Can Antiquities of the Jews be proof of Jesus existence and divinity

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. Almost all extant copies come from Christian sources which would have a strong motivation to interpolate information concerning Jesus' divinity into it. Origen makes several references to Josephus' works and complains that Josephus did not consider Jesus to be Christ. So while Josephus can be used as evidence that Jesus existed and that some did consider him to be divine, he can't be used as independent confirmation of his divinity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As is often the case when you post about this, there's a great point buried underneath your signature posting style. Historical-critical scholars are almost universally of the belief that Pilate was much more bent on executing Jesus than the Bible suggests and that the Gospels stressing the culpability of the Jewish leadership instead was a writerly choice with political and strategic dimensions to it.

The strongest evidence for this hypothesis is that in Mark, Pontius Pilate is not shown to be as hesitant as he is in the other, later Gospels.

The strongest evidence is that crucifixion was a punishment for rebellion against the Roman state. If the Jews had been involved in Jesus' execution then he would have been stoned according to Jewish law.

As for the Testimonium Flavianum, it's a forgery. The argument for Jesus' existence is why would he be made up? It's not like prophets claiming to be the Messiah and founding cults were particularly unusual for the time period. Occam's razor really.

Forgery is a bit strong.  More like there was something fairly objective there originally that proved a tempting target for a later Christian interpolater to add stuff to because it was "missing".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you are hellbent on using Josephus to prove Jesus's existence,  the smart play is to sidestep the Testimonium Flaviam entirely and instead invoke the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim 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:

Only a few idiots doubt that Yeshua bar Maryam existed or that he was messianic preacher.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you are hellbent on using Josephus to prove Jesus's existence,  the smart play is to sidestep the Testimonium Flaviam entirely and instead invoke the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim 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:

Only a few idiots doubt that Yeshua bar Maryam existed or that he was messianic preacher.

Well, obviously. But if you're going to argue with idiots you should use an approach that gives them as little to quibble with as possible.

I prefer to put idiots on ignore rather than respond to them. (Hint: You're not an idiot. Yet. 😸)