Philo Of Alexandria

[Hammer]

Philo of Alexandria was born in 20 bce and passed away in 50 ce making him (in theory) a contemporary of Jesus.

Though he lived in Alexandria, we know Philo visited Judea and had contact with Pilate.

We know Philo was a hellenized Jew who was fascinated by the early essenes who many believe to be early Christians.

Philo was in the right place at the right time talking to the right people to run right into this allegedly super-powerful & well known fellow named Jesus who was (allegedly) performing miracles (like bringing people back from the dead) and fulfilling prophecies.

Yet Philo is completely silent on the subject of Jesus... as are all other mid & early first century writers from the area. We don't see anything from Philo about Jesus directly ("I saw Jesus!") or indirectly ("These people keep talking about this Jesus who they said performs miracles...").

The very obvious conclusion for this silence is that there was no Jesus for Philo to discuss.

Or that it wasn't of interest to him personally. You assume too much based upon what you want to find.

[TAK]

To the request for extra-biblical texts that mention Jesus:

There are more.

Interesting Gnostic work - but I believe it dates to 200 - 300 AD .. not 1st Century.

[SolarPowered]

Interesting Gnostic work - but I believe it dates to 200 - 300 AD .. not 1st Century.

Yah. Right. Peter, James, John, Thomas and Philip all lived in the Third Century. Riiiiiiight...

[Doctor Steuss]

Interesting Gnostic work - but I believe it dates to 200 - 300 AD .. not 1st Century.

Of those SP mentioned...

The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles = 150-200 CE

The Apocalypse of Peter = 100-150 CE

The Apocryphon of James = Donâ??t know. Never heard of it.

The Apocryphon of John = 120-180 CE

The Book of Thomas the Contender = 150-225 CE

The Gospel of Philip = 180-250 CE

The Passion Narrative on the other hand (which wasnâ??t mentioned) dates between 30-60 CE. Also all of Paulâ??s letters (with the exception of Hebrews which probably wasnâ??t written by him), and Colossians (which dates between 50-80) date between 50-60 CE.

Edit: There's also the Didache which dates between 50-120 CE.

[TAK]

Paul's letters ALONE are sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus existed.

Unless of course Paul was in fact a Gnostic as some have proposed, and his writings hyjacked and altered.. which seems clear the early, literal church had a penchant to do.

With that.. good night.

[Uncle Dale]

not the English translation of his name, necessarily....

As mentioned in these august mb threads previously, my Jewish wife is aware of most Christian claims.

She and her relatives never refer to the man as "Jesus Christ," however -- they just call him Jesus.

I once heard the term "Rabbi Jesus" used, but I'm not at all certain that there were proper rabbis

around 2000 years ago, nor that Jesus was much like what we moderns think of as a rabbi.

To call Jesus, the "Christ" is an affront to most observant Jews -- who look for a far different sort

of messiah, yet to come.

When Christians speak of Jesus Christ, they are making a religious profession which parallels the

Muslims calling Mohammed "God's Prophet," or more to the point, what some small sect members

mean to impose upon us when they profess near divinity of somebody like Rev. Sun Moon.

It is far too late for any of us to attempt to change the vocabulary here --- but I would just take a

moment to remind folks, that some posters here may say they know nothing of "Jesus Christ,"

simply because they are not ready to concede that he is Messiah.

UD

.

[Bill Hamblin]

Unless of course Paul was in fact a Gnostic as some have proposed, and his writings hyjacked and altered.. which seems clear the early, literal church had a penchant to do.

Evidence please! These types of assertions run counter to ALL major serious scholarship on Paul.

[Paul Ray]

As mentioned in these august mb threads previously, my Jewish wife is aware of most Christian claims.

She and her relatives never refer to the man as "Jesus Christ," however -- they just call him Jesus.

I once heard the term "Rabbi Jesus" used, but I'm not at all certain that there were proper rabbis

around 2000 years ago, nor that Jesus was much like what we moderns think of as a rabbi.

To call Jesus, the "Christ" is an affront to most observant Jews -- who look for a far different sort

of messiah, yet to come.

When Christians speak of Jesus Christ, they are making a religious profession which parallels the

Muslims calling Mohammed "God's Prophet," or more to the point, what some small sect members

mean to impose upon us when they profess near divinity of somebody like Rev. Sun Moon.

It is far too late for any of us to attempt to change the vocabulary here --- but I would just take a

moment to remind folks, that some posters here may say they know nothing of "Jesus Christ,"

simply because they are not ready to concede that he is Messiah.

UD

.

You and I are referring to the same person, Uncle Dale.

... I didn't mean that all of us agree about everything concerning him.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I would like to add another aspect to this case.

While we are all sitting ehre talking about Jerusalem and its visitors, it seems some have forgotten that Christ spent almost no time in Jerusalem itself. Aside from an occasional festival, he stayed away. All of his controversial acts, the people who didn't like him, lived in the northern lands like Gallilee. His effect in Jersualem was so minimal that when Christ actually comes back to Jerusalem for his final week, he has to literally do his best to insult and upset the leaders fo the area because he hadn't done much of significant controversy there! A "miracle" worker is a dime a dozen. One who pops in for a visit and does a quick miracle is hardly noticed. The only time anything of note would have been reported about Christ or even known was his final week. One week. Wait... okay, he technically died less than a week after getting there. He was there for a few days, did a few big things, lots that no one but those close ever saw, and then was killed. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this would have been anything big to report or write on.

[maklelan]

Texts? Where did I say "texts". I said "Jewish and Roman writers and historians of that period". And I just listed only a couple of dozen of them, and while there are others too, their works we have today would fill a library and yet none mention Christ. Nor I doubt can you point to any that do.

So you would like to search the actual people instead of the texts they left? You're grasping weakly at straws and you can't even address my concern over the fact that they have no reason to have known of Christ. You just ignore that and reassert your original claim like a child who has been caught lying but is not smart enough to own up.

Tell me, which of the dozen writers that you mentioned ever wrote about Pilate? We know he existed, so these men would have had to have written about him, especially considering he was actually involved in government and known outside his own small group of followers. Which ones name him?

Just not in the first century.

I doubt I will ever find myself in a religion that demands faith in Alexander the Great and the requirement of thousands of dollars in tithing, so I don't see it as quite the same thing.

That's ludicrous. Why does scholarship dealing with religious figures have different standards than other scholarship? What a ridiculous argument.

[maklelan]

Unless of course Paul was in fact a Gnostic as some have proposed, and his writings hyjacked and altered.

Have you ever read a Gnostic text?

[Cold Steel]

Jesus was seen by many of his contemporaries as just another in a line of claimants to the Jewish messiahship. Yes, his miracles attracted considerable attention at the time, but remember, once He died on the cross, He was of no further interest to most of the Jewish rabble. The Christians, those who did follow Jesus, were secretive and were said to have engaged in strange rites. It was clear, however, that Jesus was no longer in the running as someone who would deliver the Jews from the Romans.

Philo's personal philosophy caused many of the early Christians to suspect that he might have secretly been one of them. He was apparently well versed in Jewish scriptures and theology, but he aggravated the Romans, who had begun taking their emperors as gods. Philo had a bit of a problem with worshipping men as gods, and this may be the reason he never took Christ seriouslyâ??because Jesus and His followers maintained that He was God incarnate. (This still troubles the Jews, many of whom maintain that the Messiah is nowhere described as being God, but just a man annointed by God.)

Also, we're assuming we have everything Philo wrote, which may or may not be the case. Another point: Joseph Smith and other LDS authorities healed the sick and raised the dead, but very few historians show interest in such claims. Had it not been for newspapers, many would not have even known about him. In Jesus's day, the people needed 1) food and 2) cures for their illnesses. Jesus provided both. In Joseph Smith's day, things had changed. It wasn't too long ago that we knew very little about the Christians or the Jews, though we didn't know it at the time. But with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, and the various Jewish and Christian apocraphal writings that have independently come to light, we learned considerably more.

I don't read anywhere where Paul mentioned Philo, so perhaps it's Philo who was a figment of someone's imagination.

[maklelan]

bump!

[maklelan]

Bump for TAK, and to let Zhavric know I'm looking forward to hearing his responses.

[Zhavric]

Having twice attempted to discuss issues with the moderators and having twice received no reply, I can only conclude the obvious: the mods here aren't really interested in debate as evidenced by their double standard (linking to the BoM is A-okay. Linking to other sites is a "copy & paste job") and their inability to seperate an attack on an argument from an attack on an individual. I hope to see you all on onlinedebate.net.

I haven't seen any PMs or other attempts at communication from you.

In any event, you seemed unwilling or unable to abide by the rules of the board anyway. Good luck on whatever board you end up on.

=Mods

[Rhad]

Having twice attempted to discuss issues with the moderators and having twice received no reply, I can only conclude the obvious: the mods here aren't really interested in debate as evidenced by their double standard (linking to the BoM is A-okay. Linking to other sites is a "copy & paste job") and their inability to seperate an attack on an argument from an attack on an individual. I hope to see you all on onlinedebate.net.

PM me if you still want to sort things out. Otherwise, good luck.

Rhad

[TAK]

Evidence please! These types of assertions run counter to ALL major serious scholarship on Paul.

I believe the idea of Paul and at least some of his writings as being a Gnostic has been put forward by several people including Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

[Uncle Dale]

I believe the idea of Paul and at least some of his writings as being a Gnostic has been put

forward by several people including Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of

religion at Princeton University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

Saul of Taursus would have been aware of what Jewish gnosticism was --- much better than what

we moderns can guess about such things.

It is very very doubtful, however, that he himself was a Christian gnostic -- had he been that, he

would have most certainly quoted extensively from the "Q" sayings of Jesus, (which became the basis

for the later Greek and Coptic Gospel of Thomas texts).

The world view of Saul/Paul is not particularly gnostic -- that is, he does not seem to picture the

world as having been created by the evil demiurge, nor does he profess a withdrawal from the

world of the flesh into inner divine truths. His little account of a man taken up into the third heaven,

as well as other Pauline tidbits, may show his acceptance some gnostic concepts --- but I think our

saying even that much is a stretch. He was more likely a proto-Kaballist.

Paul's theology is very close to that of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews and is generally

similar to what we read in Mark, Luke, Acts, the catholic epistles, etc.

He was NOT a gnostic.

UD

[TAK]

Just in case anybody happens to look into this thread and isn't aware: There isn't, so far as I'm aware, a serious historian of the ancient world or scholar of the New Testament, believer or non-believer, who entertains any serious doubt that Jesus existed. This is crank territory.

Because such cranks are often active on message boards, they can give the impression that the issue is a burning one, dividing historians, actively debated among scholars. It isn't.

I assume you are referring me as one of these cranks, however I do not believe I have indicated that Jesus never existed, just that there is no evidence from the time he was suppose to have been alive. That would be akin to suggesting that Nephites never existed and I do not believe it would be possible to prove the negative.

I have stated that the contemporary 1st century writings of dozens of people with diverse backgrounds and that comprises hundreds of volumes and texts make no mention of the literal New Testament Christ. Should they all have? I donâ??t think so. But none do except for a few passages that are very likely interpolations.

[TAK]

maklelan

You just ignore that and reassert your original claim like a child who has been caught lying but is not smart enough to own up.

After that little spat of immaturity on your part, you can expect me to ignore all future discussions with you.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have stated that the contemporary 1st century writings of dozens of people with diverse backgrounds and that comprises hundreds of volumes and texts make no mention of the literal New Testament Christ. Should they all have? I donâ??t think so. But none do except for a few passages that are very likely interpolations.

It doesn't matter how many people don't mention Jesus. It matters how many writers do mention Jesus.

Outside the NT we have mentioned

Josephus

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4

Pliny the Younger, Letter 10.96

Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus

Repeating your debunked claims does not make them stronger. Engage the evidence and arguments we have adduced, or concede.

[Bill Hamblin]

I believe the idea of Paul and at least some of his writings as being a Gnostic has been put forward by several people including Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

You obviously have NOT read this book. Indeed, it is dubious that you even read the wikipedia article. Here's the full title of the book:

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters

Note the subtitle. The book is about how later Gnostics interpreted Paul. It does not claim that Paul was a Gnostic.

The wiki itself says:

"The core of the book examines how the Pauline epistles were read by 2nd century gnostics."

Please do more research than a google search!

By the way, even if Paul were a Gnostic, how would that force us to dismiss his evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians around AD 50. This is within 20 years of the death of Jesus. No one disputes the authenticity of this letter. In it, he mentions Jesus and the other Apostles. It would be impossible for him to invent the existence of Jesus and the Apostles during a period when the Apostles were wandering about preaching to the very people Paul was writing and preaching to. It is simply preposterous!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I assume you are referring me as one of these cranks, however I do not believe I have indicated that Jesus never existed, just that there is no evidence from the time he was suppose to have been alive. That would be akin to suggesting that Nephites never existed and I do not believe it would be possible to prove the negative.

I have stated that the contemporary 1st century writings of dozens of people with diverse backgrounds and that comprises hundreds of volumes and texts make no mention of the literal New Testament Christ. Should they all have? I donâ??t think so. But none do except for a few passages that are very likely interpolations.

And thus we see how finding a legitimate ancient Nephite city in ruins, or the gold plates themselves, would still not suffice to convince people that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Bill H.: Your last point seems to be a sister argument to this position:

When the great "deception" of the invention of the person of Jesus was first brought about and taught as 'truth,' don't you figure some authority or historian or person would have pointed out that it was a fraud at the time? Yet we have accounts saying Jesus was just a man, or that he was a fraud, etc. but we don't find anyone or any source from the time the "invention" of Jesus ocurred telling us that it was a large fraud. I wonder where that evidence is, speaking of the neccessity of evidence.

[TAK]

It doesn't matter how many people don't mention Jesus. It matters how many writers do mention Jesus.

Outside the NT we have mentioned

Josephus

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4

Pliny the Younger, Letter 10.96

Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus

Repeating your debunked claims does not make them stronger. Engage the evidence and arguments we have adduced, or concede.

With the exception of Lucian, those have all been debunked by others as likely interpolations. Lucian is mid 2nd Century.

[Uncle Dale]

With the exception of Lucian, those have all been debunked by others as likely interpolations.

Lucian is mid 2nd Century.

Is it then your position that there were no Christians until "mid 2nd Century" ???

If not, what do your investigations tell you was the approximate date of the first Christians

and the approximate date(s) of the first reliable mentions of them in ancient historical sources?

Uncle Dale