@Ionus,
Jeeze, you're incredibly delusional. There was no personal reflection, no invective in that post which you have now twice cited and linked.
As for Professor Feldman, his passage was from a article on a Josephus bibliography, so what he "believes" or doesn't "believe" with regard to a single passage of Josephus is not relevant. You'd have to search elsewhere to find out if he has an opinion. Once again, you seem not to have very good reading comprehension skills. It's not "my" overwhelming majority. In his bibliographic article on Josephus, Dr. Feldman notes that in 87 published works between 1937 and 1980, the overwhelming majority (his descriptor, not mine) discount either part or all of the disputed passage.
It is this lack of precision on your part which shows that you have little to no grasp of historiography. So, for example, if i point out that there is no reliable historical evidence for the existence of the putative Jesus, that is not a statement of my opinion on the subject, something which you don't seem to understand. There is no historical evidence for the existence of Homer, other than the existence of the two epic poems attributed to him, and no sources for those any earlier than 600 years after the events described in the poems. But that is hardly relevant, because the poems do exist, and that is known. In the case of your boy Jesus, there is no reliable historical evidence that he ever existed. That is all i have been saying. What is important, though, is the delusions associated with the claim that he existed, among which your personal delusions of the subject figure among the more drab and unimaginative.
I continue to point out that you have provided no evidence for your position because that, combined with your reliance on personal invective, are indicative of the poverty of your position. You mentioned an apology earlier--i don't care if you apologize, and i haven't even inferentially suggested that you should. In fact, the longer you keep this up, the more foolish your position appears.
I have not at any time argued that any group of historians, or any particular historian is inaccurate. My comments have been directed at the gospels, which no reasonable scholar considers to be history, and i have specifically mentioned Eusebius. It is likely, although it can never be known to a certainty, that if the Josephus passage is spurious, as it very likely is, then Pamphilus or Eusebius is responsible. Eusebius has long been called the father of church history--if he is responsible for the Josephus interpolation, then yes, i would argue that he is inaccurate--in fact, the best term would be simply to call him a liar.
I have not stated nor implied that "Josephus was amended to back date Christianity," so there is no reason for me to answer that foolishness.
I have not alleged that Jesus was "created" by any conspiracy, and have not, in fact claimed that he didn't exist. I have already clearly stated my position on the matter, but you were either in such haste to vilify me that you missed it, or your reading comprehension skills let you down when you got to that sentence.
I did not offer an opinion about when Christians first existed. I certainly did not state that they didn't exist until a certain point after the beginning of what was long referred to as the Christian era. I merely pointed out that the term Christian was not in use (it does not appear elsewhere than the alleged passage of Josephus and certainly not in non-Christian sources until the second century) at the time that Josephus wrote, that not even Christians called themselves Christians then. It is good inferential textual evidence that the passage in Josephus is interpolation, a fraud perpetrated at some point in the late third or early fourth century.
That's an impressive line of straw men you erected there--but it isn't much else. You continue to fail to provide any evidence for your claims. I don't expect now that you ever will.
