Winston wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 10:29 pm
Keep in mind that Philo of Alexandria who documented the history of Judea at the time Jesus existed supposedly, doesn't mention Jesus at all. Not even once. That creates a dilemma.
Philo wrote on the history, from his perspective in the first century, of the Jewish people. What work did he write about his own time? Josephus is well known for having written a history of that time period, and he DID mention Jesus, and His brother James also.
This does not seem to be written from a Christian perspective and it lists some non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus from that time period.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus- ... l-evidence
I would disagree with the article. I do not know when it was written, so maybe this had not been made public yet. It was in the news many years ago that St. James Ossuary had been found and examined. The ossuary-- a kind of coffin for bones, said on it, if translated, "James the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus." It was not the custom to put a brother's name on ossuaries, so his brother must have been very important. Experts did statistical studies on the frequency of different names in Judaea and the case was strong that this was authentic, and it was likely that this ossuary had once been housed as a relic in an Armenian church building in the area.
If Jesus wasn't that important, how did Christianity spread all over Europe? If he was, then how is it that he was never mentioned by historians at the time? It's a conundrum. Joseph Atwill says that the Romans invented Jesus. See his documentary "Caesar's Messiah".
Arguments based on not examining the evidence can lead to stupid conclusions. Aside from non-Christian evidence, there is a lot of evidence from Christians who were willing to lay down their lives for the faith. The idea of Romans inventing Jesus does not make sense and does not fit the historical evidence.
Most secular historians do believe that Jesus existed. However, they claim that the historical Jesus was far different from the Jesus of the Gospels. Also look up Reza Aslan, he's another great neutral Jesus scholar besides Bart Ehrman.
Most secular historians? How many have you surveyed? What makes one a secular historian? If someone graduate from Harvard with a PhD in history, but has religious beliefs, is he disqualified as a 'secular historian'?
Keep in mind that the Jewish Talmud, which hates Jesus, admits that he existed.
It also implies that he has supernatural power, since it claims that Jesus was tried as a sorcerer, and they made a distinction between that and those who performed illusions with no real power.
It's not true though that the evidence for Jesus' existence is greater than that for Julius Caesar. That's an obvious myth spouted by Christian apologists, and it's not true either, because none of the historians at the time of Jesus mention him, such as Philo of Alexandria, whereas Julius Caesar was mentioned by many who knew him including his whole large army, his lover Cleopatra, his close friend Marc Anthony, the Roman Senate, and his successor Caesar Augustus, etc. There's no comparison at all. Also, Caesar wrote his own memoirs whereas Jesus wrote nothing.
Again, what history did Philo write? And since Josephus mentioned Jesus, why would absence of reference of Jesus by name--- by Philo a philosopher/religious commentator who lives far away in Egypt-- be an issue in this discussion. The argument that there is more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar is based on a number of specific arguments such as numbers of manuscripts, the range of people who mentioned Him, etc. References to Christ show up among non-Christians not too long after the events took place.
It is rare for someone to have any archeological evidence of their existence, so the fact that some exists for Jesus Christ (his name on His brother's ossuary) is rather remarkable.
There are also those who argue for archeological evidence for the existence of Christians in first-century Pompei.