Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you misunderstand the mythicist argument, entirely.  It doesn;t rely on an argument from silence..that;s just a supporting addendum.  It relies, primarily, on the contents of the gospels themselves in the character of jesus, the surrounding cultural, political, and religious context of the earliest point at which a kernel of the stories could have been concocted, the fact that magic men aren;t real no matter who;s writing about them..and then.,..finally..the fact that there is nothing to contradict this very obvious reading of a religious myth...except, for example..that you hold silly beliefs.  

That last part is where the argument from silence is so amusing...not because it would mean anything by itself, but juxtaposed against how well evidenced you imagine a mythical character to be.  Even the very religious understand the mythicist argument..they seemlessly apply it to a whole range of other heroes..but when it comes to their hero we;ll hear "but what about all the evidence!?!"...there;s only one cogent response...what evidence...?

I don't think that once you are making a claim, you can then fall back on skepticism.  At least not without retracting the claim.  Even as supporting evidence, it isn't that strong, when you start asking (looking at) who and where you think should have wrote otherwise.

Falling back on skepticism?  Here again, that;s was at the very end of the line and for people who don;t believe in fairies..it;s hardly worth mentioning.  The only reason I have to say it..is because I;m speaking to someone who does. The primary support for the mythicist argument..again...is your precious gospel...lol.

The question regarding the NT isn;t whether or not it;s true..we know that it isn;t. The question is whether or not the fiction contained within is primarily legendary, or uniquely mythological. The contents of the NT, the composition of the NT, and the circumstances if its construction strongly point to the latter.