Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[GUBU]

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line.  It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

His atheism, whatever that is, is of no import. What's in question are his motives.

Unlike the other, hotly contested reference to Jesus in Josephus – the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” at Ant. XVIII.63-4 – this reference is almost universally regarded as genuine and as referring to the Jesus and James of the Christian traditions.

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/j...-the-lord/

[citation needed]

---

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Wol, that quote of mine looks daft.

Daft is is as daft does.

---

Ok, so, to help bring things back on track, are there any athiest scholars that espouse the view that the "Jesus brother of James" passage is genuine?

To answer your question, there are no scholars who espouse a position outside of christian apologetics. No genuine historical scholars, no dispassionate neutrals, nobody but those invested in "proving" that their religion has a strong historical presence before the 2nd century CE.