RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 11:42 am
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2014 at 11:45 am by Free.)
(December 21, 2014 at 2:51 am)Minimalist Wrote:(December 20, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Brucer Wrote: It's not desperation. Aside from the distances, Philo was a Hellenized Jew, and Hellenized Jews were generally ostracized by the orthodox Jews in Judea. Therefore, news may not have traveled as well as you think.
Also, your argument may work for the Christian version of Jesus who walked on water, rose from the dead, etc, for such feats would indeed spread like wild-fire in those times.
But your argument utterly fails against a mere historical person, who's fame would be limited to his immediate vicinity.
I don't give a shit about that but in his catalog of the crimes of Pilate it seems remarkable that Philo would not have mentioned the crucifixion of one who "multitudes" of jews were hailing as god.
Ummm catalog of the crimes of Pilate? It wasn't much, and Philo's Embassy to Gaus does not chronologically jibe with the crucifixion of Jesus anyways.
Again, some of your argument might work if Jesus was a myth, but again fails against a historical person. If he was merely a historical person, nobody would be thinking he was a god.
Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity- and if hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin and leaders in general as the gospels suggest- why would anyone think that a Jew such as Philo would list his crucifixion among the crimes of Pilate?
The Jews wanted Jesus dead, and they wanted the Romans to kill him, so why do you think it is somehow "reasonable" for Philo to complain about it on his list of the crimes of Pilate?
