The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error.
This is a vague statement at best.
This doesn't say much, how is that a scholarly error? The Stadion is only an attic Greek measurement.
But the passage about James is not controversial amongst most scholars and affirms the existence of an early church in Jerusalem , James as its leader and mentions Jesus Christ.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9
My point was that there is not much reliance on Flavius and that Flavius is in error, but you made a vague statement that, "The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error." Then you go on and mention a reference to Festus and you mention that an assembly of Rabbis was brought before the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), I don't see a direct mention of Jesus here, but the brother of Jesus. BTW in the passage you mention the brother is called Christ (James). This is a clear example of the WHY of Flavius being unreliable. It leaves a lot to be questioned, also you would expect that a Scholar and Priest like Flavius who was thought to be around 30 AD and beyond would have more insight into the Jesus myths. However, being that Flavius is a Jewish Priest his connection with the Jesus hero is more Jewish based and less Christian based (which is hardly anything at all being that the Jews don't see a Messiah with the Jesus Character). What you quote deviates for example from the later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a fuller. Also, the variations on the statements of John the Baptist and the brother of Jesus (James) fail as Flavius is not making interpolations; this is mainly and heavily influenced by the mere fact that Flavius is not including Christian traditions, but Jewish traditions.
But either way, generally the agreement is that a Jesus did exist; the miracles and other epics surrounding the Jesus myths are simply empowerment based on the church to popularize Christianity, while attempting to make distinctions between Judaism and Christianity.
Jesus fulfils OT prophecies , the NT is saturated with OT concepts.
The point you bring up is moot as the OT itself has concepts from the OT (i.e. the same epic in Sodom in Gomorrah we see traces in the book of Judges). The Babylonians that live in Southern Babylon borrow concepts from Babylon when it was in the North. The Sumerian's in Sumer (Iraq) borrow concepts from the Proto Sumerian's in Gobekli Tepe (Turkey). The Canaanites split off from each other thus developing the first Israelite's, and borrow their Gods such as Yahweh and El. We constantly see concepts being borrowed, what exactly is your point?
We see such Cuneiform as "Enki confuser of languages" a 3000 BCE Cuneiform wherein the God Enki confuses the languages, then we see a Biblical epic (about 1200 BCE) on the Tower of Babel and the Judeo-Christian God confuses the languages. A conceptualization seen in early Sumer and later in Judaic and Christian texts.
Also, certain OT material comes from the Israelite's when in Babylonian captivity (hence, the Babylonian Talmud). The biggest clue here should be the Israelite's in Babel as the Babylonians were henotheists for the most part (they also happen to the first astronomer's). Even the book of Job is based on Babylonian mythology
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
You are either going to have the P, E, J, D sources for these. But, most Christians ignore this and just make the assumption that the OT was properly doused with Christian themes and concepts, when in reality it is Judaism that takes the "cake" so to speak on the OT, and really the OT is based on Sumer, Babylonian, Canaanite, Hittite, etc, epics.
You disagree with all the main Christian doctrines for comparative religious reasons but persistently fail to see the paucity of information supporting the alternatives you cite.These connections are not formative of the scriptures they are attempts of forgers to find the original. The bible is the pure form that these other religions aspire to in corrupted and perverted forms. Yes there are echoes because no lie can be told without an element of truth to it. But the truth is the pure version not the soiled copies
Such as? What alternatives? It isn't me who disagrees, I agree that the Bible has many epics, stories, etc. This isn't a disagreement at all. I even agree that the Tanakh has the same epics and stories as the Bible in the OT.
This isn't even the issue; the issue is that the Bible adopted these concepts and instead of Christians recognizing this historicity of the Bible, what the Christian does is something entirely misleading. Christians make the claim that the Bible is in its own right a book that is in origin "Christian" which is not even close to the truth.
On the flip side, the Babylonian's epics, stories, legends are based on Akkadian and even Sumerian epics, legends, but most scholars have cleared this up. So those that study Cuneiform and for example Akkadian Cuneiform can know that an epic in Akkadian is seen earlier in Sumer.
Yet, we don't see this with Christianity, what we see in Christianity is a denial that anything was adopted. Even for example in Luke 8:25 in sum, Jesus is seen as being able to control the storm. But, we see in Canaanite mythologies that Ba'al does the same thing as he is a storm God. Jesus is a male, Ba'al is a male. Jesus makes everything a new (according to Christian doctrine), yet in Canaan Ba'al being a storm God does the same thing, the storm brings life, etc. The parallelism is uncanny and yet we see denial after denial.