The First Century Void

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

---

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

---

Well, seeing that the "Contra Celsum" was printed in 1876 in London in Modern Greek chances are it's a fake.  https://archive.org/details/contracelsumlib00selwgoog

[RoadRunner79]

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,

"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

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.

It doesn't surprise me, that he used it more than once....  I don't have the fragmented works in my library, to see the context.   And he may even be the source of the flowery and barely disputed interpolations; what he added in his works, being later added by other scribes copying Josephus. This seems to be a much simpler explanation.  However, this is hardly a case, to say that he forged it into Josephus (when he was citing Josephus) about a case, which doesn't support your narrative.  He then would have had to distribute these forgeries, in order to make one small point (which wasn't against the mythicist postion by the way; that isn't heard of until much later).  And then hope that no one had a original copy.   I don't see a need to insert more complicated assumptions.   And you are not giving any evidence which requires it.

[Minimalist]

Like I said, an apologist can make an excuse for anything.

Do you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion or is jesus freak propaganda the best we can expect from you?

I can't help but notice that you aren't putting up any evidence of this shit's existence before Eusebius.  That would be new.  But it doesn't exist.

So it seems you are shit out of luck, as usual.

[RoadRunner79]

Like I said, an apologist can make an excuse for anything.

Do you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion or is jesus freak propaganda the best we can expect from you?

I can't help but notice that you aren't putting up any evidence of this shit's existence before Eusebius.  That would be new.  But it doesn't exist.

So it seems you are shit out of luck, as usual.

It's not my case to make... every copy we have has some form of the testamonium. And I don't find your reasons very convincing or that it logically follows the evidence you have. I find your focus on me, rather than making your case, even less persuasive. Not to mention that there are other early references that support the historicity of Jesus. The argument from silence is stronger against your position then it is for it. And even hostile (to Christianity) scholars almost unanimously decry the conclusions and methods of the mythers. Sorry, but shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it either.

[Minimalist]

You wouldn't.  As I have said, you are a bible-thumping jackass who is desperate to have his fantasies validated.  You will ignore anything that upsets your little holy apple cart.

I do feel sorry for you but you have to help yourself.

[RoadRunner79]

You wouldn't.  As I have said, you are a bible-thumping jackass who is desperate to have his fantasies validated.  You will ignore anything that upsets your little holy apple cart.

I do feel sorry for you but you have to help yourself.

Again... give evidence and reason, and we will see. Your assumptions and name calling only show the week was of your case!

[Minimalist]

You have been shown the evidence.

You know, with far less evidence you 'believe' that a dead jew came back to life for your sins.

Fuck off.

[RoadRunner79]

Yes... the argument from silence, which is difficult, and some think just fallacious. Also shown to be factually incorrect, by early hostile references. We discussed the one passage in Josephus, which you couldn't show is a forgery (although does seem to have some interpolation). We could discuss the others, by I think you have even less to dismiss that evidence; which show you to be incorrect. And would probably just result in more name calling against me.

Have a nice day! I'm happy with the way the discussion, or lack there of went. I think it shows how weak the mythicist case is, and what discussion with them, often falls to.

---

One other thing that came up over the course of the discussion, was the excuse for the lack of evidence (or silence) of the mythicist position until the 18th century. The excuse is that the Church destroyed books, which went against it's message. This is mostly false, except for perhaps the heretical writing of Arius which where targeted during the end of Constantine' reign. There where also a number of times that Christians either didn't have the power to do what was claimed or where the targets of such acts themselves.

I suggest doing some research before passing on such myths.... look at the evidence.
http://christianthinktank.com/qburnbx.html
http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Yes... the argument from silence, which is difficult, and some think just fallacious.  Also shown to be factually incorrect, by early hostile references.  We discussed the one passage in Josephus, which you couldn't show is a forgery (although does seem to have some interpolation).  We could discuss the others, by I think you have even less to dismiss that evidence; which show you to be incorrect.  And would probably just result in more name calling against me.

Have a nice day!    I'm happy with the way the discussion, or lack there of went.  I think it shows how weak the mythicist case is, and what discussion with them, often falls to.

---

One other thing that came up over the course of the discussion, was the excuse for the lack of evidence (or silence) of the mythicist position until the 18th century.  The excuse is that the Church destroyed books, which went against it's message.  This is mostly false, except for perhaps the heretical writing of Arius which where targeted during the end of Constantine' reign. There where also a number of times that Christians either didn't have the power to do what was claimed or where the targets of such acts themselves.

I suggest doing some research before passing on such myths.... look at the evidence.
http://christianthinktank.com/qburnbx.html
http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm

What about the giant book burning the Christians did in the book of Acts?

---

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,

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.

It doesn't surprise me, that he used it more than once....  I don't have the fragmented works in my library, to see the context.   And he may even be the source of the flowery and barely disputed interpolations; what he added in his works, being later added by other scribes copying Josephus. This seems to be a much simpler explanation.  However, this is hardly a case, to say that he forged it into Josephus (when he was citing Josephus) about a case, which doesn't support your narrative.  He then would have had to distribute these forgeries, in order to make one small point (which wasn't against the mythicist postion by the way; that isn't heard of until much later).  And then hope that no one had a original copy.   I don't see a need to insert more complicated assumptions.   And you are not giving any evidence which requires it.

In case you didn't know it those sources you cited are fakes.  For one thing the name "Jesus" didn't exist until about 1630-1632 and it was used only one time in a lawsuit.  The Bible writers liked it so they inserted it into all of the passages that used Yeshua or another name for the zombie character.  

So, since your sources use the name Jesus they were either written after the middle of the 17th Century or else they are very poor translations.  In any case their veracity is doubtful.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, RoadRunner79, thinks that during hundreds years of Christian reign were also times of liberal exchange of ideas where anyone could have questioned teachings of the church as well as dogma and also write books conflicting their teachings and politics.