The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[GUBU]

Hi Gubu. Are you sure of that?

Here is Saint Jerome, in "On Illustrious Men": ""Josephus, the son of Matthias, priest of Jerusalem, taken prisoner by Vespasian and his son Titus, was banished. Coming to Rome he presented to the emperors, father and son, seven books On the captivity of the Jews, which were deposited in the public library and, on account of his genius, was found worthy of a statue at Rome. He wrote also twenty books of Antiquities, from the beginning of the world until the fourteenth year of Domitian Cæsar, and two of Antiquities against Appion, the grammarian of Alexandria who, under Caligula, sent as legate on the part of the Gentiles against Philo, wrote also a book containing a vituperation of the Jewish nation. Another book of his entitled, On all ruling wisdom, in which the martyr deaths of the Maccabeans are related is highly esteemed.

In the eighth book of his Antiquities he most openly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles, that John the Baptist was truly a prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the Apostle. He wrote also concerning the Lord after this fashion: “In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day."

As you can see, the Church Father Saint Jerome takes for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is called, is authentic, and testifies of Jesus Christ.

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.

[Astreja]

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.

[GUBU]

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.

[Astreja]

What I find interesting about the Testimonium Flavianum is that it doesn't fit with the "bookend" passages 18.62 and 18.65:

...there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder...

This is why I personally think the Jesus passage is a later insertion - Josephus interrupts an account of ongoing strife to do a "commercial" for some Christian god-man, without connecting it to the events on either side or delving further into this mysterious character elsewhere in his writings. As you mentioned, GUBU, the writing does make a lot more sense if you discard the Jesus silliness.