The First Century Void

[RoadRunner79]

You have me curious to see the evidence or foundation for this claim of deliberate elimination.  We'll see what "real scholarship" looks like!

You would not know scholarship if it bit you in the ass. And when it's presented you'll just fire up the apologist  denial generator. scream conspiracy theory, chanting, but someone would have noticed, cooking up baseless fiction, Move the goalpost, complain the source is biased , Or you will go the lazy route and just link us to some apologist site that does it all the above for you.

---

I would encourage you to cite your criticisms if and when I commit them, so we can discuss their validity then in context.   Frankly I'm not impressed by baseless accusations without support... chest beating or sophism.    Without reference we can't discuss them, and it's not about the people, who makes the claim or argument, labels or anything else.  I would also appreciate it if you let me speak for myself, instead of making up straw men with which to comfort yourself and argue against. 

It's your choice, to discuss intelligently, or just throw out insults.   I'm done with back and forth though, that doesn't pertain to fruitful discussion.

[Cyberman]

Frankly I'm not impressed by baseless accusations without support...

[Pat Mustard]

Frankly I'm not impressed by baseless accusations without support...

Well then, why do you resort to them so frequently and so readily, if you hate them so?

Bad enough that you're an uneducated and lying twat, but one who has no sense of introspection either? Goes much lower in my eyes.

[Amarok]

No what you don't like is how shady it makes your personal ideology look . If we were going after Taoists I doubt you would be so rapid in your denials. And ditto to what Tazzy and cyber said.

[RoadRunner79]

We could go back and forth, I could insult and give my opinions about you as well.  And no benefit will come of it.  Lets get back to the discussion and demonstration it for all to see.

[Amarok]

Nope I find our criticisms very  productive but your free to walk away and scurry back under the rock of denial . And well still be here pointing out the facts .

[RoadRunner79]

Don't get me wrong... I'm not against criticism.... but do it in context, where it can be examined and intelligently discussed. Or if someone would like to re-visit something, we can do that too.

[Minimalist]

I've got to strike a fine line here.  Carrier among others - this is hardly news outside the bible-thumper community - cites a number of examples.  I've got to produce enough so that RR doesn't hold his breath until he turns blue without re-producing so much that it violates the sites' copyright rules.  I'll get there.  I just need time and today is not going to be that day.

As an example, though, here is Richard Lataster quoting Robert Drews, on the issue of Tacitus:

Furthermore, most information from Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6 (covering CE-32-37) is lost.
The Annals is suspiciously missing information from around 29 CE to 32 CE, a highly relevant
timeframe for those that believe (historically or religiously) in Jesus. It is equally suspicious that the
only section missing in the space dedicated to Tiberius’ rule happens to coincide with what many Christians
would consider to be the most historically noteworthy event(s) to occur during Tiberius’ reign.

Robert Drews theorizes that the only plausible explanation for this gap is “pious fraud;” that the embarrassment
of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as the darkness covering
the world or the appearances of resurrected saints) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of the text, and perhaps later fabricating the Book 15
reference. 

[Amarok]

I've got to strike a fine line here.  Carrier among others - this is hardly news outside the bible-thumper community - cites a number of examples.  I've got to produce enough so that RR doesn't hold his breath until he turns blue without re-producing so much that it violates the sites' copyright rules.  I'll get there.  I just need time and today is not going to be that day.

As an example, though, here is Richard Lataster quoting Robert Drews, on the issue of Tacitus:

Furthermore, most information from Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6 (covering CE-32-37) is lost.
The Annals is suspiciously missing information from around 29 CE to 32 CE, a highly relevant
timeframe for those that believe (historically or religiously) in Jesus. It is equally suspicious that the
only section missing in the space dedicated to Tiberius’ rule happens to coincide with what many Christians
would consider to be the most historically noteworthy event(s) to occur during Tiberius’ reign.

Robert Drews theorizes that the only plausible explanation for this gap is “pious fraud;” that the embarrassment
of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as the darkness covering
the world or the appearances of resurrected saints) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of the text, and perhaps later fabricating the Book 15
reference. 

But someone would have noticed conspiracy theory !!!

---

Don't get me wrong... I'm not against criticism.... but do it in context, where it can be examined and intelligently discussed. Or if someone would like to re-visit something, we can do that too.

Bullocks

[RoadRunner79]

Take your time, and let me know when you are ready.... I'll take notes and reply then.