(July 2, 2017 at 12:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The conspiracy theory that you are proposing, is that Eusebius need a source that he didn't have, so he forged one into Josephus, cited it, and then no one noticed (or was silent concerning it) and he somehow got rid of all other copies. My tin foil hat is currently in the wash... but you will need to make a better case, to convince me of this tale.

It did not exist before Eusebius and then it did.  Cui Bono, as the lawyers say "who benefits."  It is not as if Eusebius has any reputation for integrity.  He was an early church propagandist.  Sort of the Kellyanne Conway of his day.

But as I said earlier there is no convincing you because you desperately do not want to be convinced.  As the saying goes, "you can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink."

Eusebius' talent for lying extends to the so-called epistles of Ignatius of Antioch.  Back in 2007, Herr Von Popenfuhrer, taking a break from diddling little boys, I imagine, stood in front of a crowd and said:

Quote:Eusebius writes: "The Report says that he [Ignatius] was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ. And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military surveillance" (he called the guards "ten leopards" in his Letter to the Romans, 5:1), "he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he stopped by homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles".

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b1...hrch32.htm

So here is a guy who is being sent all the way from fucking Turkey to Rome to be executed - hint, the Romans were not that inefficient - under "strictest military surveillance" but those guards still allowed him to write and speak to other groups of (supposedly) illegal xtians?  The problem with someone like you, RR, is that you will look at that and say "yup, that's what the holy horseshitters said so it must be true...praise jebus." without a critical thought ever being allowed to form in your fucking head.  The situation described by "Eusebius" and later enshrined by the Panzer Pope is so utterly absurd as to be beyond belief.  But idiot jesus freaks fall for it hook, line and sinker.

I'd agree, that Eusebius was not the best historian (or theologian for that matter).  However I'm a little skeptical of your claims, in regards to him forging them.   Being the first record that we have as quoting them, it does not follow that he made it up whole cloth.  I don't think that your conspiracy theory is tenable without more evidence.  If we used your criteria of quoting before X date, and us having record of it;  how much of Josephus do we have that isn't forged?   Doesn't this narrative... suit your desires quite well?  Who benefits?

---

(June 28, 2017 at 11:28 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah if Josephus considered Jesus so wonderful then why dedicate only few lines to him when whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders? Nearly forty chapters are devoted to a single king.

And what is this

(June 27, 2017 at 11:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: the mythicist position is silent until about the 18th century.....  

Can you switch off your delusion, take of your beer goggles for moment because did I not show you dialogues with Clesus who obviously thought Jesus was a myth? There where people that considered Jesus as a myth from the very beginnings, since Paul started preaching and he was very well aware that Jesus story is stupid and you can figure out it's just a myth by only thinking for he said that people should not think and actually be stupid and then they can believe Jesus really existed 1 Corinthians 3:18-19, "Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God."

Corinthians 4:10 "We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ";

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom";

I think that you mis-understand what the mythicist position is. For instance Ehrman is certainly not on the side of Christianity, and he can be found in many places calling the mythiscist position foolish. And noting that no serious mythiscist holds a major teaching position in history or theology in any major university.

Where do you think that the Celcius expounds this position?   Also, a great deal is made, about only working from copies of copies, regarding the manuscripts here.  Here we don't even have that, but copies of copies of a response to letters that we don't have.  Are these evidence?

(July 3, 2017 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 11:52 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Or would style of writing of a devout Jew, like Josephus, apparently include describing Jesus as wonderful and making commercial for him? I mean can't you see how desperate you are Christians?


Yes, like one Jesus freak writer, Origen in 2nd century, who actually complained in his treatise "Contra Celsum" that there is no historical mentioning of Jesus "is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility"
chapter 42 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

So TF would have been his ace in the hole and yet he has never heard of TF although he knows works of Josephus very well.

Haven't you considered the likelihood that the "Contra Celsum" is a fraud?  Is there an actual copy of the original manuscript?  

BTW, there was no guy named "Josephus" at that time period because the name didn't exist at that time.  Whatever his name it sure as hell wasn't "Josephus".

His name was Yosef ben Matityahu - Joe, son of Matty.  Flavius Josephus was hung on him after he turned Quisling and went over to the Romans.  You know, When in Rome do as the Romans do!

Nope it's you who does not understand said position. Or like Craig, Strobel etc create straw man to knock over in a disingenuous attempt  to discredit the position . People like Carrier to huge lengths to explain why Christianity requires no conspiracy . And painting the positions as such is dishonest.

(July 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Nope it's you who does not understand said position. Or like Craig, Strobel etc create straw man to knock over in a disingenuous attempt  to discredit the position . People like Carrier to huge lengths to explain why Christianity requires no conspiracy . And painting the positions as such is dishonest.

You forgot Ehrman, and most every other scholar. But I don't want to argue a straw man.... if you would like to discuss, I'm happy to. I just ask for the reasons and evidence.

(July 3, 2017 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Haven't you considered the likelihood that the "Contra Celsum" is a fraud?  Is there an actual copy of the original manuscript?  

I haven't. Do you have any indications it is a fraud? Now there is no treatise by Celsus that survived which was titled "The True Word", not as a whole only what's left in "Contra Celsum", but that is not strange considering that Christians were responsible for preserving books and they simply destroyed what they considered that may disgrace their religion. I mean take something banal as "Archimedes Palimpsest" - which was just about science and didn't talk about Christianity and yet monks erased it; perhaps not because they found it offensive, but still, they didn't like it enough to preserve it, so they erased it and used it to write their prayers over it.

(July 3, 2017 at 11:17 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you mis-understand what the mythicist position is. For instance Ehrman is certainly not on the side of Christianity, and he can be found in many places calling the mythiscist position foolish. And noting that no serious mythiscist holds a major teaching position in history or theology in any major university.

Well we are going in circles aren't we? We already had this discussion. Ehrman had this positions but like you describe they were weak and ad hominem, because what you are parroting here that Ehrman's said "foolish mythicists" is meant Ehrman's attack on Thomas L. Thompson, whom I mentioned to you before and no doubt I will have to do it again.

Even Philip R. Davies, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, England called Ehrman's attack on Thompson outrageous. Davies not only defends Thompson's work on this matter, he acknowledges that Thompson and Thomas Verenna have amassed a great deal of evidence demonstrating that whether he was real or mythical, the profile of Jesus in the New Testament is composed of stock motifs drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world.
Davies argues this whole debate should be taken seriously and can't be snubbed outright or dismissed as the work of amateurs. He fully recognizes that the evidence for Jesus' historicity is no slam-dunk, and that in light of how weak and extremely problematic it actually is, nothing warrants the degree of rhetoric coming from critics like Ehrman. On the contrary, Davies counters that acknowledging the possibility that Jesus didn't exist is the only way the field can maintain any academic respectability:

"surely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate. Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case and the highly emotive and dismissive language of, say, Bart Ehrman’s response to Thompson’s The Mythic Past shows (if it needed to be shown), not that the matter is beyond dispute, but that the whole idea of raising this question needs to be attacked, ad hominem, as something outrageous. This is precisely the tactic anti-minimalists tried twenty years ago: their targets were ‘amateurs’, ‘incompetent’, and could be ignored. The ‘amateurs’ are now all retired professors, while virtually everyone else in the field has become minimalist (if in most cases grudgingly and tacitly). So, as the saying goes, déjà vu all over again."

And so on - read the whole article
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml

Here Here

RR prefers Stroebel and Craig as opposed to Ehrman, Davies, Thompson and Carrier.  The latter 4 do not tell him what he wants to hear.

(July 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: RR prefers Stroebel and Craig as opposed to Ehrman, Davies, Thompson and Carrier.  The latter 4 do not tell him what he wants to hear.

Well yeah of course the frauds and liars appeal to him as opposed the contrary .

Quote:However I'm a little skeptical of your claims, in regards to him forging them.   Being the first record that we have as quoting them, it does not follow that he made it up whole cloth.  I don't think that your conspiracy theory is tenable without more evidence.  If we used your criteria of quoting before X date, and us having record of it;  how much of Josephus do we have that isn't forged?   Doesn't this narrative... suit your desires quite well?  Who benefits?

So when it comes to the written word, we can categorically state that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE - I'm going to enjoy this.  In other words, some asshole had to write it.  You may not be convinced that the failure of any writer,  xtian or pagan, to mention it is evidence that it did not exist before a specific time but as I have explained several times already you will not be convinced by anything because, like Eusebius, you desperately need for the TF to be true.  Did Eusebius have to write it himself?  Not necessarily.  Some scribe employed by him could have actually written it but Eusebius published the work.

BTW, and I hope this comes as an unpleasant surprise to you,

Quote:"And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him
a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such
men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself
many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him
to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease
loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day,
the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful
things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after
him, continues down to the present day."

From Historia Ecclesiastica

Quote:And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a
man.  For he was a doer  of no common works, a teacher of men who
reverence truth.  And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the
Greek race.  This was Christus; and when Pilate condemned him to the
Cross on the information of our rulers his first followers did not cease to
revere him.  For he appeared to them the third day alive again the divine
prophets having foretold this and very many other things about him. And
from that time to this the tribe of Christians has not failed."

From Demonstratio Evangelica

Now, the Demonstratio dates from c 311 and the Historia Ecclesiastica from c 324.  So it looks like your boyfriend Eusebius had second thoughts about what he wrote and made a few editorial improvements to his bullshit story. 

I've done that too with articles I have written.  The first draft is never so good that it can't be improved.

(July 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: RR prefers Stroebel and Craig as opposed to Ehrman, Davies, Thompson and Carrier.  The latter 4 do not tell him what he wants to hear.

Actually, haven't read Stroebel.... though it is an interesting story.   And I have reference Ehrman here, but not Craig.  

But in the end, what I prefer is evidence and reason.  Do you have any of that, or just made up narratives, based on the difficult if not fallacious argument from silence? 
I'm not the one, trying to attack others character, or attacking the source.  I consider the need to do so, a sign of a weak argument!

---

(July 3, 2017 at 7:06 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: RR prefers Stroebel and Craig as opposed to Ehrman, Davies, Thompson and Carrier.  The latter 4 do not tell him what he wants to hear.

Well yeah of course the frauds and liars appeal to him as opposed the contrary .

I would ask, that you please be specific when making such claims, and keep things within the topic of discussion.  Unless you feel your position so weak, that you need to resort to attacking the man (and those not even involved here at that).   Shameful!