There was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus

The Philo of Alexandria My opponent rebuts by saying that Joshua ben Jehozadak means Joshua son of Jehozadak. This is not wrong. Professor Richard Carrier says that there are two main ways “Joshua ben Jehozadak” can be translated.1) Joshua son of Jehozadak2) Joshua son of Jehovah the RighteousDifferent people could interpret it differently. Some might think that it is just Joshua who happens to be the son of someone named Jehozadak. Others could interpret it as Joshua who is son of the god Jehovah. A pesher, who is trying to find hidden prophecies and meanings in the books now known as the Old Testament, could easily interpret the second meaning. His second point of rebuttal is that just because the Philo is similar to Zechariah, and that the Jesus that it portrayed is similar to the Jesus in the New Testament, that it does not mean the Joshua, high priest of the second temple is Jesus.I agree, but that was not the point I was making. A pesher would look for hidden meanings, and someone with that name could easily interpret it in a way that the Messiah would be named Jesus. The Philo of Alexandria does this. It helps us see that there was a pesher that interpreted Zechariah as some form of prophecy of the Messiah. Philo never says that Jesus, the Messiah, was a physical being, only that he was celestial. This means that the sect of Jews that held the belief that Philo wrote about did not think that Joshua, high priest of the second temple, was Jesus, the Messiah, only that the writings prophesized the Messiah. The Talmud My opponent states, “Using this reasoning the Talmud can be dismissed as not realible enough to establish evidence of a historical Jesus. Thus this fails to prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus.”This is false.For an analogy, let’s say that I knew I would have a daughter named Racheal, but she is not born yet, and I write about her a bit. The writing cannot be said to be reliable enough to establish Racheal as a historical figure, but can establish a belief in Racheal (as I would believe she would be coming into my life).While not a perfect analogy, it does help show us that just because something is not reliable enough to give evidence of a historical figure, it can still give evidence in a belief. The writing in the Talmud makes the most sense if there was a belief in Jesus (even if there was not a historical Jesus) in the early half of the first century BCE. The conclusion that was reached was, “The story of Jesus, or similar enough stories, were around since the early half of the first century BCE, and this is a story of Jesus during those times (not meant to be taken as literal history).” My opponent says that it fails as it similar stories are not good enough as evidence. If the Talmud was the only piece of evidence for a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, then this would be a stronger argument, but the Philo helps back this point up. Not only that, but if we take into account that many figures, that we know exist, have different (but similar) stories about their own life, we can see that variation in story is not uncommon. I also may not have been clear enough on that point. When I was talking about “similar enough stories” I meant stories about Jesus that are similar to stories developed later (When Christianity started). Over time (and this would put it at least over 100 years), stories can change, especially if they are passed orally. This means we could expect story variation. Conclusion Pro dropped the argument that Jews were looking for a Messiah. The Philo of Alexandria helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a Messiah figure named Jesus that shares qualities with the Christian Jesus. The Talmud helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a figure named Jesus from the early half of the 1st century BCE. This supports the Resolution that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. I thank That1User for a good debate and a fun time. He did a good job with his rebuttals, though I think I have supported my position. I hope that we can have another debate together in the near future.