doesnt have to believe in the lady in the lake or the excalibur legend to believe there may have been a King Authur, and even he is believed to be a construct of a few different people

[ThaiKneeTim]

There are also written records which suggest he wasnt crucified / died or resurected, therefore there is no premise for Christianity

I could accept that the person concerned from a historical perspective being a Jewish terrorist in Romes eyes, and he may or may not have been executed for his actions against the Roman state, the rest of it, son of of god, resurection etc is all Walt Disney, fairy stories for adults

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views.

However, they are views. Views come from all kinds of sources, written, spoken, gossip etc. Some sources also come from visions during prayer.

Scientists will admit that they know less than 10% of what happens in the human mind, they freely describe their knowledge of the human mind as "the tip of an iceberg." Scientific knowledge about mind-related visionary effects is even more sketchy. Scientists do not have explanations for the 3D Stereo dreams you have at night, or indeed the 3D Stereo memories you might have, of things that occurred 50 years ago. Science can not explain dreams or memories, these most non-contentious facts of our daily lives. So how could they possibly hope to explain religious visions?

Many sceptics have become devout Christians after having visions, in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes, depicting scenes from a book they have never read, or film versions they have never seen.

I have had visions, and I am in no way special, they are more common than many people in today's world may think. My faith is based more on my visions than on what other people have written. I believe that Satan was cast down, and the world became his kingdom. However, he envied Jesus, because Jesus was still all-powerful, and safe from harm. Jesus chose to become mortal, weak, and exposed to all the evil and harm. God and the angels were dead against this move, but Jesus was to show the world some things that will be remembered forever. He cast aside all his power, and embraced fragile mortality, in the life of a poor and humble fishing family. He was inviting all the evils of the underworld to take their best shot, which he would face with courage and humility, with nothing but cloth and ligament to protect him.

His words and actions that followed, are still the most beautiful words and actions, and they will be remembered forever. If we choose to listen to those words, is of course another matter, and is always a truly personal choice.

I completely respect your views and your right to hold those views ........... Well isn't that nice of you.

Some sources also come from visions during prayer................ Hallucinations

in broad daylight and while completely sober. Many people have had vivid real visions of biblical scenes......................... People with schizophrenia do too.

I believe that Satan was cast down.......................... wow! Delusional.

God is as real as the Easter Bunny.

Amen.

Do you see the difference?

He explains his viewpoint without resorting to snide sarcasm. Whereas, for whatever reason, you resort to insults and put downs.

A psychologist would explore the reason your insecurity about something compels you to do that.

You, me, Mr. Yunla, and everyone else can speculate, but none of us really know; although some are more convinced they do, on either viewpoint.

But the assured and secure, who are happy with their own worldview, don't need to resort to trying to ridicule others who have a different view based on their individual worldview.

That which appears ridiculous is open to ridicule.

Out brains are susceptible to erroneous conclusions, something that neuroscientist Dr Dean Burnett explains in his book 'The Idiot Brain'. The title gives an indication of the explanations for our thinking, and it's written in an easy to digest way, interlaced with humour, so you laugh and learn as you go.

Although neuroscientists understand a lot about the workings of the brain, as has been suggested, they have barely scratched the surface.

I'm quite sure that some believe that they have had visions, and there are some who believe they've not only seen aliens, they believe they've been abducted by them, but we don't take them seriously, and I've no doubt you've laughed at ridiculous claims. Some people actually believe that the earth is flat, and let's not forget that Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for defying the written word of the holy bible with his claim that the world was not indeed flat.

[up2u2]

I don't see any harm in people celebrating a religious belief. Provided they don't force those beliefs on others or take themselves too seriously. ALL! societies invent their various gods or hocus pocus it is very much part of the human condition.

I think Voltaire put it succinctly:

"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

That is pretty much what all societies have done since time immemorial.

Currently there are 4,200 religions and gods number in the tens of millions.

The Hindu religion celebrated 'The Festival of Color' (Holi) last Thursday. What a cracker of a festival that is! Celebrating nailing some poor bloke to a cross till he dies all sounds a little morbid to me. Sign me up for the 'Festival of Color' though. I'll be into that no worries.

[rijit]

And always shown as a good looking white guy

yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited March 26, 2016 by rijit

[Trentham]

And always shown as a good looking white guy

yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Excellent point.

[Fookhaht]

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

Wow.

Religion-bashing thread by only the second post (and ff.).

Predictable.

Nothing to see here, folks; now move along...

[ilostmypassword]

And always shown as a good looking white guy

yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And where did Hispanic people get the name Jėsus from? Hardly fitting for the time and region.

[Fookhaht]

And yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Excellent point.

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[stillbornagain]

I'm surprised you believe this. I thought it was common knowledge that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.

"One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus, like that of the historicity of King Arthur, is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence.^[3] Like many genuinely historical figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to AD 59, who discusses his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I wasn't saying Jesus didn't exist. Just that there are no comtemporary accounts of him.

[Fookhaht]

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

Complete rubbish.

Every New Testament book has manuscript remnants dating as far back as 46 A.D. You have obviously never been to the British and Louvre museums. Or kept up to date on modern archeological manuscript discoveries.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Lopchan]

Interesting to note that many here assume Catholics are Christian and that they"invented" Christianity. Actually the faithful who practice 1st century Christianity do not consider Catholicism Christian at all due to the extra text added to the God's word and the fact that they pray to the Virgin Mary rather than to God THROUGH Christ as intermediary.

It's also interesting to see such "highly educated and worldly people" having to resort to mocking and insulting others' faith simply because they don't understand. A low-brow effort at best.

Fookhaht is the clear winner of pic of the day for "You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashes. Spread your wisdom there. "

[Fookhaht]

I wasn't saying Jesus didn't exist. Just that there are no comtemporary accounts of him.

Again. Absolute rubbish.

We have the undisputed writings of a non-believer (read "non-Christian") Jewish historian who traveled around with the Roman army in first-century Palestine. He was drafted/hired to document Roman conquests. In his two-volume historical works, he also wrote about the historical Jesus, even including a physical description.

Yes, a contemporary of Jesus, and none of his other historical accounts have been questioned by secular historians.

Another poster with absolute no credibility--just uneducated pronouncements, repeating someone else's baseless claims.

[stillbornagain]

When someone wrote that something he did was witnessed by a gathering of 5,000 people, and wrote it when those witnesses were alive, he would have been laughed out of the country if it wasn't true. That type of thing happened a number of times and never were those writings condemned.

I really think you should let up on your comments because you obviously haven't really studied any part of the history.

He really did live, he really did travel around to speak to people and sometimes it was thousands of people. He had so much impact that he started a new religion called Christianity. Scholars at the time wrote volumes about him called The New Testament. I truly have never met a scholar of any persuasion who argues that he didn't exist.

Cheers.

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

Complete rubbish.

Every New Testament book has manuscript remnants dating as far back as 46 A.D. You have obviously never been to the British and Louvre museums. Or kept up to date on modern archeological manuscript discoveries.

Really? Do you have some authoritative source you can cite? I mean, apart from yourself. According to Biblical scholars the gospel of Mark is the earliest of the 4 gospels. "The book was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution,^[9] but it may have been written or redacted after that period" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

And as cited above, the earliest work of the Christian Bible was from Paul, A.D. 59.

You can read more about the earliest papyri here: http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Edited March 26, 2016 by stillbornagain

[stillbornagain]

I wasn't saying Jesus didn't exist. Just that there are no comtemporary accounts of him.

Again. Absolute rubbish.

We have the undisputed writings of a non-believer (read "non-Christian") Jewish historian who traveled around with the Roman army in first-century Palestine. He was drafted/hired to document Roman conquests. In his two-volume historical works, he also wrote about the historical Jesus, even including a physical description.

Yes, a contemporary of Jesus, and none of his other historical accounts have been questioned by secular historians.

Another poster with absolute no credibility--just uneducated pronouncements, repeating someone else's baseless claims.

Really? A contemporary of Jesus? I guess if you believe that Jesus came back from the dead and is still alive. In that case, it can be said we're all contemporaries. But if you don't subscribe to that belief, then not. Jesus is variously supposed to have been crucified anywhere from ad 29 to ad 33. Josephus, who is the historian you are referring to, was born in ad 37. So, if there's any rubbish here, it's coming from you. And it's turning into quite a heap.

Edited March 26, 2016 by stillbornagain

[Fookhaht]

When someone wrote that something he did was witnessed by a gathering of 5,000 people, and wrote it when those witnesses were alive, he would have been laughed out of the country if it wasn't true. That type of thing happened a number of times and never were those writings condemned.

I really think you should let up on your comments because you obviously haven't really studied any part of the history.

He really did live, he really did travel around to speak to people and sometimes it was thousands of people. He had so much impact that he started a new religion called Christianity. Scholars at the time wrote volumes about him called The New Testament. I truly have never met a scholar of any persuasion who argues that he didn't exist.

Cheers.

You had better check up on history too. Much of the New Testament was not written for up to 300 years after Christ died.

Complete rubbish.

Every New Testament book has manuscript remnants dating as far back as 46 A.D. You have obviously never been to the British and Louvre museums. Or kept up to date on modern archeological manuscript discoveries.

Really? Do you have some authoritative source you can cite? I mean, apart from yourself. According to Biblical scholars the gospel of Mark is the earliest of the 4 gospels. "The book was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution,^[9] but it may have been written or redacted after that period" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

And as cited above, the earliest work of the Christian Bible was from Paul, A.D. 59.

You can read more about the earliest papyri here: http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and historical literary criticism. Both fields are exact sciences, adhering to contemporary scientific method.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Fookhaht]

I wasn't saying Jesus didn't exist. Just that there are no comtemporary accounts of him.

Again. Absolute rubbish.

We have the undisputed writings of a non-believer (read "non-Christian") Jewish historian who traveled around with the Roman army in first-century Palestine. He was drafted/hired to document Roman conquests. In his two-volume historical works, he also wrote about the historical Jesus, even including a physical description.

Yes, a contemporary of Jesus, and none of his other historical accounts have been questioned by secular historians.

Another poster with absolute no credibility--just uneducated pronouncements, repeating someone else's baseless claims.

Really? A contemporary of Jesus? I guess if you believe that Jesus came back from the dead and is still alive. In that case, it can be said we're all contemporaries. But if you don't subscribe to that belief, then not. Jesus is variously supposed to have been crucified anywhere from ad 29 to ad 33. Josephus, who is the historian you are referring to, was born in ad 37. So, if there's any rubbish here, it's coming from you. And it's turning into quite a heap.

Let me help the poster dig themselves out of their own private heap (unless they are comfortable to remain there).

You're going to quibble over 4 years among the 2,000 years that are a part of this perspective?

Grasping at straws.

Josephus researched contemporary eye-witnesses. That puts his research into the camp of the contemporary, even among secular historians.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Scott

[rijit]

And yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Excellent point.

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Don't u just love zealots!! Not. The point was following on from Jesus always being portrayed as a handsome white man and his disciples having predominatly white man names given the time and the climate hardly seems credible but ignorance is bliss of coarse until it ends up as bigotry and rasicm and ultimately causes wars.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[stillbornagain]

Your research is outdated. A manuscript of the the Book of 3 John was recently found which goes back to 46 A.D.

And your 59 A.D. Is a pretty far cry from 300 years after the 1st century, is it not? Doesn't that weaken your claim?

Best avoid Wikipedia for your primary research. Not even Thai university students are allowed to use that in their research. You know it's source, don't you?

Most of my information comes from academic research journals in the fields of archeology and literary criticism.

First off, I never claimed 300 years after the first century. So why are you ascribing that to me? And you said Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Which is false. You didn't know that? Interesting.

As for this papyrus fragment you claim to have been recently discovered, I can find no trace of any mention of it on the internet. Plenty of journals publish on the web. This would be pretty big news. In fact, huge news. So what's your source? Despite what you might think, arrogant is not the same as authoritative. Where are your sources? And please "academic research journals in the field of archaeology and literary criticism" doesn't cut it. That kind of vagueness is the mark of a bloviator. Give specifics.

As for the earliest fragment of the New Testament known to exist:

This is form Live Science dates from Feb 9, 2015: A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200).

[Fookhaht]

And yeah And where exactly the f did they get the names James, Simon, mathew, andrew, phillip ,Thomas from ? hardly fitting for the time and region

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Excellent point.

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Don't u just love zealots!! Not. The point was following on from Jesus always being portrayed as a handsome white man and his disciples having predominatly white man names given the time and the climate hardly seems credible but ignorance is bliss of coarse until it ends up as bigotry and rasicm and ultimately causes wars.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

White man names? (you're trying to say "WASP"? Is that it?)

Your posts are hysterical.

Teammates, corral this guy of yours before he makes a laughingstock of the entire anti-Christian position!

Edited March 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[stillbornagain]

The most ignorant post I think I've seen to date.

Original Hebrew and Greek names that actually predate Christ.

Just one example. Ever hear of Phillip of Macedonia? 359 B.C.? Who played around with Cleopatra?

You best stick to the threads about Pattaya bar girls or Chinese buffet-crashers. Spread your wisdom there.

Don't u just love zealots!! Not. The point was following on from Jesus always being portrayed as a handsome white man and his disciples having predominatly white man names given the time and the climate hardly seems credible but ignorance is bliss of coarse until it ends up as bigotry and rasicm and ultimately causes wars.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

White man names? (you're trying to say "WASP"? Is that it?)

Your posts are hysterical.

Teammates, corral this guy of yours before he makes a laughingstock of the entire anti-Christian position!

He's not the only one who gets his facts wrong. Any scholar of Biblical manuscripts would be rolling his eyes at your assertions. They probably wouldn't laugh out loud, though. Just snicker.

[stillbornagain]

.

Edited March 26, 2016 by stillbornagain