Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Now, since the TF bears obvious signs of interpolation, we cannot use it to confirm the existence of Jesus of Nazareth despite the fact that most scholars agree that something about Jesus was written there. Since we don't know exactly what was originally written there, we cannot use what we currently see as evidence that is good enough to further the historicity argument.

Not true.
We most certainly can use item 3.  
Here it is:-    although the content is waffle there is a space there that attracted Christians to it. Those Christians could have attempted to edit any space they liked but they were probably frightened that an original might turn up to confound them in their deception.  So they just selected the one space where they could write their stuff, and if any other JF copy turned up with the original script they could at least challenge it. 

It's not the script that proves the entry about Jesus, but the space.

A space is not evidence of anything. It is not evidence that anything was ever written there about Jesus. We have no idea what was ever written there, and since we can discount what we currently see there, we can't use a "space" as evidence of anything.

It certainly is not. Evidence is based upon what we can see, not on what we cannot see.

At the time Josephus wrote Antiquities for the Roman audience, Christians were hated throughout the Roman Empire. Therefore, the flattering text regarding Jesus that you see in the TF would not be something Josephus would promote to an audience who hated Christians. Josephus would not make the positive claim of Jesus being the Christ, or use other flattering phrases such as "if we should call him a man," to a Christian hating Roman audience. They would reject him immediately, and accuse him of being a Christian and likely kill the bastard.

Josephus was writing about recent histories........ and he didn't write what is seen! The piece is surrounded by other reports of trouble and strife and I have no doubt that his opinion of Jesus was very low, so the point above is superfluous.

Until you can tell us what exactly was written in that space, then you cannot claim a space as being evidence testifying to the existence of Jesus. A space is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. ANYTHING could have been written in that space and the entire space could have detailed something completely different with no mention of Jesus at all. 

You need to understand that Josephus was under the protection and living off the generosity of the Roman Caesar. He was given the title of Flavius, a Roman designation. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that and orthodox Jew such as Josephus would betray his fellow orthodox Jews and his then fellow countrymen, the Romans, by promoting the hated Christianity as we see in the current version of the TF. No chance at all. It would be suicide.

Since we can be fairly sure that Josephus would have thought (and written) about Jesus as total trouble I don't see why you are mentioning the above point.

Being "fairly sure" is insufficient for historicity. You need to be virtually certain, not "fairly sure." You can't claim something as being historical when we- the historical consensus-  have far too much doubt about it. It's that simple.

So in the interest of intellectual honesty, although I agree with the majority of scholars that a Jesus called Christ at the very least likely existed, the TF is not good enough evidence to help the historicity argument. With historicity, in regards to specifically the TF, it all comes down to the argument to the best explanation of the evidence and the best argument is precisely what I just gave you.

Take it or leave it.

The space.......Christians were attracted to that space, and altered it. It was probably a very damning article about a very violent and trouble-seeking bloke. 

So this entry has importance in the search for an historical Jesus.

The space is not evidence of what was written there. Not at all. We could easily say that something about a high priest was written there, or any number of other things. The space can represent anything, and even what we do see there could represent a total interpolation. Since we don't know, we cannot claim historicity. It's that simple.

Since you have no evidence of exactly what was in that space, you are speculating. Even the consensus is speculating when they agree that it was "likely" something about Jesus was written there. Speculation is nothing more than assertions, and assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As the Jem'Hadar would say, "It is the order of things."

[Bucky Ball]

The space.......Christians were attracted to that space, and altered it. It was probably a very damning article about a very violent and trouble-seeking bloke.
So this entry has importance in the search for an historical Jesus.

LOL.
A nothing in search of a nothing.

[eider]

A space is not evidence of anything. It is not evidence that anything was ever written there about Jesus. We have no idea what was ever written there, and since we can discount what we currently see there, we can't use a "space" as evidence of anything.
It certainly is not. Evidence is based upon what we can see, not on what we cannot see.
Until you can tell us what exactly was written in that space, then you cannot claim a space as being evidence testifying to the existence of Jesus. A space is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. ANYTHING could have been written in that space and the entire space could have detailed something completely different with no mention of Jesus at all.
Being "fairly sure" is insufficient for historicity. You need to be virtually certain, not "fairly sure." You can't claim something as being historical when we- the historical consensus- have far too much doubt about it. It's that simple.
The space is not evidence of what was written there. Not at all. We could easily say that something about a high priest was written there, or any number of other things. The space can represent anything, and even what we do see there could represent a total interpolation. Since we don't know, we cannot claim historicity. It's that simple.
Since you have no evidence of exactly what was in that space, you are speculating. Even the consensus is speculating when they agree that it was "likely" something about Jesus was written there. Speculation is nothing more than assertions, and assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
As the Jem'Hadar would say, "It is the order of things."

You just kept repeating 'no evidence'..... !
After 2000 years we can make reasonable guesses, based upon the balances of possibility and probability. Let's look at that space with more investigative mind.
Christian's were attracted to that particular space, and even though it is surrounded by accounts of troubles and deceptions, they wanted to edit the piece in to what can be seen. And so the fact that they chose it is Circumstantial evidence that it previously held words about Jesus.
Remove the words and we only have a space. But we can see what is written in the chapters around it so it's very unlikely that this piece contained some glowing account of Jesus. And you need to consider what you previously wrote, that Josephus could not safely tell of Jesus as being anything wonderful or holy, which was an unlikely motivation anyway.
So the space tells careful investigation that it is important.... valuable.

Here is a simple and basic review for you:-

JOSEPHUS WROTE ABOUT JESUS!
That Josephus commanded all Galilean forces and knew people who had once known Jesus personally is not such a hard concept to grasp. That he was interested enough to make mention of Jesus is reasonable.
I've often read reports that Christians wrote the 'entry' for Jesus and that it is a fabrication, but that claim fails under 'historic-Jesus' scrutiny. Let me show how any contention leads back to more positive grounds, showing that Josephus did actually write about Jesus. Here is the paragragh .........
Antiquities Chapter 3 Para 3:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Let's review the four major claims:
1. Josephus wrote exactly as shown above = Josephus wrote about Jesus
2. Josephus wrote about Jesus but Christians edited the paragragh = Josephus wrote about Jesus.
3. Christians erased the whole paragragh and then substituted it as shown above. = Josephus wrote about Jesus
4. Christians, or somebody, wrote the paragragh as shown above and then inserted it into Chapter 3 of Antiquities.
Let's just scrutinise claim 4. .Chapter 3 of Antiquities is all about complaints, demonstrations, unrest, crimes, deceptions and other troubles. Claim 4 proposes that Christians wrote a beautiful paragragh about Jesus and then inserted this amongst various criminals and troublemakers. At this point the claim simply crashes into absurdity, because no Christian would ever want to include Jesus amongst such a 'dodgy' collection of folks.
Ergo, Josephus did write about Jesus, although his mention was probably not very favourable.

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla
Ergo, Josephus did write about Jesus, although his mention was probably not very favourable.

There's no "ergo" there. You made up your assertion with NO EVIDENCE.
Your fake assertion is a non-sequitur. Have you ever thought about taking Logic ?
A series of unsupported assertion copy-pasted from your LONG drivel is not evidence.

Where are the numbers ?
Possibility and probability have numbers associated with those concepts.
What exactly is the probability you COMPUTE and why did you choose the numbers you did.
You don't know. You're trying to "fake it".
No one buys this bullshit.

"After 2000 years" is meaningless drivel. 2000 years has nothing to do with anything.
How *exactly* is 2000 years different from 1000 years ?

You know nothing about history or how it's done.
You also know nothing about math and probability.
You invoke "probability" as fakery. You have no "probability" argument, and it appears you don't even know what those words mean.
There is no scholar you can cite who makes an argument from a "space" in the subject matter of the historicity of Jesus.
You made it up, and since you're suffering from Dunning-Krueger, you tell yourself you are some sort of sieving expert ... a method which has no foundation, as you can't define it, ot describe it, or tell us what your standards are.
What a gigantic waste of time. You're a 1000 % fraud.

[Free]

 

You just kept repeating 'no evidence'.....  !
After 2000 years we can make reasonable guesses, based upon the balances of possibility and probability.

All the reasonable guesses remain reasonable guesses and not evidence. When you make a guess you are speculating. The moment you turn that speculation into an assertion you've lost the plot.

Guesses, speculation, and assertions are not, nor have they ever been, considered evidence.

Face it, the TF is not considered good evidence for historicity for the simple fact that there are too many problems with it. All reasonable doubt against it is fully warranted, and not because of any fallacious arguments from silence, but rather based upon only what we see written there, what we know about Josephus and his Jewish roots, and what we know about the Romans. This doesn't mean that something about Jesus wasn't written there, but only that since we know what is written there cannot reasonably be considered truthful then we can't use an unconfirmed and obviously dubious paragraph as representing historicity.

I tend to not list the TF in any of my arguments because it's intellectual suicide.

[Minimalist]

A "reasonable guess" usually equals "wishful thinking."

[eider]

All the reasonable guesses remain reasonable guesses and not evidence. When you make a guess you are speculating. The moment you turn that speculation into an assertion you've lost the plot.

Not everybody speculates or seeks to make assertions.  
The foundation of good investigation is to be agenda free, as balanced as possible, not speculating for any particular outcome.  
Without that foundation the researcher is lost before they begin.

Guesses, speculation, and assertions are not, nor have they ever been, considered evidence.

So don't do it.  But you can make intelligent 'jumps;' to see where they might go...or not. 

Face it, the TF is not considered good evidence for historicity for the simple fact that there are too many problems with it. All reasonable doubt against it is fully warranted, and not because of any fallacious arguments from silence, but rather based upon only what we see written there, what we know about Josephus and his Jewish roots, and what we know about the Romans. This doesn't mean that something about Jesus wasn't written there, but only that since we know what is written there cannot reasonably be considered truthful then we can't use an unconfirmed and obviously dubious paragraph as representing historicity.

It's all about that space, where kit is, and the fact that Christians were attracted to it.

Surrounded by other trouble/difficulty this space reasonably suggests that it held some trouble/difficulty.
That Christianity tinkered with this space even though it is surrounded by trouble suggests that it was important to Christianity.

That's most interesting, and it interests researchers.

I tend to not list the TF in any of my arguments because it's intellectual suicide.

But you do list the TF. You do.
And you take great interest in what 'scholarship' thinks about it.

See what you wrote in an earlier post:-

In regards to the Testimonium Flavium, I agree with the majority of scholars that Josephus wrote "something" about Jesus in that paragraph.

So do I....agree that J wrote something about Jesus, and clearly the Jesus of Christianity.

[airportkid]

Give it up fellas.  This is looking like this. 

The only difference is that the Hilux can be stopped by its tank running dry.  This contretemps ran out of gas hundreds of posts ago but you keep pushing it.

[Minimalist]

It's an amusing discussion.

We have extensive commentary from only one writer who lived during the time when the xtians set their jesus story.  That is Philo of Alexandria.  And he never heard of this motherfucker "jesus" either.  Shame really as Philo would constitute a primary source but he never mentions jesus as either a messiah OR a troublemaker.  You know, it is almost as if he did not exist at all!

[Bucky Ball]

]

Obviously you don't have a clue what we're talking about.

Has nothing to do with Jesus.

Ha ha...... On an historical jesus thread!
Then you might need to write your stuff elsewhere.

This is a bullshit response, and in NO way addresses the POINTS involved.
You are nothing but a fraud.
A 1000 % fraud.
You know nothing about the arguments of scholars.

How long do you actually think you can fake it ?

BTW, you claimed to be a Deist, without even knowing what that even means.
Still waiting to "feel the fucking *force* you promised I would feel.
What a fucking fraud.

Spare me the "deposition" shit, and give os a list of 10 scholars who talk about "depositions". LMAO

[Free]

It's an amusing discussion.

We have extensive commentary from only one writer who lived during the time when the xtians set their jesus story.  That is Philo of Alexandria.  And he never heard of this motherfucker "jesus" either.  Shame really as Philo would constitute a primary source but he never mentions jesus as either a messiah OR a troublemaker.  You know, it is almost as if he did not exist at all!

I have always been curious as to how anyone would expect a Hellenized Jew living 600 miles away would know anything about a crucified wanna-be Messiah in Jerusalem. That argument might have some traction against Christians beliefs, but is laughed at from a historical perspective.

[Bucky Ball]

It's an amusing discussion.

We have extensive commentary from only one writer who lived during the time when the xtians set their jesus story.  That is Philo of Alexandria.  And he never heard of this motherfucker "jesus" either.  Shame really as Philo would constitute a primary source but he never mentions jesus as either a messiah OR a troublemaker.  You know, it is almost as if he did not exist at all!

I have always been curious as to how anyone would expect a Hellenized Jew living 600 miles away would know anything about a crucified wanna-be Messiah in Jerusalem. That argument might have some traction against Christians beliefs, but is laughed at from a historical perspective.

Since his brother and he corresponded frequently, he would have known if a messiah pretender, a "king of the Jews" was important enough to cause the highest level of the Jewish authorities to go to the Romans and ask for and get his execution. If a Jesus fit in enough with an apocalyptic "Way" sect it is a curious silence. It's possible the Way sect was just part of the Jewish apocalyptic movement, it's also possible there was a "personal" driver.

[Free]

I have always been curious as to how anyone would expect a Hellenized Jew living 600 miles away would know anything about a crucified wanna-be Messiah in Jerusalem. That argument might have some traction against Christians beliefs, but is laughed at from a historical perspective.

Since his brother and he corresponded frequently, he would have known if a messiah pretender, a "king of the Jews" was important enough to cause the highest level of the Jewish authorities to go to the Romans and ask for and get his execution. If a Jesus fit in enough with an apocalyptic "Way" sect it is a curious silence. It's possible the Way sect was just part of the Jewish apocalyptic movement, it's also possible there was a "personal" driver.

Both his brothers Alexander the Alabarch and Lysimachus lived in Alexandria. Aside from that I don't think the "Way" had a lot of traction in the CE 30s or early to mid 40s to have made enough noise for Jews in Alexandria to be bothered writing anything about. Philo was probably dead before the Way got to be another noisy sect, or too old to give a fuck.

[Bucky Ball]

I guess I'm wrong.
However ...
"Philo was a very prominent person. He had led a Jewish delegation to the court of Emperor Caligula in 35-40 CE. He prominently lived in those times when Jesus Christ was supposed to be preaching, performing miracles, exorcising demons, causing earthquakes, raising the dead, wandering in the lands of Judea and talking to farmers and fishermen. Philo knew Judea and its people like nobody else. Just like Josephus half a century later, Philo wrote extensively on Jewish religion and contemporary politics. There are at least 30 manuscripts from him. Surprise and surprise! Although he mentions Moses more than a thousand times in his writings, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT JESUS, Christianity or any of the events described in the New Testament!!"

"What was Philo of Alexandria writing? He was writing the ancient history of Jewish religion but, with a Greek amalgamation. He took every concept of then Roman religion, infused them with Greek philosophies and then amalgamated that with Jewish religion. Thus, he wrote of a new religion which had elements of all three. His doctrine of ‘Logos’ is influenced by Greek philosophy. ‘Logos’, is an artisan like figure responsible for the creating, designing and maintenance of the physical universe. Many scholars believe that Philo’s works formed much of the philosophical basis of Christianity."

[Free]

I guess I'm wrong.
However ...
"Philo was a very prominent person. He had led a Jewish delegation to the court of Emperor Caligula in 35-40 CE. He prominently lived in those times when Jesus Christ was supposed to be preaching, performing miracles, exorcising demons, causing earthquakes, raising the dead, wandering in the lands of Judea and talking to farmers and fishermen. Philo knew Judea and its people like nobody else. Just like Josephus half a century later, Philo wrote extensively on Jewish religion and contemporary politics. There are at least 30 manuscripts from him. Surprise and surprise! Although he mentions Moses more than a thousand times in his writings, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT JESUS, Christianity or any of the events described in the New Testament!!"

"What was Philo of Alexandria writing? He was writing the ancient history of Jewish religion but, with a Greek amalgamation. He took every concept of then Roman religion, infused them with Greek philosophies and then amalgamated that with Jewish religion. Thus, he wrote of a new religion which had elements of all three. His doctrine of ‘Logos’ is influenced by Greek philosophy. ‘Logos’, is an artisan like figure responsible for the creating, designing and maintenance of the physical universe. Many scholars believe that Philo’s works formed much of the philosophical basis of Christianity."

It's not a matter of being right or wrong because a lack of info only means we don't know either way, so if I am wrong I try to error on the side of reason.

Your argument above is a good argument against the Christian belief system. If Jesus was performing miracles as the Christians claim then of course his fame would spread from sea to sea.

But he wasn't. In my view, speaking strictly historically, all we can say with a good degree of reasonableness is that man named Jesus, who many thought as being a Christ, was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33. We don't know of his fame at the time, if any. We do know the fame grew later, and especially with the embellishments of this man. But those embellishments developed over decades, long after Philo was dead and buried. Once you eliminate the Christian bullshit- which hadn't taken root yet- what's left for Philo to talk about? Some dude who thought he was the Christ got his ass crucified down in Judea? Ho hum. Another nutjob bit the dust.

And that is why the Philo argument falls flat against actual historicity, as opposed to Christianity.

[Minimalist]

It's an amusing discussion.

We have extensive commentary from only one writer who lived during the time when the xtians set their jesus story.  That is Philo of Alexandria.  And he never heard of this motherfucker "jesus" either.  Shame really as Philo would constitute a primary source but he never mentions jesus as either a messiah OR a troublemaker.  You know, it is almost as if he did not exist at all!

I have always been curious as to how anyone would expect a Hellenized Jew living 600 miles away would know anything about a crucified wanna-be Messiah in Jerusalem. That argument might have some traction against Christians beliefs, but is laughed at from a historical perspective.

For your information, there were Hellenized Jews in Judaea also.  But then, you are merely doing what apologists always do.  Make excuses for the failure of the godboy to make any mark on contemporary history.  I guess Philo never spoke to his brother or his nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, huh?  Next you'll be telling me that Philo wasn't circumcised, either although I would demand to know how you know that!

[Free]

I have always been curious as to how anyone would expect a Hellenized Jew living 600 miles away would know anything about a crucified wanna-be Messiah in Jerusalem. That argument might have some traction against Christians beliefs, but is laughed at from a historical perspective.

For your information, there were Hellenized Jews in Judaea also.  But then, you are merely doing what apologists always do.  Make excuses for the failure of the godboy to make any mark on contemporary history.  I guess Philo never spoke to his brother or his nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, huh?  Next you'll be telling me that Philo wasn't circumcised, either although I would demand to know how you know that!

Not making excuses for anything, nor using apologetics. I am just stating the facts as we know them.

Your argument with Philo might work if we actually had a magic man sticking sawed off ears back on people's heads, raising zombies up from the graves, or walking across the water without a drop of water getting on his precious gown. 

But against the historical take on Jesus? Your argument doesn't just walk, but runs away from the laughter.

[TinyDave]

For your information, there were Hellenized Jews in Judaea also.  But then, you are merely doing what apologists always do.  Make excuses for the failure of the godboy to make any mark on contemporary history.  I guess Philo never spoke to his brother or his nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, huh?  Next you'll be telling me that Philo wasn't circumcised, either although I would demand to know how you know that!

Not making excuses for anything, nor using apologetics. I am just stating the facts as we know them.

Your argument with Philo might work if we actually had a magic man sticking sawed off ears back on people's heads, raising zombies up from the graves, or walking across the water without a drop of water getting on his precious gown. 

But against the historical take on Jesus? Your argument doesn't just walk, but runs away from the laughter.

The Romans were pretty good at cataloguing their history. I guess it was present at that time. 
This being the case, Hellenized Jews in Judaea, represent just that. 
Hellenized Jews in Judaea. 
2000 years ago.

The shadows in the cave don't change, it's just our interpretation of them.

[Minimalist]

For your information, there were Hellenized Jews in Judaea also.  But then, you are merely doing what apologists always do.  Make excuses for the failure of the godboy to make any mark on contemporary history.  I guess Philo never spoke to his brother or his nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, huh?  Next you'll be telling me that Philo wasn't circumcised, either although I would demand to know how you know that!

Not making excuses for anything, nor using apologetics. I am just stating the facts as we know them.

Your argument with Philo might work if we actually had a magic man sticking sawed off ears back on people's heads, raising zombies up from the graves, or walking across the water without a drop of water getting on his precious gown. 

But against the historical take on Jesus? Your argument doesn't just walk, but runs away from the laughter.

The Sadducees who ran the temple in Jerusalem were also Hellenized Jews so to insinuate, as you did, that a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria would have no contact/interest in Judaea is misleading at best. 

If you want to stick to "facts" then we can categorically state that Philo, an early first century Jewish writer of whom we have an extensive catalogue of extant works never said a word about fucking jesus.

Making excuses about why that is, and which happens to suit your oft-stated position IS apologetics.

[Free]

Not making excuses for anything, nor using apologetics. I am just stating the facts as we know them.

Your argument with Philo might work if we actually had a magic man sticking sawed off ears back on people's heads, raising zombies up from the graves, or walking across the water without a drop of water getting on his precious gown. 

But against the historical take on Jesus? Your argument doesn't just walk, but runs away from the laughter.

The Sadducees who ran the temple in Jerusalem were also Hellenized Jews so to insinuate, as you did, that a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria would have no contact/interest in Judaea is misleading at best. 

If you want to stick to "facts" then we can categorically state that Philo, an early first century Jewish writer of whom we have an extensive catalogue of extant works never said a word about fucking jesus.

Making excuses about why that is, and  which happens to suit your oft-stated position IS apologetics.

You are missing the point entirely.

If Jesus existed, any sane person would understand that he existed as an ordinary man as opposed to some god-like entity with incredible powers. Therefore, as an ordinary man his fame would not be overstated to such an extent that it reached the rest of the known world and into other countries such as Egypt, and specifically Alexandria some 600 miles away.

By the time Philo went to Gaius only 5 years or less would have passed since Jesus was crucified. Christianity hadn't even sprouted legs yet. There were no gospels, letters, or anything for the NT. Supporters of Jesus were still known as Jews and still in hiding from orthodox Jews to avoid persecution.

If Philo knew anything at all, all he would have heard from the Jews in Judea was that somebody named Jesus was claimed to be a Christ and ended up being just another in a long list of Jews who got crucified. His importance would not be overstated, and certainly the Jews who had him crucified before Pilate would not be claiming that this Jesus was someone significant. To them, he was just another rebel that got his ass handed to him.

So tell me again how those Jews in Jerusalem would have said much to anyone in Egypt, if they said anything at all, about some rebel they got crucified. Then tell me why Philo would find it necessary to even speak about that rebel. 

You need to stop thinking about some real god in terms of this Jesus and start thinking that he was just a man; a man who was nothing but a rabble rouser among the local Jews in Jerusalem, and a man who became very insignificant to those Jews after he was dealt with by those Jews in Jerusalem.

Christianity did not yet exist. No bible. Paul still virtually unknown. Any tall tales about this Jesus, if they existed, were still not widespread. So all you really have here is that a man got crucified and the Jews didn't give a fuck about that, including Philo.

Reason this thing out because the Philo argument is a joke in terms of actual history. No only is it an argument from silence, but it's also an unqualified argument from silence from a true historical perspective. It might work against the Christian believers, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working against actual history.

[eider]

WORDPAD

It's an amusing discussion.
We have extensive commentary from only one writer who lived during the time when the xtians set their jesus story.  That is Philo of Alexandria.  And he never heard of this motherfucker "jesus" either.  Shame really as Philo would constitute a primary source but he never mentions jesus as either a messiah OR a troublemaker.  You know, it is almost as if he did not exist at all!

Philo was a very powerful and influential Jewish diplomat. He was an ambassador  to the court of Caligula.  His brother Alexander was a very senior t official and (not surprisingly) extremely rich.  
If Jesus had been so celebrated as shown in the gospels then Philo would probably have heard about him, but if Jesus had been a rough, tough Galilean troublemaker who came to the Temple and caused mayhem .....then these events and any subsequent responses from Sanhedrin and Prefect would probably have been small-news to such as Philo.
Philo didn't write such a full history of those times and places as Josephus, and since Josephus only included mention of Jesus in the tiniest space(s) it's not surprising that Philo didn't write a word about him at all.
Whilst this lack of mention by Philo (and tiny entry by Josephus)  can show that Jesus was no huge 'news' and certainly no great religious leader, it can't support any ideas that Jesus a Galilean Jew DID NOT come to Jerusalem and caused trouble.
So..... No messial there, but a Northern peasant with a following of rough-necks..... no problem

[Rhythmcs]

What actual history Free? What's it supposed to be "working against"? Josephus?

[Free]

What actual history Free?  What's it supposed to be "working against"?  Josephus?

The vast majority (almost unanimous) of scholars agree that at the very least a man named Jesus who was called Christ existed, and that person is the basis for Christianity.

It is regarded as established history. Whether or not we here disagree with that assessment is irrelevant. It is what it is.

[Bucky Ball]

The Sadducees who ran the temple in Jerusalem were also Hellenized Jews so to insinuate, as you did, that a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria would have no contact/interest in Judaea is misleading at best. 

If you want to stick to "facts" then we can categorically state that Philo, an early first century Jewish writer of whom we have an extensive catalogue of extant works never said a word about fucking jesus.

Making excuses about why that is, and  which happens to suit your oft-stated position IS apologetics.

You are missing the point entirely.

If Jesus existed, any sane person would understand that he existed as an ordinary man as opposed to some god-like entity with incredible powers. Therefore, as an ordinary man his fame would not be overstated to such an extent that it reached the rest of the known world and into other countries such as Egypt, and specifically Alexandria some 600 miles away.

By the time Philo went to Gaius only 5 years or less would have passed since Jesus was crucified. Christianity hadn't even sprouted legs yet. There were no gospels, letters, or anything for the NT. Supporters of Jesus were still known as Jews and still in hiding from orthodox Jews to avoid persecution.

If Philo knew anything at all, all he would have heard from the Jews in Judea was that somebody named Jesus was claimed to be a Christ and ended up being just another in a long list of Jews who got crucified. His importance would not be overstated, and certainly the Jews who had him crucified before Pilate would not be claiming that this Jesus was someone significant. To them, he was just another rebel that got his ass handed to him.

So tell me again how those Jews in Jerusalem would have said much to anyone in Egypt, if they said anything at all, about some rebel they got crucified. Then tell me why Philo would find it necessary to even speak about that rebel. 

You need to stop thinking about some real god in terms of this Jesus and start thinking that he was just a man; a man who was nothing but a rabble rouser among the local Jews in Jerusalem, and a man who became very insignificant to those Jews after he was dealt with by those Jews in Jerusalem.

Christianity did not yet exist. No bible. Paul still virtually unknown. Any tall tales about this Jesus, if they existed, were still not widespread. So all you really have here is that a man got crucified and the Jews didn't give a fuck about that, including Philo.

Reason this thing out because the Philo argument is a joke in terms of actual history. No only is it an argument from silence, but it's also an unqualified argument from silence from a true historical perspective. It might work against the Christian believers, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working against actual history.

Agree. It is an argument from silence, however it's still an argument, but it depends on which Jesus you're discussing.
*If* the Jesus Christians invented their tales about did really exist, and the tales were to be true, (a trial in front of a Roman aristocrat ... even while the actual sentence for causing trouble was no trial and execution by *standing order*), the Sanhedrin being called into session on Passover weekend, 500 zombies walking around Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, and Jesus claiming to be the King of the Jews, .... THAT Jesus, Philo would have said, or could be expected to say something about. The silence concerning *that* Jesus is deafening.

[Free]

You are missing the point entirely.

If Jesus existed, any sane person would understand that he existed as an ordinary man as opposed to some god-like entity with incredible powers. Therefore, as an ordinary man his fame would not be overstated to such an extent that it reached the rest of the known world and into other countries such as Egypt, and specifically Alexandria some 600 miles away.

By the time Philo went to Gaius only 5 years or less would have passed since Jesus was crucified. Christianity hadn't even sprouted legs yet. There were no gospels, letters, or anything for the NT. Supporters of Jesus were still known as Jews and still in hiding from orthodox Jews to avoid persecution.

If Philo knew anything at all, all he would have heard from the Jews in Judea was that somebody named Jesus was claimed to be a Christ and ended up being just another in a long list of Jews who got crucified. His importance would not be overstated, and certainly the Jews who had him crucified before Pilate would not be claiming that this Jesus was someone significant. To them, he was just another rebel that got his ass handed to him.

So tell me again how those Jews in Jerusalem would have said much to anyone in Egypt, if they said anything at all, about some rebel they got crucified. Then tell me why Philo would find it necessary to even speak about that rebel. 

You need to stop thinking about some real god in terms of this Jesus and start thinking that he was just a man; a man who was nothing but a rabble rouser among the local Jews in Jerusalem, and a man who became very insignificant to those Jews after he was dealt with by those Jews in Jerusalem.

Christianity did not yet exist. No bible. Paul still virtually unknown. Any tall tales about this Jesus, if they existed, were still not widespread. So all you really have here is that a man got crucified and the Jews didn't give a fuck about that, including Philo.

Reason this thing out because the Philo argument is a joke in terms of actual history. No only is it an argument from silence, but it's also an unqualified argument from silence from a true historical perspective. It might work against the Christian believers, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working against actual history.

Agree. It is an argument from silence, however it's still an argument, but it depends on which Jesus you're discussing.
*If* the Jesus Christians invented their tales about did really exist, and the tales were to be true, (a trial in front of a Roman aristocrat ... even while the actual sentence for causing trouble was no trial and execution by *standing order*), the Sanhedrin being called into session on Passover weekend, 500 zombies walking around Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, and Jesus claiming to be the King of the Jews,  .... THAT Jesus, Philo would have said, or could be expected to say something about. The silence concerning *that* Jesus is deafening.

There can be no argument that that Jesus did not exist. Any argument to the contrary is so easily dismissed on reason alone, let alone a lack of evidence.

However it is because of that Jesus that history can go deeper to find the historical nucleus to the Christian nonsense, and expose it for what it most likely really is; an embellishment of an historical man who, because of Christianity, we know very little about other than the greater likelihood of him merely existing and being crucified.

Personally, although virtually all scholars agree on the criterion of embarrassment regarding John baptizing Jesus, I don't see any evidence of that therefore I don't consider it evidence. It seems like too much Christian hope is involved there. Since it's ONLY shown in Christian records with no exterior non-Christian attestation, it's a poor reason to add that in as evidence. It may be compelling, but it is not evidence.

In short, the Christians put lipstick on a pig.