Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[RoadRunner79]

A silence may raise questions, or cause one to take notice, and look for a more substantial case. However, unless you can make a valid case for the argument from silence, you can’t just make things up, and insert them into the silence. It can be done, but the argument from silence (legitimate) isn’t an easy case to make.

There is no contemporary evidence that any of your horseshit is true.  Since it is YOUR HORSESHIT you bear the burden of proof.  Feel free to call us if you find something, in the meanwhile go blow your apologetics out your ass.

Once again we see RR expounding the Great Xtian Paradox:  "Jesus was so fucking dangerous and important that the authorities had no choice but to break every rule in their own fucking book to deal with him while, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, he was so fucking insignificant that no one in the first century wrote a fucking word about him.

Make up your fucking minds, assholes.

I do think that this is false, there is contemporary evidence from the writers of the new testament. There is also hostile witness (or at least non-friendly) shortly after (which would also be considered contemporary). Even if you don't want to admit it. You may also note, that I wasn't making any claims, other than refuting a bad argument from silence until now. I was commenting to your claims.

You are making a claim here, so you have the need to support it (not trying to shift that onto me). There is a valid way to make an argument from silence. Unfortunately for the mythicists, "surely someone somewhere would have wrote something" falls into the fallacious category. You need a specific writer, a specific work, and a reason why it should be expected, and would not be left out. When I have looked at the lists that are sometimes provided, it often doesn't even make sense, that Jesus should have been mentioned, let alone, that some list contain people who had died before Jesus's ministry ever began.