₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
LMAO
You are not ok
Who told you archeology has not discovered Jesus Christ engraved conins before.?

Please can you provide a source for this?

You are dull sha.
Chaii....

Even at that, so only coins is the reason for your argument......
KingEbukasblog, come and see .......

LOL

From my reply, it should have been apparent that i just wanted to use those coins and sculptures to show you how silly your argument was.
I don't think you know much about history, because of the rubbish you said so i won't waste my time arguing with you on this.

4kings:
Please can you provide a source for this?

Yes, but u must first withdraw your foolish "coins" argument

4kings:
From my reply, it should have been apparent that i just wanted to use those coins and sculptures to show you how silly your argument was.

Actually its your kobo abi " coins " argument that brought stupidity into this argument
LMAO

4kings:
I don't think you know much about history, because of the rubbish you said so i won't waste my time arguing with you on this.

Sorry, I have already given u a claim on Jesus Christ and Caesar.
You have not provided any meaningful rebuttal.
So your cop. - out is understandable

felixomor:
Yes, but u must first withdraw your foolish "coins" argument


Actually its your kobo abi " coins " argument that brought stupidity into this argument
LMAO




Sorry, I have already given u a claim on Jesus Christ and Caesar.
You have not provided any meaningful rebuttal.
So your cop. - out is understandable

This guy get wahala, i no get your time...

4kings:
This guy get wahala, i no get your time...

LMAO
Cop Out.

Richirich713:
I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that. Also why would Justin Martyr quote Josephus to prove Jesus was the messiah to a jew when the Jews considered Josephus a traitor? There isn't really any use for quoting Josephus for apologetic concerns regarding Jesus.

Nah, this is very wrong.
That verse clearly referred to jesus as the christ when he was talking about James and his eventual death

Richirich713:
I guess we then just disagree, I don't see any reason why Josephus was so much a powerful response by Christian apologists, the Jews after all didn't consider him to be a prophet, even considered him to be a traitor.

Also the Jews would have not considered Josephus a non-christian if he said Jesus was the Christ, they would consider him to be a heretical Jew, which fits well with him being a traitor. So a church father quoting him as an authority to prove to a jew Jesus was the messiah doesn't seem to be very probable.

The fact that Jews never considered Josephus a prophet would be largely irrelevant. The audience of the early church fathers were Greek speaking Christianized Jews living in diaspora as well as Greek speaking citizens of Rome i.e the Gentiles if you will.

Josephus was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Vespasian, he was influential in the courts of Vespasian, his son Titus as well as Domitian, Josephus' writings were well regarded by society’s elite, precisely the people the early church fathers directed their polemics and apologetics to. Had the testimonium with what we now believe to be an interpolation existed at the time of Origen and Justin Martyr there is no doubt in my mind that they would have quoted it verbatim in their various critiques.

We can of course agree to disagree.

felixomor:
LMAO
You are not ok
Who told you archeology has not discovered Jesus Christ engraved coins before.?

You are dull sha.
Chaii....

Even at that, so only coins is the reason for your argument......
KingEbukasblog, come and see .......

LOL

Felix, Jesus engraved coins? Was he General? A Nobleman? A member of the royal family?
I know lying for Jesus is a thing, but you're taking it way too far.
All well meaning Christians should rein this guy in, I beg you guys.

Sarassin:
The fact that Jews never considered Josephus a prophet would be largely irrelevant. The audience of the early church fathers were Greek speaking Christianized Jews living in diaspora as well as Greek speaking citizens of Rome i.e the Gentiles if you will.

Josephus was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Vespasian, he was influential in the courts of Vespasian, his son Titus as well as Domitian, Josephus' writings were well regarded by society’s elite, precisely the people the early church fathers directed their polemics and apologetics to. Had the testimonium with what we now believe to be an interpolation existed at the time of Origen and Justin Martyr there is no doubt in my mind that they would have quoted it verbatim in their various critiques.

We can of course agree to disagree.

Agreed.

4kings:
Nah, this is very wrong.
That verse clearly referred to jesus as the christ when he was talking about James and his eventual death

Are you talking about this?

"...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

felixomor:
LMAO
You are not ok
Who told you archeology has not discovered Jesus Christ engraved coins before.?

You are dull sha.
Chaii....

Even at that, so only coins is the reason for your argument......
KingEbukasblog, come and see .......

LOL

You mean 4kings ... 4kings ? The confused one ? You shouldn't be surprised bro

Richirich713:
Are you talking about this?

"...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

yep...

KingEbukasBlog:
You mean 4kings ... 4kings ? The confused one ? You shouldn't be surprised bro

4kings:
yep...

Saying "who was called Christ" is different from saying "he was the Christ".

The testimony of Josephus is very important and was held in very high regard by the early church as that was a major reference in choosing Canonical books and rejecting of non-canonical books.

See the below post I made in response to a NL catholic (cyrilamx) who argued that the early church didnt refer to or regard the scriptures highly as God's Word to live by. This they normally say to excuse their introduction of several false and unscriptural teachings into the church.

_________________________________
https://www.nairaland.com/3330371/peter-obi-visits-vatican-canonization/3#49189516

Donnie:

You lie! Or rather, you beleived a lie. The scriptures have always been sacred to God's people as they were regarded as God's Word. Early in history, God began the construction of a book which became the medium of His revelation of Himself to man. It began with the Ten commandments which were written on stone. [Deut 17:18] Moses' laws written in a book were put in the Ark [Deut 31:24-26]. As Early as the days of Samuel, the first record of Israel's history was preserved in the School of the prophets where there was both academic and religious training. [2kings 22:8; Jeremiah 36:32; Zechariag 1:12].

However, the progression of the Canon of the Old Testament books was gradual. The Pentateuch was recognized as canonical when Ezra read the Torah to the people publicly. [Ezra 7:6, Nehemiah 8:5]. Ezra and Nehemiah were social and religious reformers who desired clear and definite guidiance for the people and so set up the Pentateuch as the standard for faith and moral instruction.

The Jewish tradition believes that Ezra, the renowned scribe and reformer was the first person to compile the Old testament.As these books were written beginning with Moses, they were at the time recognised as inspired by God and placed in the tabernacle or the temple along with the collection of sacred writtings. During the Babylonian captivity, they were scattered, and many copies destroyed.

It is believed that Ezra after returning from captivity, re-assembled these scattred copies and restored them to their original place in the temple. From the temple other copies were made for the synagogues. So Ezra the prophet led the first recognition council.

The complete works of Josephus asserts that the Old Testament cannon was fixed during the reign of Artexerxes (the time of Ezra).

His words... "We have but 22 books containing the history of all time, books beleived to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerses the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of events that occured in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. from the days of Artaxerxes to our times every event had indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our scriptures; for though so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life on their behalf."

This testimony is held in very high regard. Josephus who was born in AD 37 in Jerusalem, was from the Hasmonean (priestly) aristocracy. He received an extensive education in Jewish and Greek cultures. He was governor of Galilee and military commander in the wars with Rome.

These words of Josephus unquestionably concurs with:
1. The beleif of the Jewish nation of Jesus' day as to what books comprised the Hebrew scriptures.
2. The belief that the collection of books had been completed and predetermined for 400 years preceeding his time.

PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE CHOICE OF CANONICAL BOOKS:

1. They were books that had been in existence for a considerable time and were well known.
2. They were books associated with some great names e.g. Books of Moses, Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon.
3. They were books closely associated with national history or with national festivals.
4. It was believed that the voice of God was heard in all the books admitted into the canon, as He had spoken to the Patriachs, leaders and prophets of the Hebrew race.
5. They were recognized or quoted by Christ or the apostles.

UNCANONICAL BOOKS Historically many wrote novels and fantastic stories about Jesus Christ; His life and His parents, and other Bible chracters. This became a problem for the early church to decide which books were inspired until the final settlement at the council of carthage in 397A.D. There were also a group of fable books which were rejected from the present canon of scriptures.

REASONS FOR REJECTING UNCANONICAL BOOKS

1. They were not written by prophets and there were no prophetic elements is them.
2. The jews did not recognize them as inspired and part of scriptures.
3. They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the Apostles.
4. Most were written during the space of the silent 400 year period between Malachai and the birth of Christ. It was so called, because of the gap in the biblical record and the silencing of the prophetic voice.
5. The authors do not claim divine authority.
6. The books contain statements at variance with bible history.
7. They are self contradictory and in some cases directly oppose the doctrines of scriptures.
8. Josephus who lived during the time of the apostles did nit recognise any of the books. He stated that the old testament in our present version was the only inspired writing.
9. The apocryphal were not a part of the ancient versions of scripture.
10. They reveal free use of the imagination which led to preposterous stories.
11. The genuineness of its apostolic origin could not be proven.

THE APOCRYPHA Apocrypha literally means,"that which is hidden". This the name usually given to the 14 books contained in some bibles between the old and new testaments.
They originated between the first to third centuries BC, mostly of uncertain authorship. They were added to the Greek Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament written in that period. They were not co-opted into the Hebrew old Testament, because they were written after Old Testament prophecies, oracles and direct revelation had ceased.

Josephus rejected them as a whole. The jews never recognized them as part of the Hebrew scriptures. Neither did Jesus or any of the other New Testament writers ever quote from them. They were not accepted as cononical books.

In the council of Trent in 1546 A.D. THE ROMAN CATHOLICS accepted these books and added them to their modern version of scripture known as the Douay Version. These books are: 1Esdras, 2Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1Maccabees, 2Maccabees.

These books were declared uncanonical because they possessed little or no evidence of divine inspiration and authority; neither did they have bearing with redemption by faith. Hence they are not a part of the scripture as a rule of faith for every christian.
It must be understood that the bible is not an authorised collection of books but it is a collection of authorised books.

IN THE DAYS OF JESUS They had The Scriptures which they read from and which later became known as The Old Testament. The people commonly regarded it as having come from God and as the Word of God. Jesus recognized it thus [Luke16:29] and it was read publicly and taught regularly in the synagogues [Luke 4:21].

THE EARLY CHURCH: As the writings of the apostles appeared, they were added to the Jewish scriptures as were held in the same sacred regard. Each church wanted not only what had been addressed to it, but copies of writtings addressed to other churches. The collections of writings of the apostles for the church began while they were still alive and were personally supervised by them. They were placed with the old testament as the Word of God.

PAUL declared that his teachings were divinely inspired [1Cor 2:7-13; 24:37; 1Thes 2:13]. From his epistles, it was obvious that his intention was for them to be read in the churches. [Col 4:16; 1Thes 5:27].

PETER (your pope) wanted them to have these things always in their remembrance [2Pet1:15]. PETER referred to Paul's epistles in his epistle as scripture [2Pet 3:15-16].

Now let me come to you. I would not have taken time to give you all this information if you hadn't begun to refer to protestants as without a definite history or connection to the apostles and prophets while pretending and protraying yourself and your Roman catholic church as custodians of the scripture.

Time will not let me delve into the many attrocious activities and the attempt by the roman catholic church to conceal the scriptures during the dark ages (a period or worldliness where corruption, greed and politics ruled the church).

The bible as we have it today came to us by the blood of many who were killed as heretics by the Roman catholic authorities because they beleived that eveyone should have apportunity to hear and read the truth of God's Word. As long as people are uninformed and in the dark with little or no knowledge of God's word, you can tell them anything and they will beleive. They even sold indulgences to those who could afford for the "forgiveness of sins" and to reduce the days they will spend in purgatory.

Since their failed attempt at concealing truth, and in order to continue in their corruption unchallenged, they carried out Plan B: To water down the truth such that it looses its relevance as divinely inspired and a guide for faith, society and everyday living. They would rather that the Papacy maintained its wicked control, giving dictates as the so-called vicar of Christ. They introduced uncanonical books and mixed heathen cultures and traditions with the faith handed down by the apostles of the Lord.

You my friend unfortunately want to sell the same lies. But it will not work.

Richirich713:
Saying "who was called Christ" is different from saying "he was the Christ".

Na wa ooo.
This is similar to Mathew 10:2 "The first, Simon, who is called Peter".
We can also apply that logic here.

But anyway, that was not the only place Christ was mentioned, it seems you're unaware of this.
Here's another paragrapgh from the writing:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

I hope this is settled.

4kings:
Na wa ooo.
This is similar to Mathew 10:2 "The first, Simon, who is called Peter".
We can also apply that logic here.

nice spin there, but I don't see the logic, Josephus clearly didn't claim he believed Jesus was the Christ, all he said was that he was called that, which is true.

4kings:
But anyway, that was not the only place Christ was mentioned, it seems you're unaware of this.
Here's another paragrapgh from the writing:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

I hope this is settled.

I'm aware of this passage, that's why I said:

Richirich713:
I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that.

Scholars have a broad consensus regarding the original rendering. As I said earlier:

Richirich713:
The scholarly consensus is that the testimonium flavianum core message goes back to Josephus. For instance this is what skeptic Bart Ehrman says regarding this :

"The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate place in Josephus’s Antiquities.The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former—that one or more Christian scribes “touched up” the passage a bit. If one takes out the obviously Christian comments, the passage may have been rather innocuous, reading something like this:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out." (Did Jesus Exist : The Historical Case For Jesus of Nazareth)

As you can see, there's no mention of Jesus being the christ in the above formulation.

4kings:
Na wa ooo.
This is similar to Mathew 10:2 "The first, Simon, who is called Peter".
We can also apply that logic here.

nice spin there, but I don't see the logic, Josephus clearly didn't claim he believed Jesus was the Christ, all he said was that he was called that, which is true.

4kings:
But anyway, that was not the only place Christ was mentioned, it seems you're unaware of this.
Here's another paragrapgh from the writing:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

I hope this is settled.

I'm aware of this passage, that's why I said:

Richirich713:
I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that.

Scholars have a broad consensus regarding the original rendering. As I said earlier:

Richirich713:
The scholarly consensus is that the testimonium flavianum core message goes back to Josephus. For instance this is what skeptic Bart Ehrman says regarding this :

"The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate place in Josephus’s Antiquities.The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former—that one or more Christian scribes “touched up” the passage a bit. If one takes out the obviously Christian comments, the passage may have been rather innocuous, reading something like this:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out." (Did Jesus Exist : The Historical Case For Jesus of Nazareth)

As you can see, there's no mention of Jesus being the christ in the above formulation.

Richirich713:
nice spin there,

but I don't see the logic, Josephus clearly didn't claim he believed Jesus was the Christ, all he said was that he was called that, which is true.

hmmm

I'm aware of this passage, that's why I said:

OK

Scholars have a broad consensus regarding the original rendering. As I said earlier:

As you can see, there's no mention of Jesus being the christ in the above formulation.

Before you conclude, here's what the writer says next:

“And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...”
Why would a Jew make this statement, if he didn't think Jesus was the Messiah?

malvisguy212:
excellent bro. and also the bible say God exist and Jesus has made Him known to us. the fact that there are non biblical source the prove that Jesus exist, this also prove that God exist.

I am too sure you never ever even saw the back cover of any of Josephus's works else, you would have spoken with wisdom.

OLAADEGBU:
Who was Flavius Josephus? Can the writings of Flavius Josephus be trusted? What are the writings of Flavius Josephus? Flavius Josephus was a 1st century historian mainly of Jewish history, including Jesus' teaching. How important is his work?

See more about Flavius Joseph on the thread below:

https://www.nairaland.com/3719440/historian-josephus-mentions-jesus-how

.

4kings:
Before you conclude, here's what the writer says next:

“And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...”
Why would a Jew make this statement, if he didn't think Jesus was the Messiah?

That refers to the massacre Pilate committed against the Jews. Which was mention before the Testamentum Flavianum.

shadeyinka:
I am too sure you never ever even saw the back cover of any of Josephus's works else, you would have spoken with wisdom.

are you an atheist ? I don't really understand you.

malvisguy212:
are you an atheist ? I don't really understand you.

What has that got to do with anything?
Address the post, not the messenger.

CatfishBilly:
What has that got to do with anything?
Address the post, not the messenger.

did he ask a question ? what is there to address ?

malvisguy212:
are you an atheist ? I don't really understand you.

Josephus wrote his unbiased report of the history of the Jews. Christians will certainly not agree with everything he said but he has nothing to gain by fixing Jesus into his stories. Moreover, he labeled "Jesus as a Trouble Maker".

It shows one thing, and that is " a historical Jesus indeed existed and was crucified" and his disciples sing hymn to Him as God.

Unlike our Muslim friends who would rather reinvent history about Jesus crucifixion.

shadeyinka:
Josephus wrote his unbiased report of the history of the Jews. Christians will certainly not agree with everything he said but he has nothing to gain by fixing Jesus into his stories. Moreover, he labeled "Jesus as a Trouble Maker".

It shows one thing, and that is " a historical Jesus indeed existed and was crucified" and his disciples sing hymn to Him as God.

Unlike our Muslim friends who would rather reinvent history about Jesus crucifixion.

agreed. I am only making my argument known to atheist, " Jesus exist and He has made God known to us" I did not mentioned Josephus In my post, I wrote, historian prove Jesus exist . thank you.

malvisguy212:
agreed. I am only making my argument known to atheist, " Jesus exist and He has made God known to us" I did not mentioned Josephus In my post, I wrote, historian prove Jesus exist . thank you.

I'm sorry, I probably misunderstood you.

Shalom my Bro

Richirich713:
That refers to the massacre Pilate committed against the Jews. Which was mention before the Testamentum Flavianum.

Na wa for you sef.
That's why it's believed that the paragraph was an interpolation.

After the massacre then the paragraph about Jesus was introduced, before that statement in the next paragraph.
So why you dey jump.

4kings:
Na wa for you sef.
That's why it's believed that the paragraph was an interpolation.

After the massacre then the paragraph about Jesus was introduced, before that statement in the next paragraph.
So why you dey jump.

It was common for ancient writer's to insert passages that interrupted the flow of their narratives. As professor of history E. Mary Smallwood points out:

"One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which differed considerably from ours. One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote annalistically---literally, by years ... A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes appeared as digressions." G.A. Williamson translation, Josephus, "The Jewish Wars". Revised with introduction by E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books 1981, pp20-21

Richirich713:
It was common for ancient writer's to insert passages that interrupted the flow of their narratives. As professor of history E. Mary Smallwood points out: ........

It is one thing to insert a passage that interrupts the flow of a story, it is another thing entirely to insert a passage designed specifically to mislead. We should not lose sight of the fact that we do not have the original wording of the Testimonium without the interpolation. What we have is a “broad consensus” of what it may have read like without the interpolation, a broad consensus is not a statement of fact.

What we know for a fact is that Origen stated specifically that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the “Christ”, it is entirely feasible that Josephus went on to give his reasons which are now lost to antiquity and that Christian copyists configured the interpolations to counter his views, given his perceived influence.

The silence of Josephus on Jesus is staggering, is it possible that his recorded views were so unpalatable to the early church fathers that these views had to be completely obliterated and replaced with more orthodox views? I would say yes.

Sarassin:
It is one thing to insert a passage that interrupts the flow of a story, it is another thing entirely to insert a passage designed specifically to mislead.

This assumes that the passage was inserted to mislead, which I disagree with. It also doesn't change the fact that ancient writer's commonly digressed from their main points, so appealing to the flow of narrative as an argument is not valid -which was the point I was making earlier.

Sarassin:
We should not lose sight of the fact that we do not have the original wording of the Testimonium without the interpolation. What we have is a “broad consensus” of what it may have read like without the interpolation, a broad consensus is not a statement of fact.

A broad consensus cannot just be brush aside so easily just because we cannot be 100% certain. One should always seriously considered what the vast majority of experts in a certain field have to say.

Sarassin:
What we know for a fact is that Origen stated specifically that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the “Christ”, it is entirely feasible that Josephus went on to give his reasons which are now lost to antiquity and that Christian copyists configured the interpolations to counter his views, given his perceived influence.

In that case, your argument supports the fact that secular sources mentioned Jesus, which supports the fact of his existence (especially if we take it into account the other evidence of Jesus existence). Unless of course one just assumes Josephus probably originally said Jesus never existed - at that point I can't really take the argument seriously.

Sarassin:
The silence of Josephus on Jesus is staggering, is it possible that his recorded views were so unpalatable to the early church fathers that these views had to be completely obliterated and replaced with more orthodox views? I would say yes.

I disagree, if christians wanted to counter his views they could have painted Jesus much better than the passage does and we also have to remember that the writing style is consistent with Josephus and it contains phrases and words that Christians would have most likely not have used.