Philo -The Excellent Witness that Wasn't.

"..As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).

Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.

Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death."

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

yes, the contemporary historians are strangely silent.

Originally posted by Taoman
"..As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Naz ...[text shortened]... rthquake and darkness at his death."

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

He was Jewish. Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. However, many of the Jews of that time refused to speak about Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, because they could not refute the claims of the followers of Christ. What was Philo to say and be believed, when there were many still living that knew what happened and he would get caught in a lie. So he said nothing. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes, the contemporary historians are strangely silent.

It is not strange at all to me. He had no refutations to make and chose to remain silent rather than be causght in a lie. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not strange at all to me. He had no refutations to make and chose to remain silent rather than be causght in a lie. 😏

Can you explain this more?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not strange at all to me. He had no refutations to make and chose to remain silent rather than be causght in a lie. 🙄

you're making baseless assumptions. philo didn't mention them because they didn't exist in his time.

it's also quiet sad that early christians had to forge the works of a later historian josephus, to lend historical support for their non-existing messiah.

I am not attacking Christianity itself, but raising known facts, that like all truth will give more light. The richest presentations of the Christian faith do not get bogged down in contorted, erroneous and useless defending of things which aren't.
Mythology abounds in the whole Christian story, built around less or more "facts" supposed, with little actual evidence in the modern sense. This is also found in Buddhism. It is what we do with myth that matters, how we engage with it. Myth, musical and poetic expression is usually a more appropriate way to contemplate deeper spiritual meanings
Christianity is historically conditioned and much of the way in which its written history, its "story", emerged is similar to many other cultural ways of its time of emergence.

If Christianity does not come to terms with its history and its myth, and with science, it will be seen by too many as irrelevant and seriously out of step with modern times. This is already happening. This is sad because there is much of value in that faith. It really needs to get behind its liberal thinkers, rather than damn them.