OP is an uncritical quote miner. The purported Eusebius quote is not in any way his but was, in his own JPost source, attributed to Eusebius rather than put in quotation marks. This one goes back to a very credulous, imbalanced Dagobert Runes, Jew and the Cross, 1965, who in the same breath makes the mistake of converting Eusebius's 90,000 Jewish captives during the Jewish war sold to Romans for their labor, to 90,000 Christian captives during the Persian war sold to Jews for sport killing. With that much misreading it's probable that the summary about Purim was a false memory of the actual quote, separately given here, from Socrates of Constantinople, 5th century. There simply was and is no evidence of widespread simultaneous annual crucifixions in the 4th century by anybody.
Of course nobody else reported any evidence of Socrates's rumor, except if you trace the rumor a warping of generic pagan blood libels against the Jews (Damocritus in the 10th-century Suda, and Apion in Josephus, who credits Posidonius and Apollonius Molo as influencers). But the pagans would have adapted it from the original blood libel against the Christians, who would have received it because obeying Jesus's words exposed them to the charge.
In other words it appears nobody thought of inventing the blood libel until Jesus took it upon himself to talk like a cannibal, didactically, for the purpose of weeding out the skeptics. But by doing this he also set up the deeper layer: he took upon himself all the blame for cannibalism that everyone else laid against any other person, innocent or guilty; he made himself the chief of cannibals so that he could save whoever wanted to be saved. That's an incredible confirm of his mission.
Suddenly the 20th century makes a lot more sense.
I believe March 24 is Saint Simon of Trent Day.
Many pictures depict him as the little boy who was drained of blood by a dozen Rabbis.
OP is an uncritical quote miner. The purported Eusebius quote is not in any way his but was, in his own JPost source, attributed to Eusebius rather than put in quotation marks. This one goes back to a very credulous, imbalanced Dagobert Runes, Jew and the Cross, 1965, who in the same breath makes the mistake of converting Eusebius's 90,000 Jewish captives during the Jewish war sold to Romans for their labor, to 90,000 Christian captives during the Persian war sold to Jews for sport killing. With that much misreading it's probable that the summary about Purim was a false memory of the actual quote, separately given here, from Socrates of Constantinople, 5th century. There simply was and is no evidence of widespread simultaneous annual crucifixions in the 4th century by anybody.
Of course nobody else reported any evidence of Socrates's rumor, except if you trace the rumor a warping of generic pagan blood libels against the Jews (Damocritus in the 10th-century Suda, and Apion in Josephus, who credits Posidonius and Apollonius Molo as influencers). But the pagans would have adapted it from the original blood libel against the Christians, who would have received it because obeying Jesus's words exposed them to the charge.
In other words it appears nobody thought of inventing the blood libel until Jesus took it upon himself to talk like a cannibal, didactically, for the purpose of weeding out the skeptics. But by doing this he also set up the deeper layer: he took upon himself all the blame for cannibalism that everyone else laid against any other person, innocent or guilty; he made himself the chief of cannibals so that he could save whoever wanted to be saved. That's an incredible confirm of his mission.