The First Century Void

[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.