There was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus

The Philo of Alexandria In order to prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, my opponent gave a comparison between the texts of Philo of Alexandria and Zechariah. Philo: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns." Zechariah: "The word of the Lord came to me: "Take an offering from the exiles, from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go that same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take silver and gold, make crowns and place them on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. You are to tell him: This is what the Lord of Hosts says: Here is a man whose name is Branch; He will branch out from His place and build the Lord"s temple. Yes, He will build the Lord"s temple; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. There will also be a priest on His throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two of them. The crown will reside in the Lord"s temple as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen son of Zephaniah. People who are far off will come and build the Lord"s temple, and you will know that the Lord of Hosts has sent Me to you. This will happen when you fully obey the Lord your God."" Con has reasoned that because Zechariah was reffering to Jesus ben Jehozadak, high priest of the second temple name translated to "Jesus son of Jehovah the Rightheous, and Philo's text was similiar to Zechariah's text, it could be concluded that there a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. Rebuttal: Jesus ben Jehozadak does not mean "Jesus son of Jehovah the Righteous", Jesus ben Jehozadak means "Jesus son of Jehozadak. Joshua: "YAHWEH is salvation" Jehozadak: "Yahweh is righteous" As you can see, these two names have roots in Yahweh, describing charectericstics of Yahweh. This does not mean that Jesus ben Jehozadak means "Jesus son of Jehovah the Righteous". Also, just because there were similiar in name, and Philo's texts and Zechariah's texts were similiar to the Gospel's does not mean that Joshuah the Second High Priest was a Jesus like in the New Testament. Talmud: In order to prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, pro states: "The Rabbis have taught: The left should always be repelled, and the right, on the other hand, drawn nearer. But one should not do it . . .[2] as R. Joshua ben Perachiah, who thrust forth Jeschu with both hands. What was the matter with regard to E. Joshua ben Perachiah? When King Jannai directed the destruction of the Rabbis, R. Joshua ben Perachiah and Jeschu went to Alexandria. When security returned, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach sent him a letter to this effect: 'From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to thee, Alexandria in Egypt, my sister. My spouse tarries in thee, and I dwell desolate.' Thereupon Joshua arose and came; and a certain inn was in the way, in which they treated him with great respect. Then spake Joshua : 'How fair is this inn (akhsanga)!' Jeschu saith to him: 'But, Rabbi, she (akhsanga = a hostess) has little narrow eyes." Joshua replied: 'Thou godless fellow, dost thou occupy thyself with such things?' directed that 400 horns should be brought, and put him under strict excommunication. Jeschu ofttimes came and said to him,' Take me back.' Joshua did not trouble himself about him. One day, just, as Joshua was reading [? reciting] the Shema,[3] Jeschu came to him, hoping that he would take him back. Joshua made a sign to him with his hand. Then Jeschu thought that he had altogether repulsed him, and went away, and set up a brickbat and worshipped it. Joshua said to him: 'Be converted!' Jeschu saith : 'Thus have I been taught by thee: From him that sinneth and maketh the people to sin, is taken away the possibility of repentance.' And the Teacher [i.e., he who is everywhere mentioned by this title in the Talmud] has said: 'Jeschu had practised sorcery and had corrupted and misled Israel.'" Earlier pro had stated: While it is agreed upon by scholars, like Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman) and Mark Powell (Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell), that the Talmud is not reliable enough to establish evidence of a historical Jesus, some things written in there make more sense if there were some beliefs that coincided with what was written. 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. Pro also concludes: If the passages are reactions to Christian proselytism, then we would not expect a story about Jesus that is this different than the common stories at the time. That means that this passage means one of three things: 1) There existed Christians that started believing that Jesus lived during the early half of the 1st century BCE, and this was a recorded version of what those Christians believed. 2) 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). 3) Jesus was a historical figure that preached during the early half of the 1st century BCE. Pro ended up concluding that 2) was the most plausible. Even if two was correct, then this would fail to prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus because stories of something similiar to Jesus does not mean that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus.