The First Century Void

[RoadRunner79]

[Minimalist]

[Amarok]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

[Fake Messiah]

[Amarok]

Here Here

[Minimalist]

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.

[Amarok]

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 .

[Minimalist]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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!

---

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!