Sunday, May 21, 2017

Another Acrimonious dialogue with atheist

Joe Hinman  Jim Jones • a day ago
This is about general theism not Christian theism. you are taking us off topic, why do you have to derail every discussion with this pathetic anti-intellectual propaganda? Obsessed with that topic.

my answer to the questions

 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
 • a day ago

Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?
This is actually an interesting physics question. Asking a theist to answer it is beyond their "magisteria", as Stephen Jay Gould would say.
Kevin K
How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?”
In particular, how would you draw the appropriate Feynman diagram that demonstrates the soul's interactions with matter? It's actually this question that should, in an honest observer, lead to the conclusion that souls do not and cannot exist. If souls existed, then by definition they must interact with normal matter (ie, humans). If they do interact with humans, then they would not only be detectable, they would already have been detected given our current level of knowledge of physics. There's just no way around this. The existence of "supernatural" stuff is a non-sequitur here -- if it interacts with matter, it's detectable by our current methods. Saying "physics is incomplete" is also not the correct answer (or dodge) -- it's more-than complete enough to answer this question.
2  •Reply•Share ›
Joe Hinman to  Kevin K • a day ago
It is cosmologists question but a theist can ea cosmologist, I know what you mean. not an answer a theist would give qua theist.
 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Kevin K  speaking to Joe Hinman • a day ago
If there is a difference in the answer a cosmologist/theist would give compared with a cosmologist/non-theist, that might make for an interesting discussion.

As far as I'm aware, Laplace kicked god out of the cosmos, and no scientist has successfully reinserted him back in. Hoyle tried and failed. Polkinghorne, as far as I know, has only made assertions as a theist, not as a physicist. In other words, words but no math or empirical data to back him up.
 •Reply•Share ›
Joe Hinman  Kevin K • 16 hours ago
Historians weather Laplace even uttered his famous S :I have no need." Your version of angry little wet hen atheism is anti intellectual, reactionary, and boring.

You have hit upon the fallacy (by default) of Lowder;s questions, You can talk about the physical workings of the empirical end of the universe forever and not mention God because it's created to run on it's own. Then of course you can play the games of reductionist designed to keep God hidden.

That doesn't mean you can leave God out if you want to go beyond the surface. Science doesn't go beyond the surface (not it's job) so of course science appears not to need God. The universe is made to look neutral.

Halbe  to Joe Hinman • 11 hours ago
Yes, you keep saying that: "God is the foundation of reality", "God cannot be subject to falsification", "God is the basis of all truth, and therefore, cannot be the object of questioning about truth" etc. etc.

So, what you are basically saying is: The null hypothesis is that God is the foundation of reality and this hypothesis is by definition not falsifiable, so, checkmate atheists!

Let me say this gently: we atheists are not all that impressed with that line of reasoning. To me it is no more than a cop out: you just have to believe ("a priori religious"), and once you believe it all becomes clear. Well, duh!
2  •Reply•Share ›
Joe Hinman  Halbe • 7 hours ago
wrong. you have to use other means than direct empirical evidence. although we use empirical evidence but it;snot direct evidence it;s evidence of The  co determinate,

so we place the bar at the level of warrant rather than proof, We can warrant belief through a variety of means but not direct empirical, Like for example logic,

Atheists use the same ideas when it suites them,string theory, multiverse,alternate universe, are no more empirical than God, nor are they falsifiable,

Halbe  Joe Hinman • 6 hours ago
Religious belief is not warranted at all; it is a 'pre-existing condition' ("a priori religious"), almost always instilled through indoctrination at a young age. Your "warranting" is just post-hoc reasoning to prop up an unsubstantiated belief.

Atheists do not use the same ideas. String theory, multiverse etc. are accepted as interesting theoretical frameworks for explaining certain aspects of reality that science cannot explain yet. Scientists (atheist or not) do not "believe" these frameworks; they are very busy to derive testable and falsifiable hypotheses from these frameworks in order to be able to either falsify them or elevate them to the status of scientific theory. I.e. directly the opposite of what theists do with their beliefs (including you; you just declare it true but unfalsifiable by definition).

Joe Hinman  Halbe • 5 hours ago
Religious belief is not warranted at all; it is a 'pre-existing condition' ("a priori religious"), almost always instilled through indoctrination at a young age. Your "warranting" is just post-hoc reasoning to prop up an unsubstantiated belief.

that is just BS stereotype you have no data to back it up you not one study that quantities how many conversions are just indoctrination, But that has nothing to do with warrant anyway,

"Atheists do not use the same ideas. String theory, multiverse etc. are accepted as interesting theoretical frameworks for explaining certain aspects of reality that science cannot explain yet."

that does not make them empirically demonstrate,I can say the very something about my God arguments,

Scientist (atheist or not) do not "believe" these frameworks; they are very busy to derive testable and falsifiable hypotheses from these frameworks in order to be able to either falsify them or elevate them to the status of scientific theory. I.e. directly the opposite of what theists do with their beliefs (including you; you just declare it true but

I think it;s pretty obvious most atheists actually do believe them and whirl scientists don't; worship the theories as believers do 'God that has nothing to do with the argumnet,they still accept the Logic it is the same logic

Halbe  Joe Hinman • 5 hours ago
You are now going very deep into the rabbit hole of irrational apologetics; so far that I am starting to question your honesty. Do you really want to dispute the fact that religion is primarily propagated through childhood indoctrination? Really!? Do you really want to equate the scientific work on new theoretical frameworks with your apologetics? Really!? If your answers to these questions is yes, then you're either stupid or dishonest.

Joe Hinman  Halbe • 5 hours ago

You are now going very deep into the rabbit hole of irrational apologetics;

so either you are not interested in a serious discussion or you don't know a good answer from a stpudoneeitherY ido

so far that I am starting to question your honesty.

I doubt your honesty it;s pretty clear you want a bully rush from mocking religious people, you dom't care about truth and you not willing to listen,

Do you really want to dispute the fact that religion is primarily propagated through childhood indoctrination?
of course I do you moron 

you do not want answers,you are wasting my time,

busterggi  Joe Hinman • 4 hours ago
We all know the difference between a good answer and a stupid one, we just can't get a good one from you.

You're just a low-grade apologist who like to pull his opinions from his ass and pretend they are facts.

200 studies from peer reviewed academe journals that;s just from my ass, but his little bigoted studiedly fact, "your just alow rade apologiost" that;s reallyvajoverture todiscussion

Joe Hinman  busterggi • a few seconds ago
bull shit, you mean good answer = support your view bad answer goatskin your view/

you below your brains out about empirical proof. I have 200 studies you have none yet you still think your bigoted hatred of God is fact and my studies are my opi

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

More on the "Philo Fallacy:" Paulkovich Christ Fable

John Rylands Fragment

Michael B. Paulkovich is another example [1]of the same fallacy I dealt with last time but he illustrates even more ridiculous fallacies than the others (see my previous post). I call it the "Philo fallacy" because Philo is probably the est example. the fallacy says here are x number of famous writers who lived contemporary with Jesus but they don't talk about him. Jesus worked big miracles so if he really existed they would have heard of him and the would want to talk about him. This is about their only major argumet in addition to no documents or official papers like birth certificate. This is still an argument from silence and they still have a burden of proof (which they do not even attempt to meet) to show  that any of their guys should have heard of Jesus or want to write about him.

I have always been a staunch Bible skeptic but not a Christ-mythicist. I maintained that Jesus probably existed but had fantastic stories foisted upon the memory of his earthly yet iconoclastic life.After exhaustive research for my first book, I began to perceive both the light and darkness from history. I discovered that many prominent Christian fathers believed with all pious sincerity that their savior never came to Earth or that if he did, he was a Star-Trekian character who beamed down pre-haloed and full-grown, sans transvaginal egress. And I discovered other startling bombshells.[2]

He doesn't believe in miracles? The church fathers knew about Star Trek over a thousand years before tv he doesn't see what a miracle that is? For this augment he draws upon John Remsburg author of The Christ (1909).[3] Remsberg made the fallacious Philo argumet with 41 or so candidates. He's really just another unremarkable Jesus myth crack post whose ideas were disproved a long time ago.
Paulkovich, in emulation comes up with 126.He does not bother to prove that there is any reason why any of them would have mentioned Jesus.

Paulkovich Makes his major counter figure Apollonius of Tyanna."Perhaps none of these writers is more fascinating than Apollonius Tyanus, saintly first-century adventurer and noble paladin. Apollonius was a magic-man of divine birth who cured the sick and blind, cleansed entire cities of plague, foretold the future, and fed the masses. He was worshiped as a god and as a son of a god."[4] 
He feels pained to point out that Apollonius was nevertheless a real man. But by Jesus myth standards why doesn't his wonder working mark him as myth? They seem to insist that Jesus could not have been a real man due to his wonder working. more importantly this might also provide a motive for Apollonius not to mention Jesus. He would be validating a rival. Moreover, he lived in Anatolia, east coast of Turkey,so not in Palestine and thus not necessarily up on all the events near Jerusalem or the Galilee. 

Here he makes another major fallacious assumption, that Jesus must have been well known all over the known wold at the time of his miracle working and that miracles would make him famous.
"Because Jesus ostensibly performed miracles of global expanse (such as in Matthew 27), his words going “unto the ends of the whole world” (Rom. 10), one would expect virtually every literate person to have recorded those events. A Jesus contemporary such as Apollonius would have done so, as well as those who wrote of Apollonius." [5] The reference to the ends of the earth is a midrash where Paul quotes Pslam 19:4. The words are from the psalm.That is nothing like proof that Jesus would have been known through out the world in his day. The Gospel was taken to the ends of the earth even in Paul's day, Thomas went India and Bartholomew to Armenia. That is not poof that Jesus would have been known in his life time in far away places. Paul died imn 64 and Jesus in 33. At least 20 more years for the message to taken to fa away places. Since everyone believed in miracles and miracle workers were allover the place (as we just saw with Apollonius) why would they have taken note of another wonder worker in a far away place?

At this point Paulkovich starts on this strange argument that somehow figures from the third century don;'t talk about Jesus:

Such is not the case. In Philostratus’s third-century chronicle Vita Apollonii, there is no hint of Jesus. Nor does Jesus appear in the works of other Apollonius epistolarians and scriveners: Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems that none of these first- to third-century writers ever heard of Jesus, his miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned.[6]

This is a puzzlement because obviously third century figures would have no first hand connection  as historical knowledge of first century people. They would only be discussing Jesus as a remote figure 300 years in the past, But Christianity was a going concern by third century so he can't possibly be tying to imply that Jesus wasn't known to anyone by that time? This is so obvious I should not have to document it. All the apostolic fathers wrote from 90s AD to middle of second century: Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp,Justin martyr, they all talk about Jesus, Clement of Alexamdria, Origin, and more. Visit the index to any church history Textbook [7] There is a huge pile of apocryphal literature beginning with late first century that talks about Jesus and absolutely none of it fails to assume he was a flesh and blood man in history. I am not arguing that this body of literature proves Jesus existed.  But what it does prove is that people knew of Jesus as a flesh and blood historical man as far back as first century and certainly well before the third. Here is just a fraction of the list:

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text]
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of James
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate]
The Gospel of Bartholomew 
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Secret Gospel of Mark Return to Top

The Acts of the New TestamentThe Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew 
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
Martyrdom of Bartholomew 
The Acts of John 
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John 
The Acts of John the Theologian 
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Passing of Mary 
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla 
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Acts of Philip
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Death of Pilate
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Acts of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Consummation of Thomas Return to Top 

Apocryphal ApocalypseThe Apocalypse of Adam
The Revelation of Esdras
The First Apocalypse of James 
The Second Apocalypse of James 
The Revelation of John the Theologian 
The Revelation of Moses 
The Apocalypse of Paul
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul The Revelation of Paul
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Vision of Paul
The Revelation of Peter
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter 
The Apocalypse of Sedrach 
The Revelation of Stephen
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Apocalypse of the Virgin Return to Top

Other WritingsThe Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Epistle of the Apostles 
Community Rule
The Apocryphon of James
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
John the Evangelist
The Apocryphon of John 
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Epistle to the Laodiceans The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Letter of Peter to Philip
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
The Avenging of the Saviour 

The Book of Thomas the Contender [8]

Paulkovioch is actually dense enough to try and claim Josephus didn't mention Jesus. He relies upon his own Josephus arguments to assert the total fabrication of both passages, even though most scholars don't even doubt the brother passage, See my debate With Bradley Bowen in which I defend the brother passage,. [9] See also the rest of my work on Josephus.[10] He does all the Jesus' mythyers greatest hit with selective reading,Assuming Paul says nothing about Jesus as a flesh and blood man but totally ignoring the passage in Romans (1:3) where he alludes to Jesus' flesh and bool linage. He just dismisses the reference to the 500 witnesses to the resurrection in Acts as a forgery with no evidence at all.

He thinks that because Qumran is only 12 miles from Bethlehem the sect should have mentioned Jesus in the dead sea scrolls. That is a fallacious assertion,First because Jesus was not a member of the sect no reason to talk about him. The connection with Bethlehem would not become important until after Jesus death most of the scrolls date to an earlier period. He's also making a huge assumption about knowledge we don't possess. We don't really know who lived in the buildings taken to be the home of a sect and we don't really know if the people who lived there wrote the documents hidden in the morticians. Since the discovery it has been theorized that the settlement was  family villa, a perfume factory, pottery factory, a fort all disconnected from the scrolls, "Despite decades of excavations and careful analysis there is no consensus about who lived there--and consequently no consensus about who actually wrote the dead sea scrolls."[11] 

Paulkovich relies upon a lot of extrusions arguments to strengthen his case. Without them the Philo fallacy is merely a weak argument  from silence. Those arguments can be disproved so the article really does nothing to enhance the case for Jesus mytherism.

[1] Michael B. Paulkovich, "The Fable of Christ,"  Secular Humanism, A program of the Center for Inquiry  no date, On line URL:
(accessed 5/11/17)

[2] Ibid

[3]John Remsburg, The Christ, Amherst NY: Prometheus books, 1994, original publication New York: Truth seeker company, 1909. no page indicated.

[4] Paulkovich, op cit.

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7]  Henry Bettenson, Documented the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 4th edition  2011, 1-37.

[8] JosephHinman,"No Alternate Versinos, Doxa: Christian Thought in the 21st Century, web site URL:  (acess 5/14/17)

I compiled the list myself from sources listed on the net, They are all authentic ancient sources form first three centuries AD.

[9] Joseph Hinman, "Josephus (brother passage)," The Bowen -Hinman debate, Religious a prori (Jesus and Bible) online, website, URL:
(access 5/12/17)

Debate originally held online (Jan 2016) between Secular outpost  (Bowen;s posts) and CADRE comments blog,where my posts were made.

[10] my other Josephus stuff defense of teh TF:

On Doxa: Joseph Hinman "Secular and Jewish Historians A. Josephus,: Doxa: Christian 
Thought in the 21 Century,
(access 5/12/17)

see also Joseph Hinman, "Peter Kirby;s Straw man Argument: Jopsehus" Religiious a priori
one line URL:  (access 5/12/17)

[11] Andrew Lawlwer, "Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls," Smithsonian Magazine (January 2010) onlimne versionURL:

(accessed 5/11/17)

Monday, May 15, 2017

Contra Jesus mytherism: answering the Philo Argument

Excavations at Nazareth

All arguments the Jesus mythers use are arguments from silence. The idea that there is no proof for Jesus historicity, therefore we can't believe in  it, that is argument from silence (AFS). The opposite is the case, Jesus' historical existence is accepted by historians as a fact, therefore, the myther has the burden to prove he did not, History says he did. The mythers have a few arguments that appearance the surface like positive evidence, they assert that they are. It's very important to quash them.

One such argument says that a long string of major writers of Jesus' days who do not mention him, I am going to look at the way two different mythers use this argument. These guys are not famous but I have seen both used quoted agaisnt me in argument a coupe of times.The first one is on the atheist echo chamber "read it" by a guy called Jim Jones who I trade insults with regularly on Secular Out Post, He is a typical mocker, and a Dawkamentalkst.[1].

The argument presents a long string of writers who don't mention Jesus:

The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.(Ibid)

That looks so very impressive, Just a couple of thing before I begin showing how utterly useless this argument is. (1) This argument is clearly  is AFS. Not that this is a fallacy per se, but it doesn't prove anything, This is the especially so when one can show why the silence is there, We can show why these guys would not mention Jesus even if everything in the NT is true. (2) Atheists assume that if Jesus really worked miracles he would be made world famous, in his own day that is a fallacious assumption. Let's look at the way two mythers use this argument, First, nearly everyone beveled in the possibility of miracles in that day, Not that they would not have been amazed to see one but they were not as skeptical. That does not mean they would automatically assume any claim of a miracle but it does mean with a host of other wonder workers being talked about guys in far away Rome would not take notice of a wonder worker in Palestine.

On Tekton apologetic J.P. Holding (our fellow cadrist) discusses why Jesus would not be mentioned by Roman writers. Notice most of the writers on Jone's list are Roman:

As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known.
Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3]Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.).
On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers.To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.esus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also![2]

Jones says of his list: "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ. " [3] Notice he lumps in both Josephus passages as "forgery." This is ludicrous when the less quoted "bother passage" is not even accused of being a forgery. In his debate with me on Josephus's brother passage Bradely Bowen (one of the best thinners at SOP and far better than Jones) could not quote a single scholar who said so, nor did he present any argumnet about forgery,[4] 

Not to mention the fact that the assertion of complete forgery for the TF. Josephus' major passage about Jesus is rejected by the consensus in the field of real historical scholarship and the arguments exist to blow the mythers away on it. [5]

Apart from Josephus the major guy in the list is Philo, He was a Jew in the time of Christ.The Romans had no reason to care about Jesus but Philo may have, Yet, there are good reasons why he did not deal with him. Jones asserts that Philo lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was there. "He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem." [6] He is wrong in assuming that Philo was living in Jerusalem and that he was there strait through Jesus whole life. Philo lived in Alexandria and he spent a good deal of his time in Rome.Hevonly visited Jeruslame one  time. Moreover he did not live long after the time of Jesus, he died in 40 in AD. [7] 

As for the argument on slaughter of the innocents, this event would not have been any more compelling or earth shattering than any of the other slaughters and moral outrages perpetrated by Herod. First of all the number of children killed would have been quite small, on the order of a dozen or two dozen, as recounted by famous historian Paul Maier[8] Maier gives a long list of Hreod's atrocities  and daughters, The last was the same year of Jesus' birth 4 BC where he had thousands of Jewish leaders slaughtered. [9] There is no real reason why the incinerate in Bethlehem should standout in anyone's mind. As for the Triumphal entry there is no way to prove that Philo was in Jerusalem for that.

Kenneth Humphreys also makes the Philo didn't mention Jesus argument, [10] This is the same genius who founded the Paul myther movement, which I tor apart om this blog a year or more ago,.He says:
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 timethat "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). (Ibid)
We know from the Hiller article (op cot) that He did not live in Jerusalem and he only went there once, (EN7)(There is a reason why he;s called"of Alexandria.). He may have heard of Jesus was since he clearly craved the company of Roman elites he may have found Jesus embarrassing, There's no way they can prove Jesus was in Jerusalem during times of High Jesus viability such as the triumphal entry. It is their burden of proof barbecue they seek to eliminate the established fact of history. So the argument from silence about Philo is of no consequence, Now he says Philo had contact with the Royal House of Judea, That is Herod that means he murdered Jesus' cousin and tried to murder Jesus as an infant. Thus discussion of the Nazerath boys would probably be a black card topic at table with  Herod, Especially True since Maier  says the pattern for Herod was fear of opposite murder of opponent followed by more depression and more fear more murder,,(op cit EN8). Might not be a real good idea to remind him of killing the and John Jesus' cousin. I can just hear the Judea brothers discussion dinner at Herod's "Now bother don't make the homicidal dictator mad." Might be a good reason to leave that scruphy preacher guy Jesus out of the next book.

What Humphreys says about Alexander, Philo's brother,  and his wealth as chef tax collector. Not only would he be hated by the people but also would have reason to fear Jesus since he was popular among the rebel, was himself poor, and seemed to say things encouraging to the poor such as that they  are blessed,Thus he carried an overtone of class conflict. At least it's a reason why Philo would find him uninteresting. Jesus railed against money changers  said a rich man can';t enter heaven any more easily than a camel can traverse the eye of a needle, so there was a lot lot of motivation for Philo to either just not take an interest est or avoid discussion of him,

At best the philo argumemt is am argument from silence and proves nothing, In the context of the Jesus mytherism issue the Philo argumemt fails to qualify as positive evidence against the existence of Jesus. Jesus' historicity dreaminess established historical fact,


all on line sources accessed 5/6/17

[1] Jim Jones, "The Silence of Comteproary Wrioters,"  Read it  (21 Dec 2014) (archive)
URL:  (accessed 5/4/17).

[2] J.P. Holding, "General Thoughts on Jesus  Not Existing," Tekton Apologetic, website on line
(accessed 5/4/17)

Meier's Marginal Jew and Harris' Three Crucial Questions About Jesus.

[3]  Jones op cit]

[4] Bowen/Hinman Debate: Josephus (the brother passage), on Religious a priori: Jesus and Bible
Debate between Joseph Hinman and Bradley Bowen

Index for the full debate: Hinman/Bowen Debate om Jesus historicity

[5] Joseph Hinman, "Josephus. Secular and Jewish Historians," Religious a priori  website URL:

[6] Jones op cit

[7] Marian Hillar, "Philo of Alexandria. 20BCE-40CE" Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer reviewed) website URL

Hillar is with the Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies

[8] Paul Maier, quoted in "Did Herod Really Kill Baby Boys?" Ask Pastor John Interview with 
Senior writer,
"Paul Maier, a widely respected historian, in what will be a little longer of an episode than usual. Until his retirement, Maier served as the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. And he is the author of many fictional books and many non-fiction books including In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church, as well as several books for children, including, The Very"

[9] Ibid.

[10] Kenneth Humphreys, "Witness to Jesus? Philo of Alexandria." Jesus Never Existed 2006 websiote URL:

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

On Metacorck's blog

the illusion of technique the way atheists use objectivity vs subjectivity

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

on Metacrock's blog

Attack on Postmodern critique of science, demonstrates scintillation misunderstanding,