Toto

I realize there is this confusion, but I think that pinkvoy has invited it.

I would view the premise of the OP as implausible, others as highly implausible. It's a pipe dream to imagine that you are going to discover new evidence that fits your theory so nicely. When new evidence is discovered, it typically doesn't fit expectations - when it does, it's probably a forgery made to order.

We already have several answer to the hypothetical in the OP - that it would not be dispositive, but might have some influence. But pinkvoy does not want to stop there. He wants to say that the premise of the OP is close to a fact, and that anyone who denies it is being irrational and only worthy of his scorn. Unfortunately, he has drawn a few replies in kind. And Legion has taken the opportunity to go off on an extended narrative of his family history and events in World War I. (At least he hasn't quoted a textbook on differential calculus.)

This is not a useful discussion. I am temped to just close this mess of a thread and ask people to start over.

Mandelbrot

Go ahead and but me on ignore. BTW, inanity means total lack of meaning or ideas. That is not a personal insult and if you are unable to understand that, putting me on ignore will be doing me a favor but you can always report me to the mods if you want. They might even warn you against abusing the report feature.

Tommy

Jesus and Jospehus were not contemporaries. There lives did not overlap even slightly. One is reported to have lived in the first third of the first century, the other later in that century. Rommel and Boris Becker both lived in twentieth century Germany, are they contemporaries? Are FDR and Bill Clinton contemporaries? Arbitrarily specifying a time period cannot contemporize two people whose lives did not overlap.

It is absurd to presume that Jospehus could have obtained an accurate picture of Jesus aged two (and if Jesus really were the talk of the town in AD 40 why did no one else record this?). Josephus wouldn't have been in a position to maturely appraise a primary source or witness statement until at least his adolescence by which time memories would likely have blurred and vested interests emerged. That Jospephus did not report these hypothetical primary sources for decades further detracts from the reliability of the TF.

The version of the TF you present in the OP would be slightly more convincing than that found in Josephus. However, it would still remain skimpy and dubious evidence for a figure claimed to have performed incredible acts for which there is no independent, contemporary corroboration.

aa5874

The very question in the OP shows that pinkvoy is NOT really familiar with the writings of the supposed Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 contains the phrase "Jesus, who was called Christ" and it is questioned for historical credibility.

So in effect if we found a TF with ONLY the words "Jesus who was called Christ" the historical accuracy would still be questionable.

Toto

It is the consensus of the moderators that this thread should be closed.

If you think that there is an open issue that can be discussed while following the rules of this forum, feel free to start another thread.