(July 9, 2018 at 4:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are you not arguing that before Eseubius that this passage didn't exist. I'm asking if you have a copy which predates that without it in it? Or is this just another argument from silence fallacy? You clarification is much appreciated.
The argument is not fallacious in itself. If there is not evidence where there ought to be evidence if something were true, concluding that thing to not be true is reasonable. The 'historical Jesus' teeters on the edge of reasonableness, and the lack of contemporary confirmation is the main reason for the teetering. There's nothing conclusive, but there are some things that are suggestive, and that's where we're stuck. Conclusive evidence for the Jesus on whom Christianity could be found tomorrow, but it does not exist today.
I personally lean towards the Jesus of history, but only in a 51% yes 49% no sort of way. I'm persuaded, but just barely, and entirely by what's in the NT, I can't find anything remotely convincing outside of it.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
