Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

Gosh. So, despite being an atheist, I'm a "Jesus freak shithead"? How exactly does that work?

And I "wasn't very impressive in person"? I seem to recall that our last exchange ended with me tearing the crappy self, published nonsense article you tried to use a new one and then you ... fell silent. Anyone who wants to can read the exchange HERE.

But since I've found you talk a good game when you think you're talking behind someone's back, let's see if you can do any better this time. Here is my article on why the "Lack of Contemporary Mentions" Mythicist argument doesn't work:

Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

Let's see if you can actually articulate a coherent counter argument to what I say there, as opposed to making sneering noises. Good luck.

You mean this bollock?

The ancient world had far lower levels of literacy, far less bureaucracy, far fewer documents about anything and, therefore, many millions of ancient people were born, lived and died without a single scrap of papyrus or parchment noting anything about them.

How many of those many millions of people were known throughout the land and performed miracles on a day to day basis?

The naïve form of this argument, as found in most the examples from the Guardian article quoted above, usually simply notes the absence of any contemporary references to Jesus and leaps straight to the conclusion that, therefore he did not exist.

Name one historian that states Jesus did not exist based exclusively on the lack of contemporary writings.

You waste much keyboard ink deconstructing Michael Paulkovich writings as though he were a major player in the mythist fraternity. Why bother, most historians consider him to be a fucking idiot.

Yup that's the limp wristed straw men Timmy relies on

---

So let's summarize 

Our case based on facts and reason and credible sources 

Roads and Timmy's case based on straw men and lame apologist webshites and weak apologist flailing