Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

No I don’t. 

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

Lame propaganda site

---

[/url]

[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]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 This argument just doesn’t seem to be needed, and isn’t seen in other works, that a historical reference was being forcefully inserted.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.

And the conspiracy tripe begins

---

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?

He will just keep repeating the Anti Mythcist gospel