'Jesus's Wife' papyrus fragment not a forgery, scientists say

[defacto7]

89. That's a lot of information happyslug.

Unfortunately you've gone way outside of what's necessary to make a point with comments that are mostly irrelevant and skirt the simplest of points to make extravagant ones. Another thing is there is way too much wikipedia for me to take it seriously. Wikipedia is not a bad thing but you are hanging your hat on a source that should always be held suspect. That said, you are very good at seeking and presenting an impressive amount of background, but if that background is simply drowning the issue, of what use of it?

There's no argument that Josephus existed and that he wrote historic documents. The relevant question to be answered is, when did the Christ comments first appear in history... 70 CE? no. 100 CE? no 200 CE no. They suddenly appear in the 4th century CE after being "discovered" by a roman historian named Eusebius Pamphili who states in his Book Evangelical Preparation: "It may be lawful and fitting to use fictions as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived. (speaking of Christians)" and proceeded with his translation of Josephus' works.

Honestly I don't wish to fill in all the cracks here because I have no interest in it at this point in my life. But one of the best explanations of the historicity of Christ is found at the following link and it states my point of view as well as I ever could or ever have. It covers the point well with a simplicity and balance that is far more useful than an overproduction of historic information with too many unnecessary points.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/choking-on-the-camel-part-2/

You may want to look at the whole essay starting at part 1, but this covers our issue here. There are some very good essays at this site, realistically documented and well put.

The best!