The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[Pat Mustard]

Not one single copy of Antiquities had a single mention of Yeshua of "Nazareth" in them, up until Eusebius got his grubby little plagiarising hands on a copy.

Apparently the smoking gun is that unaltered copies of Antiquities had gone east into Persia or Arabia, copies that predate the Eusebius "second edition."  Wish I could remember where I had read that, or better still, find one of the earlier editions.

Unfortunately the earliest editions don't exist any more, almost like a powerful religious body hunted them down and burned them all to hi... Oh wait.

But enough religious scholars who weren't interested in holding up Antiquities as "proof of Jesus" and who had original copies have come out and said that the relevant passages never existed. These include pretty much every near contemporary jewish scholar, and christians such as Photius I Patriarch of Constantinople (who flat out denied the veracity of Eusebius' translations). The other strong evidence for forgery is that the passages were a) not written in the florid and wordy style of Josephus but in a laconic style much closer to that of Eusebius, and b) none of the passages mentioning Jesus fit into the rest of the text surrounding them. In fact, in at least two cases excising the Jesus text causes the writing to actually make sense.