Decades/centuries later is not contemporary. Half of the sources you listed are further in time than me and you are from the grandfather of George Washington for scale. Why does your god hate you so much that it can't just give you a single secular eyewitness?

I am sorry your Saturnalia didn't go well this year btw.

What are you referring to as “Passage one”. “Trinitarian ideas” literally appear in the Bible. Don’t know what you’re on about.

Of course you don't. When you blindly copy off blogs you miss naunce. Go right now and read the Annuals of the Jews, the complete context, of both passages. And while you are at it read what the Gospel of John really says and Paul while you are at it.

The Trinity is not in the Bible. Trinity-light ideas are in there. The Josphius passage expresses a more refined view of the Trinity that did not exist in 75AD. It also isn't in his writing style, is out of context, expresses Messiah views that go against other things the man wrote, and finally praises Jesus way more than any Orthodox Jewish person would.

But it gets worse. The first time this passage is even commented on is about 250-300 years later. The first person who mentions it existing was known to be pretty credulous and would have spent good money to anyone who had a book with his Lord in it. Additionally we have records of other people referencing that book and arguing about Jesus who don't mention that passage.

The second passage refers to James and just happens to use the exact same words that Matthew did at one point. Hinting that someone who knew the Gospel added this sentence fragment in. Now we have some ideas that James lived to be an old man but if you follow the timeline he would have been in his 80s if that James and him were the same person. Kinda hard to believe they would have even bothered killing a guy that old. In any case even if they had we still have to wonder why the Jews of Jerusalem suddenly like James and rioted over his death when we are told by other sources that he wasnt liked.

If we look at the James passage and take out the three words that clearly are borrowed from Matthew we get a much more straightforward story. A guy named James was some Rabbi and he got killed by another Rabbi during a religious multi-faction civil war and he was well liked by some so a riot happened. If we put those three words in we have the main character syndrome problem where everything revolves around James and at the same time no Roman leader moved against this guy despite decades of following the would be king of the jews.

Occum's razor. The passages are fraudulent.

Considering as well paul wrote about how he didn’t have sex and hated having money,

You are being credulous and I was more referencing the James community plus the 12. There are tiny references to some weird sex stuff going on and for people who claimed to hate money they seemed really good at getting it.

VAST MAJORITY of historical figures if applied to them goes to show the double standards required to achieve atheism.

Misdirection. Stay on topic.