Even accepting that Jesus existed, how do we know He was God?

[humble_catholic]

Agreed, but scholars generally agree about what the ‘untampered’ part is, and what it’s asserting. They do not throw out the whole reference, but rather, interpret it carefully.

Correct Gorgias that scholars are split that the first passage in Josephus was probably an interpolation but the article below states that more scholars are moving over to the semi authentic camp and this is what they are starting to agree upon as far as what they believe is attributed to Josephus.

The Testimonium Flavianum

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars. (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

Although Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as “he was the Christ” and “he appeared to them alive again the third day.”

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby’s own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.” (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell’s Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.” (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249).

Those scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” theory conclude that - at a minimum - something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.

the Majority of scholars no matter what their worldview accepted the first passage to be semi authentic and the last paragraph above states what most scholars believed that Josephus wrote. Only the Jesus Mythers who are not taken seriously by any new testament scholars dont accept it.

But most atheists seem to have amnesia about the second passage in Josephus in which it is almost unamimous that it was genuinely all Jospehus and here is what it says.
This is clearly all Josephus describing James brother, the so called Christ so Josephus knew of Jesus even early then when he wrote this and that makes it a very early secular writing of Jesus.

bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I was talking to a couple of non believers earlier and they asked why I thought Jesus was God, and what makes Him God? They asked if I could explain this to them objectively, without referencing the Bible. I referenced many ancient historians, but they claimed that even if Jesus existed historically, that alone does not prove anything else. They stated that even if he performed miracles, without testing them scientifically, they may not have been miracles at all. And even if they were miracles, that alone neither proves he was God.

How would you answer or explain?

You’ll never be able to. Even if you lived in two thousand years ago and Jesus was standing right in front of you raising Lazarus from the dead you’d still never be able to prove He is God.

Now, there are many extra-biblical sources that prove people did in fact believe Jesus is God.

 

[Thorns]

Who else is like Jesus? What other man in history (not a mythological figure but a historical man) not only claimed to be God but was able to prove it to all who were around him? Even today, who can walk on water? Who can raise the dead? Who can instantly cure any and all diseases and deformities with the touch of a hand?

I posed a similar question and their response was something like this…

Who can walk on water? Criss Angel did it.

Who can raise the “dead?” Paramedics defibulating a patient can.

Who can cure diseases and deformities? Doctors can.

Of course Jesus not having any of that technology available to Him makes it all the more miraculous IMO, but then they dont believe the Bible account is accurate because its “biased.”