It was an ill considered point.
With regards to the other comment, I have been busy.
I answered questions over and over but magic books are hurled again and again and when I post things like former fundy, Bart Ehrman and his scholarship showing how the bible is riddled with copyist errors, mistakes and interpolations, that stuff IS ignored. If a person wants to believe in magic books without evidence, then there is no evidence you can present to convince him otherwise. Same goes for the creationist folk and evolution.
Try that again. The stuff isn't ignored; it is refuted, a BIG difference. In fact, when I first addressed your rather laborious cut-and-paste jobs, I went through, point by point, and addressed why such statements were inaccurate. Furthermore, I don't see how referring to Ehrman as a "former fundie" helps your case. I can just as easily cite Biblical scholars and believers, who were once atheists. Would that mean that you ignored what they had to say on certain matters?
To top it all off, your claim about wanting to "believe in magic books without evidence" is even more off the mark. I've mentioned it before now, and so has Loco. We cited numerous times where skeptics have that Biblical accounts were false, only to have their statements shattered, when historical and archaeological evidence points to the Bible's accuracy.
Among such was what he and I posted, refuting your first claim that there was no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. When that claim of your got sunk, you then reverted to asserting that Josephus was the only one and that it was fradulent. That was picked apart as well. That leads to some of the questions that Loco and I asked you.
1) Loco's question to you was to produce a reference to a copy of the Josephus' Testimonium (in either Greek or Arabic, the two known languages in which it was written) that DOES NOT HAVE any reference to Jesus Christ.
2) My question to you was to produce a reference, showing that the Talmud was
originally written in 200 A.D. (as you cited that it was written too late to be of any value, for being an extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, which you said didn't exist in the first place) and that the statement in it, regarding Jesus' death were inaccurate, as you also claimed.