Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[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.