Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

You should do some research! Josephus for instance does mention Jesus as per the OP

Take your own advice

[Minimalist]

Obviously he can't.  He is desperate to believe in bullshit.

[Foxaèr]

You should do some research!  Josephus for instance does mention Jesus as per the OP

The Jesus Forgery
Let's just admit it's fake already

[Minimalist]

He'll just circle back to his phony atheist pal - you know, the jesus freak shithead.

[Amarok]

You should do some research!  Josephus for instance does mention Jesus as per the OP

The Jesus Forgery
Let's just admit it's fake already

He will just link little Timmy's blog posts thou Carrier has already proven he's a fraud

[Jehanne]

Just a single reference would do; after all, if "his fame spread throughout the land", why did no dispassionate, neutral observers take notice?

I think the daily newspapers where on strike during that time!  Either that or they where controlled by the left and fake news.

You don't have to take my question seriously, that's fine.

I think that the reason is clear; Jesus of Nazareth was not significant, which is why no one of significance took notice of him.  He was just another religious loon of his day, which were a dime a dozen.

[RoadRunner79]

You should do some research!  Josephus for instance does mention Jesus as per the OP

The Jesus Forgery
Let's just admit it's fake already

Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[5][6][7][8][10] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[9] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". Feldman renders "τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ" not as "who was called Christ" but as "the aforementioned Christ" and sees this as confirmation that he had mentioned Jesus the Christ earlier, namely in the Testimonium.[1][2][58]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

In one of your articles, it was argued, that Eusebius inserted the passage to provide a historic reference for Jesus. However the question should be asked, was there a need to do so. The mythicists movement didn’t really exist or was silent from history until the 18th century. This argument just doesn’t seem to be needed, and isn’t seen in other works, that a historical reference was being forcefully inserted. And we also have an Arabic version, without the questionable additions. Which many scholars think is the authentic core. But in the end, while the passage does conform (secondhand) a few things, it’s not much use as an apologetic other than to the poor argument from silence being presented by bad historians.

[Foxaèr]

You don't have to take my question seriously, that's fine.

I think that the reason is clear; Jesus of Nazareth was not significant, which is why no one of significance took notice of him.  He was just another religious loon of his day, which were a dime a dozen.

Be prepared for "they didn't have dimes back then, you so silly."

[RoadRunner79]

I think the daily newspapers where on strike during that time!  Either that or they where controlled by the left and fake news.

You don't have to take my question seriously, that's fine.

I think that the reason is clear; Jesus of Nazareth was not significant, which is why no one of significance took notice of him.  He was just another religious loon of his day, which were a dime a dozen.

I think it’s reasonable that in his three year ministry, that writers a ways off, didn’t take notice, even if he did what has been witnessed to. In any case, there isn’t really a valid argument from silence to be had. And there are other significant figures, who the only records we have are from after their death. As Tim noted in his article. When you look at some who actually do create lists of writers at the time, many of the mentions are somewhat laughable. And many writings we only know of through reference, because they haven’t survived the ravages of time. However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

[Jehanne]

You don't have to take my question seriously, that's fine.

I think that the reason is clear; Jesus of Nazareth was not significant, which is why no one of significance took notice of him.  He was just another religious loon of his day, which were a dime a dozen.

I think it’s reasonable that in his three year ministry, that writers a ways off, didn’t take notice, even if he did what has been witnessed to. In any case, there isn’t really a valid argument from silence to be had. And there are other significant figures, who the only records we have are from after their death. As Tim noted in his article. When you look at some who actually do create lists of writers at the time, many of the mentions are somewhat laughable. And many writings we only know of through reference, because they haven’t survived the ravages of time. However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

And, so, you accept the Gospel of Peter?