Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Minimalist]

WTF are you talking about.  Having trouble with reading comprehension this morning?

[Amarok]

WTF are you talking about.  Having trouble with reading comprehension this morning?

He's a theist selective reading or not understanding what is read when it comes to the bible is mandatory .

[RoadRunner79]

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.

[Amarok]

Blah blah blah 

Just dismiss your lack of evidence as an "argument from silence "

[Angrboda]

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

The argument from silence can be used legitimately. But you need to show work of where it should definitely be mentioned, and why. The way it is used by the mythicists is almost always fallacious. Besides we where talking about the Testimonium Falvium and pre Esebius. Do you have any hard evidence for what was there before? Many scholars don’t consider the entire thing a forgery, because they have no reason to. If you are saying that we should tear out this page from history and throw it on the fire, I think it’s reasonable to ask why?

[Amarok]

No we don't if it happened it would have been mentioned end of story .Your excuses are just that .

[Succubus]

[Minimalist]

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.

Hey dumbass, we know it didn't exist because xtian writers did not utilize it.  And, for the record, since you seem to know so little about this whole episode, Eusebius was the ultimate inheritor of Origen's library.  Upon Origen's death his successor, Pamphillus, continued the effort to build the library and Pamphillus' successor was none other than fucking Eusebius the Liar, the forger of the TF.  So not only was Eusebius sitting in Origen's chair, he had his actual books.   And 75 years later they were probably getting a little dog-eared so a copy was made and Eusebius thought he'd make a few improvements in the tale. 

Now with dripshit we see him finding a website which makes him happy because it begins by asserting exactly what he wants to believe.  The purveyor of the site then trots out lots of apologist assholes to swear that the original premise is right.  


I'll put it in cartoon form for you since I know dripshit is incapable of understanding anything deeper.

And I have my doubts about you.