The myth of Jesus being a myth

some days I just get miffed (other days I get dys'd)

I can only handle one myth at a time.

EB's got it. It's a double negative.

If a man said "I am a constant liar" would you believe it?

The idea of two negatives adding to a positive logically somehow or other is an English language thing; the whole world doesn't work that way.

I read your post but was stopped cold by Julian Jaynes. I actually remember his debut. I think it might have been John Lennon who thought he was profound.
Anyway that book is now an embarrasment to academia

Jaynes' book is mentioned in Richard Dawkins' 2006 work The God Delusion: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."

I have taught NT Latin, it is mindless to say the NT is wordy, quite the opposite.
In fact St Paul is the extreme the other way with his oft-noted Anacoluthons, to which should be added that fact that of all Western Literature the Bible is the most allusive, using a phrase or two to recall whole sections of earlier writings. As when St John says In principio erat verbun --- recalling the beginning of Genesis.

You made no point but you want a point

Paul wrote in Latin?

The texts were mainly written in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew, sometimes called Classical Hebrew, is an archaic form of the Hebrew language. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek.
Biblical languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_languagesWikipedia

I was being ironic. The Pauline texts were written in Koine Greek.

A drunk man was staggering home with a pint of booze in his back pocket when he slipped and fell heavily. Struggling to his feet, he felt something wet running down his leg.
"Please God," he thought. "Let it be blood!"

you are an educated man... why would´t you use another more valuable resources as an on line encyclopedia? What wikipedia? you can´t imagine who many mistakes i´ve found about our history there.... really

Even wikipedia has objective facts. That you are able to find "many mistakes" doesn't lessen the value of wikipedia to many people.
Please provide some examples of the mistakes you have found on wikipedia.

please provide some examples of an accurate information contrasting it to reliable source and ill provide samples of whatever you asked for on wiki media

I asked first. Provide an answer for my question first, and i'll attempt to answer yours.

As with most things human, any answers provided on wiki is subjective. But as with science, current answers on wiki can be corrected when a participant has a better answer. That's the best any resource can do, and I personally find wiki to be quite reliable. That's my subjective value of wiki.

Now, provide the mistakes you have found.

So many claim to be scientific in their outlook who nevertheless say things that one learns is ANTI-Science in grad school.

This is true as can be about science :

" a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible." Michael Polanyi

and that is happening even this very month as Dr Leo Smolin argues for the Evolution of Scientific Laws, a view that C S Peirce ("the American Aristotle") had shown to be logically a consequence of strict Evolutionary thought.

No, he wrote in Greek but for 1000 years St Jerome's Vulgate was the form that the NT took for all Christianity and St Jerome is of impeccable orthodoxy.