The First Century Void

[Amarok]

It does not matter in any context if anyone doubted jesus till now((which isn't true as  Carrier rightly points out) .That's not an argument people are doing so now the evidence is here now . And most historicist choose willfully not to engage it. And some to a point where they demand people who show sympathy for said position lose there jobs .

[Minimalist]

Here, we are talking about the specific premise, that they targeted and removed this material because it did not contain the history of Jesus.

Once, maybe you could get away with that.  But there is a repeated pattern.  After a while it takes desperation to maintain that its all some sort of "accident."

But I get that you have to feel that way because even the hint that your fairy tales are phony terrifies you.

[Amarok]

Here, we are talking about the specific premise, that they targeted and removed this material because it did not contain the history of Jesus.

And a more accurate term would be it contradicted the historicity of jesus . And placed him in the mythical category he rightly belongs in .

[RoadRunner79]

Patterns due tend to emerge, when you remove all other data, that doesn't fit the pattern.

[Minimalist]

You remove any data which you find inconvenient and gladly swallow anything which tells you what you want to hear.

Moving on.

From Pg. 80 of "Is This Not the Carpenter?"  Edited by Thompson and Verenna.

We see what need there is for a historical jesus... and it has fuckall to do with "history."

The mainreason for holding to the historicity of the figure of Jesus, as his activities
are narrated in the Gospels, resides not primarily in historical evidence but
derives instead from a modern theological necessity. Had Jesus not lived
among mortals and, more importantly, had he not died and been raised
from the dead, the kernel of Christian theology would lose its essence.

[RoadRunner79]

You remove any data which you find inconvenient and gladly swallow anything which tells you what you want to hear.

Moving on.
From Pg. 80 of "Is This Not the Carpenter?"  Edited by Thompson and Verenna.
We see what need there is for a historical jesus... and it has fuckall to do with "history."

The mainreason for holding to the historicity of the figure of Jesus, as his activities
are narrated in the Gospels, resides not primarily in historical evidence but
derives instead from a modern theological necessity. Had Jesus not lived
among mortals and, more importantly, had he not died and been raised
from the dead, the kernel of Christian theology would lose its essence.

I don't understand your comment and what you think I am removing.   I only added relevant facts to the matter. 

As to the latest copy and paste.  I'm unsure about the citation concerning that it is not from historical evidence but out of modern theological necessity.  The early Church was based on the history of Jesus from the very beginning.  Are they thinking that this is some modern theological invention out of necessity?

[Minimalist]

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about.  I think you make it up as you go along.

First century writers either never heard of or studiously avoided tales of your godboy.  The ball is now in your court.  Worse, there are examples of excisions in the histories of the period that we do have.  If your boy WAS mentioned you would be trumpeting it all over the web.  Instead we get a lacunae where the whole section has been removed but this fails to arouse your curiosity.

I know why.

[Amarok]

He will just keep repeating the same crap he always has

[Minimalist]

He can't be blamed for that.  Its what they all do.

[Minimalist]

I just watched a youtube video on "The Pagan Christ" which tries to connect jesus to horus.  It gets the Mystery Cult part right but ignores the obvious reality that the local mythology was combined with Hellenistic philosophy to produce those Mystery Cults.  In Egypt they went with Egyptian themes and in Palestine they went with Jewish themes.  But that's not the point.

They trotted out a couple of bible "scholars" ( actually they seemed like your average apologists ) and they came up with the exact same shit that RR trots out. 

But, but, but JOSEPHUS!  And then insist that the "forged parts" were taken out.

But, but, but  WE HAVE 4 INDEPENDENT GOSPELS.  No, you have 1 story and 3 derivatives.

But, but, but  ROMAN HISTORIANS.  Even though neither Suetonius, Tacitus or Pliny ever mentions any fucking jesus.

So, I owe RR an apology because if that is the best that his leaders can come up with I am wrong to expect more from him.