The First Century Void

[RoadRunner79]

Not to mention the fact that hundreds of ancient documents were essentially left to rot. Because they didn't conform to the churches teachings. Including catalogues worth of scientific texts from the Romans and Greeks. And libraries didn't even need to be purposely time has done an awesome job of that. But as I said it a non issue weather it's the 18th or 56 century the evidence is the evidence.

---

And as Richard Carrier points out

---

But min there had to lots of other copies of the TF because there had to be.

He doesn't seem to understand that Eusebius inherited Origen's library.  Not only was Eusebius writing this shit he was using the very same books that Origen used.  The ones where Origen declared that Josephus did not know Christ.  Whoops.  Must be a little doctrinal fuck-up there!

Citation Please!   I'm assuming, that you are not referring to Contra Ceslsum 1.47 where he says "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..."

Origen. (1885). Origen against Celsus. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), F. Crombie (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Vol. 4, p. 416). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

This was the closest I could find, and it appears to be saying something different than what you are saying    

My experience with Carrier, is that he talks a lot, and derides others quite a bit (especially those critical of him), but when it comes to substance, there is very little.   Now this started from an argument, that you said was the most persuasive.   I disagree, and don't even find it to be all that good.   We can discuss more on that if you like.  I am looking for good evidence and reason.   Does Carrier have that (should I assume, from your silence on the matter, that it does not exist)?    He takes a little bit of information, crafts a story from it, and then ignores any evidence against it, or when it is pointed out, that his conclusions don't follow his reasoning (much like what we have seen here).

---

Perhaps you would like to create a thread based on the best argument, rather than the most persuasive. We can look at it, the evidence and reasons. Perhaps this time without resorting to sophomoric name calling or the weak genetic fallacy. Just because Carrier reacts poorly to criticism and being shown where he is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean, that all points are bad. Let's discuss that reasoning that he implored in that last quote.