But of course it can be "easily explained". You make it sound as if Christianity started as a thing , but it was nothing of the kind. What would eventually evolve into Christianity through a period of at least 2 centuries started out ambiguously in the form of a bunch of Jewish upstarts, many of whom would be Stoics within a range of beliefs and various religious practices, whose principle aim was primarily to renounce the Roman and Judaistic law strongly opposed by them. This was a group of activists, a breakaway counter culture insurgency. It was not Christian nor was it a form of what would become to be known as Christianity , nor was it a coherent idea or philosophy on those lines indeed, had there been a Jesus, he would certainly not be trying to start a new religion. Nothing associated with any Galilean cult not of the Jewish faith. These were devout practicing Jews who strongly rejected the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism, that was making life and death decisions due to Roman law against fellow Jews. So who is going to write at the supposed time of Jesus that Jesus is fake when there is isn't even any such thing as a Christ or a Christian religion for at least another 100 years later. There is no Jesus leading a revolt against the establishment. That story was written a hundred years later to become the narrative for the Gospels which by the way don't even contain the word Christian or anything about a new religion. A staunch supporter of Hellenistic philosophy (of which Stoicism is a school) at the time Christianity was gaining traction 300 years later, was Emperor Julian - Pontifex Maximus. Emporer and foremost power within ancient Rome on religious matters who writes; there was nothing in the way of evidence for a Christ and Christians must be worshipping "a Jewish corpse". Then there is Pliny, Galen, Celsus, Porphyry who are some of the big critics of Christianity at the time of Stoic philosophy and after. The more you look critically, the less there is to support any Bible Jesus or prophet Mohammed. For either to be historical figures, it should be the other way round.
1. It looks to me the above timelines are off very much, comparing to what I learned. Concurrently several of the points mentioned were also arguable. Probably even moving to a further weaker or ambiguous position. I would appreciate if you can provide further more solid sources especially web links on the engagements between Stoics and Christianity. Justin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr Born 100[1] Flavia Neapolis, Samaria (modern-day Nablus) Died 165 (aged 65) Rome, Roman Empire ) wrote two famous early apologies for Christianity by himself. During the reign of the emperor Antoninus Pius (138 - 160 CE). Since he was a Christian converted from a Stoicism student, Justin should be a good and reliable source for understanding the engagements between Stoicism and Christianity. 2. The death of Socrates was due to below convictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates " The trial of Socrates (399 BC) was held to determine the philosopher’s guilt of two charges: asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state; the accusers cited two impious acts by Socrates: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”." Do you know what was/were the conviction(s) details, besides being a Christian, for Justin's accusation causing his death as martyr? " Still, even in the Roman Empire, death did not necessarily come easily to dissenters. It took Justine fifteen years of formal, public grievances before the emperor considered Justin as much of a threat to the stability and peace of the empire as Justin did the emperors." - book edited by Rasimus/etc, on page 195 authored by Denzey (Harvard Uni and Brown Uni) Why didn't the Roman emperor(s) find out proofs once and for all to destroy completely the whole Christianity by attacking the existence of a historical Jesus? Or it didn't matter after all: Why didn't the Roman emperor(s) can simply use this excuse, as a similar crime against Socrates, to punish Justin and alike Christians? Why it tool 15 years long for Justin case if the problematic figure Jesus was a fake news that anyone one of the 12 Jesus' followers can provide truthful confess that (s)he had actually never talked or contacted such a person called Jesus? 3. There was no any other philosophers (who are supposedly having independent thinking mind with professional training in logic) besides All Stoics wrote down anything for criticising Christianity based on non-existence of the Jesus figure, physically? The Stoics were among the best with their own branch of logic theory (almost totally lost in its original form and details). imo, they were not the philosophers willing to let this Jesus-existence isuue go away easily, without writing anything down, or saying anything about it. Because the whole profession of philosophers is about arguing and debating with logic and reason, especially in public forums during the age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum 4. ...
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance " Argument from Ignorance ad ignorantiam (also known as: appeal to ignorance) Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Logical Forms: X is true because you cannot prove that X is false. X is false because you cannot prove that X is true. Example #1: Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs. Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven. "
Stoic Logic Here are some links about Stoic Logic. Is Stoic logic similar to other common logic systems? What's so special about Stoic logic? Are these links showing/explaining the original form/structure of Stoic logic? https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/ Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism Logic Propositional logic Diodorus Cronus, who was one of Zeno's teachers, is considered the philosopher who first introduced and developed an approach to logic now known as propositional logic. This is an approach to logic based on statements or propositions, rather than terms, making it very different from Aristotle's term logic. Later, Chrysippus developed a system that became known as Stoic logic and included a deductive system, Stoic Syllogistic, which was considered a rival to Aristotle's Syllogistic (see Syllogism). New interest in Stoic logic came in the 20th century, when important developments in logic were based on propositional logic. Susanne Bobzien wrote, "The many close similarities between Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that of Gottlob Frege are especially striking."[14] Bobzien also notes that "Chrysippus wrote over 300 books on logic, on virtually any topic logic today concerns itself with, including speech act theory, sentence analysis, singular and plural expressions, types of predicates, indexicals, existential propositions, sentential connectives, negations, disjunctions, conditionals, logical consequence, valid argument forms, theory of deduction, propositional logic, modal logic, tense logic, epistemic logic, logic of suppositions, logic of imperatives, ambiguity and logical paradoxes."[15] Categories Main article: Stoic categories The Stoics held that all being (ὄντα) – though not all things (τινά) – is material. They accepted the distinction between concrete bodies and abstract ones, but rejected Aristotle's belief that purely incorporeal being exists. Thus, they accepted Anaxagoras' idea (as did Aristotle) that if an object is hot, it is because some part of a universal heat body had entered the object. But, unlike Aristotle, they extended the idea to cover all accidents. Thus if an object is red, it would be because some part of a universal red body had entered the object. They held that there were four categories. substance (ὑποκείμενον) The primary matter, formless substance, (ousia) that things are made of quality (ποιόν) The way matter is organized to form an individual object; in Stoic physics, a physical ingredient (pneuma: air or breath), which informs the matter somehow disposed (πως ἔχον) Particular characteristics, not present within the object, such as size, shape, action, and posture Somehow disposed in relation to something (πρός τί πως ἔχον) Characteristics related to other phenomena, such as the position of an object within time and space relative to other objects Epistemology The Stoics propounded that knowledge can be attained through the use of reason. Truth can be distinguished from fallacy—even if, in practice, only an approximation can be made. According to the Stoics, the senses constantly receive sensations: pulsations that pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave an impression in the imagination (phantasia) (an impression arising from the mind was called a phantasma).[16] The mind has the ability to judge (συγκατάθεσις, synkatathesis)—approve or reject—an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one that is false. Some impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can only achieve varying degrees of hesitant approval, which can be labeled belief or opinion (doxa). It is only through reason that we achieve clear comprehension and conviction (katalepsis). Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgment of humankind. UQ 2. According to Anthony Kenny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kenny , "Where Aristotle used letters as variables in his logical texts, the Stoics used numbers; this is a trivial difference, but more importantly, where Aristotle's variables stood in for terms, Stoic variables stood in for whole sentences, or rather for elements that are capable of being whole sentences." ... ... "In late antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic were regarded as rivals, and while the Stoics' own writings have not survived, we have much evidence of polemics between supporters of the two systems." By today the original writings of Stoic logic literature after destroying can now never been found. The existing writings are supposed following the structure and spirit of the original system. Can we say the original system had never existed?
There was a small Pacific island of 500 residences. One day a seaman arrived by a safe boat. After a period of time, the seaman disappeared, and can never be seen again in the island. Can we safely say the seaman has never existed in the island? No proof of birth certificate in the island by any medical doctors! No any writing can be found from his belongings.
This timeline below shows Seneca the Stoic, a Roman Statesman, was the Stoic most closely related to early Christianity. And he could be also possibly one of them. Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger The early Christian Church was very favorably disposed towards Seneca and his writings, and the church leader Tertullian possessively referred to him as "our Seneca."[19] Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously presents Nero as a witness to Seneca's suicide) believed Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul, and early humanists regarded his fatal bath as a kind of disguised baptism. UQ Marcus Aurelius the Stoic, Roman Emperor of the era, was, willingly or unwillingly, allowing the early growth of Christianity. Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius Marcus Aurelius (/ɔːˈriːliəs/; Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus;[9][notes 1][12] 26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD) was Emperor of Rome from 161 to 180. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the so-called Five Good Emperors. He was a practitioner of Stoicism, and his untitled writing, commonly known as Meditations, is a significant source of the modern understanding of ancient Stoic philosophy, and is considered by many commentators to be one of the greatest works of philosophy.[13] UQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
I don't see the problem here with timelines nor with connections betweem Stoics and Christianity. Stoicism is a philosophy more than it is a religion in competition with another religion. Why wouldn't Stoics become apologetics for new religions if it fitted. Because as you later suggest, it didn't matter. There is no real reason for you to assume Christianity was big or ugly or threatening enough to warrant an all out war on it .Except unless you simplistically believe everything the religion itself tells you. Roman Emperors generally turned a blind eye to religions. Most were tolerated as long as they did nothing directly subversive toward the State or were rebellious. Christianity was diffuse and sporadic for a long time and came in many forms and varieties. There was no specific threat to the Establishment. The only ones getting upset were other Jews who were not part of what much later morphed into Christianity. They might feel threatened by their fellow Jew's refusal to comply with Judaistic strictures. But that's all. The Romans had no need or desire to be at the front of that. And there is no substantive contemporary account of particular persecution against Christians. What there is mostly emanates from Christian apologists and much later, the Church. I just don't see why you assume Christianity was big or ugly or threatening enough at the time to warrant an all out war on it except for the propaganda later constructed by the Church. I stated there was no [Bible] Jesus [Christ] or Christians leading a revolt against the Roman establishments. Justin is adding to the basic religious story taking shape. I repeat, the Gospels being written elswhere by others which Justin would have read or had knowledge of, do not even contain the term Christian. So as a "Christian" movement, it bore little or no threat to Imperial Rome. So Justin is substantially shaping a Gentile's grassroots religion. The New Testament wasn't even fully formed and it was apologetics like Julian who were developing the narrative of Christianity, a 100 plus years after the supposed events they depict. I think it reasonable to say Stoicism and Christianity melded more than clashed and the more simplistic faith based system took over. b.t.w Non of what you're posting affords Jesus any historicity, which is the thread topic!
Just want to add my thoughts from the last few days. My understanding is that being a Stoic in Jesus' era wasn't easy due to the acquisition process of attaining the level of training and knowledge of Stoicism (ethics/physics/logic). Being a Stoic sage would be even like a supreme court judge. Making reasonable and logical conclusions without emotions. Letting the whole Jesus story develop into a leading religion, overtaking the dominance of Stoicism by saying nothing from any Stoic sage should be mostly likely almost impossible, imo. A good chance for the Stoics didn't do anything, say anything, or write anything about whether positive or negative of Jesus could be because they probably know/think that Jesus was actually an undercover mini-Stoic. LOL How the Jesus the mini-Stoic story was later evolved into a leading organised religion with a lot of miracles and unexplained addendums would be entirely another long long story that may be completely beyond Jesus' expectations. :
Naturally the Biblical Gospels can be dismissed as a work of the imagination of those who came centuries(?) later than the historical Jesus. The writings of Paul are the most authentic we have from a time within a century of the time of the historical Jesus. Josephus was later, and sadly, none of his original brief mention of the crucifixion of Jesus survives; all we have are copies, We assume Josephus was using official Roman documents as his source, but he could have been relying on hearsay. (Don't forget to spell crucifixion with an "x". If you spell it with a "ct" it becomes cruci-fiction. Paul seems to have been an opportunist, somewhat equivalent to the TV evangelists we have today --think Joel Osteen. Paul knew Jesus's brother James. That, to me, is a better and more reliable indication that there really was an historical Jesus than is the Josephus account of the crucifixion.. Curiously, Jesus was not the Founder of Christianity, but rather Paul and James, jointly. They both were demagogues, but Paul was the more practical. Paul and James seemed to have had a falling out over whether adult males had to be circumcised to join their cult. Naturally most adults were not enthusiastic. It hurt like the dickens and you could die from infection. Paul realized that circumcision was going to be a downer and its lack of appeal would limit the number of followers of the new Christ cult, so Paul said, "fuck it,"you can keep your foreskin and still be a Christian." But James, who was already circumcised and had survived it, said, "No Way, Man". Thus the two, Paul and James, parted company over foreskin. Paul, understandably, succeeded in promotion of the Jesus myth more than James. Today, with anesthesia and antibiotics, James might have had a better chance. After Paul got the Christ myth up and running --people would believe anything in those days-- others, like Popes and whatnot, took over the thriving enterprise. After some interruptions for stretching on the rack, cutting out of tongues, etc., Christianity eventually became both a fashionable and profitable business venture. Today the Christian Business manages to rake in Billions worldwide.