Jayrok

Maybe Philo didn't view Jesus the same way as Paul or that he was worshipped as God. Maybe the stories about Jesus were exagerrated, but that doesn't mean Philo had never heard of him simply because he didn't write about him.

Theories can certainly be formulated based on silence. But we can't conclude for certain what Philo knew simply because he was silent on something.

aa5874

So what really is your argument? Are you claiming that it is possible to formulate a theory that Jesus did exist because Philo wrote NOTHING about him.

A theory to support EXISTENCE needs DATA of Existence NOT silence

But, ALL the theories formulated for NON-EXISTENCE was based on SILENCE.

SILENCE is the KEY for theories on NON-EXISTENCE.

Check your histories and you will see that there was SILENCE on JESUS of the NT.

The theory is good. There is SILENCE.

JESUS DID NOT EXIST as described at the time of Philo is a far better theory.

show_no_mercy

It just seems odd that the exaggerated stories about Jesus seem to have been stolen from Philo's own allegories about the Logos.

Jayrok

No, I'm saying just because Philo didn't write about Jesus didn't mean that Philo didn't know of or had heard of him. That's all. It seems that some believe since Philo doesn't mention Jesus it automatically means Jesus didn't exist. That doesn't make sense.

Now, I agree that the lack of Jesus in Philo's writings is a bit of evidence that may contribute to the fact that Jesus didn't exist. But it isn't a smoking gun or anything. Just another tidbit that might lead us to question Jesus' existence.

Jayrok

This I'd be interested in reading about.

show_no_mercy

I think it's been territory treaded repeatedly here.

Philo calls the Logos (word or reason) the firstborn of god's creation, the son of god, a mediator between humans and god, the mind of god (compare with 1 Cor 2:16), a heavenly mediator of sins. Look at some of Philo's writings; they read like Paul in some places and John in others.

The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but the Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word, who is also His Son?

For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot the Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of Reason, but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason

[...]

And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant (or paraclete) to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You; neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.

[...]

Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Gen 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

MortalWombat

Here is a good place to start. In particular, you'll notice that Philo describes the Logos as the first-born son of God, as well as an intermediary power between God and man.

Jayrok

Thanks for the post, show_no_mercy... and for the link to Philo, MortalWombat. Interesting read.

aa5874

But the non-existence of JESUS is not based on Philo alone. The non-existence of Jesus is based on Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, gMark, gMatthew, gJohn, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, Revelation, the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and others.

The ABUNDANCE of Evidence from sources of antiquity clearly DESCRIBED Jesus as the offspring of a Holy Ghost, without an earthly father, the Creator of heaven and earth, who WALKED on water, transfigured, was RAISED from the dead and ascended through some clouds.

But, that is EXACTLY the PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL criteria for making a case for the non-existence of any entity. It first MUST BE that there is NO historical EVIDENCE of the entity.

And secondly and extremely significant is the description of the entity. Once the entity is described in a Mythological manner then the non-existence of the NT is far more probable than existence.

The abundance of tidbits that support non-existence far outweighs the tidbits for existence of a man called Jesus.

It must be noted that it was the so-called Christians, the authors of the NT, the Church writers and so-called heretics who VEHEMENTLY denied that JESUS was just a man, but was a God/man or a Phantom.