Imagine this...

[Ranjr]

That's a good discussion.  I consider the reference to James, Brother to the Lord, to also be an insertion.  Josephus mentions James the Just and another crazy James in The Jewish War.  Since Paul mentions a James, Brother of the Lord in Galatians, the pious forgers saw a way to tie the two James' together and create the idea that Jesus had a blood brother.  I don't see that Paul means real brother, but brother in Christ.

In Antiquities, the passage that mentions Jesus and James ends up being about a different Jesus.  See below:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

It seems obvious that "who was called Christ" is an insertion.  And an awkward one at that.

[Fake Messiah]

[The Grand Nudger]

As long as people keep looking for objections in The Real Jesus, we're fucking the pooch, categorically.

There never was a jesus, and it wouldn't matter if there were. Christianity is entirely bankrupt.

[Drich]

[The Grand Nudger]

Which of the historical jesi do you believe in?

None of them worked any miracles. Only one of them can be The Guy. If jesus was a composite character, he's not historical, you see. Every single historical jesus candidate would be, if any of them existed, the single best argument against the religion of christianity that could be offered. Some random jew who bitched about the world as it was and died, achieving nothing.

You sure you don't throw your chips in with some mythical christ, instead? Remember, big guys listening.

[Fake Messiah]

[Mister Agenda]

[Drich]

[Fake Messiah]

sweetheart your little video is call/considered a tertiary commentary and can be refuted with a nut-huh. I provided you with 5 primary sources.

Yeah, right. What are actual historians and experts compared to fanatical Christians.

Indeed, only fanatical Christians take those "sources" seriously.

Take that Mara Bar-Serapion's letter. Nobody knows who Mara Bar-Serapion was, when the letter was written -- he certainly could not have been a contemporary of Jesus; the letter contains blunders (lies) like: that Athens suffered famine and pestilence after Socrates’ death, that Pythagoras was burned by the people of Samos.

Also, the letter doesn't even mention Jesus by name but some “Wise King” who “enacted new laws” to which there is no indication that it is Jesus. And so on.

[Jehanne]