That's pretty pathetic, Revel. There are volumes written on the probability of interpolation in Josephus--and thousands of pages online, so i'll let your search that for yourself. But it is really pathetic for two other reasons, the first from the Wikipedia source you reference, which you disingenuously failed to quote:
Wikipedia wrote:The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. The other passage concerns James the brother of Jesus; its authenticity is also disputed.
The second reason it is pathetic ought to be obvious.
The Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE--this is more than 60 years after the putative Jesus would have died, based upon the calendrical caculation in the papacy of Gregory, which established the dates of his life as 4 BCE--28 or 29 CE--as Flavius Josephus lived from 37 to 100 CE, he therefore does not constitute a contemporary. There are two biographies of Charlemagne from his own era--one by Anselm, who was raised and educated in his court at Aachen, being born when Charlemagne was in his forties--but he can reasonably be considered a contemporary biographer. The other was a German monk known as Nottker the Stammerer--who was born after Charlemagne had died, and whose account is not recorded until his own death, nearly a century after Charlemagne--meaning he is not contemporary, at best he is to be considered "near-contemporary." You usually do better than that.
A good deal of the post to which you refer concerns itself with the objections to any portion of what is called the new testament other than the four gospel scriptural canon, because of the influence and impositions of Saul of Tarsus and others--the point i was making to Miss Eppie, is that given their corruption of the original Jewish cult, one can only rely on the four gospel canon for an approximate notion of what the putative Jesus might have said.
Quoting epistles to the Corinthians therefore does not count--it does not constitute a portion of the four gospel canon. That was very sloppy work on your part--i'm surprised.