Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by Tart]

This help establish the historicity of the Book of Acts... That why Wikipedia is quoted saying:

"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

The only commonality between Acts of the Apostles and Delphi is the mention of a one Proconsul Gallio.
Delphi does NOT do as you say it does "archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials", because Delphi does NOT mention the trial of Paul.
Again, if I take your high school yearbook, find mention of you, can I say that your high school yearbook is archaeological evidence supporting your work as legal counsel for Microsoft, as mentioned in a biography of you written by a friend (pretending for sake of argument that that is your job)?
What Delphi does is support the existence of Proconsul Gallio. What it does NOT do, to say again, is support the trial of Paul.
If you want to say we have archaeological evidence for the existence of Gallio, fine. I will not disagree with that. But why do you persist in saying Delphi does what it in fact does not do?
Your high school yearbook would help me establish the years where you couldn't have worked for Microsoft as legal counsel, since it would mention which years you were in school, but it wouldn't support the claim that you worked on the famous anti-trust case in 1998 because it wouldn't mention it.
All Delphi can do with regards to Paul is establish when and where Gallio was.

You are the one who keeps bringing this particular piece of evidence up

Au contraire, I have never once in my life mentioned Delphi or talked about it without you mentioning it first, sir. Think about it...why would I the atheist, mention it first?

Ok here is a quote from a reference other then myself...
"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

You've already quoted this to me. You're reading into it what you want to see, rather than what it actually says.
It provides a marker for the life of Paul, yes. I've already told you that I won't disagree with you on this.
However, when it says "relating it to the trial", it is not saying that the inscription is the thing being related, but the life of Paul.
As I've already explained, with an analogy even, the Delphi Inscription is not supporting evidence for the trial of Paul.

I will now ask you this. Please answer yes or no.
If you mention Delphi in the future, are you going to describe it as supporting evidence for the trial of Paul?

I will also ask you this. Please answer yes or no.
If I point to your high school yearbook, can that be used as suppporting evidence of a career you had after school?

[Goose]

Save your posturing for someone else.

Its not posturing to point out a statement is false and that an opponent has shifted the argument after the statement was shown false.

Then I won't have to waste my time condescending to you, and we can actually talk about the issue itself.

Or you could just not waste your time typing the patronizing rhetoric in the first place and just talk about the issue itself.

Since it was your error, I have no choice but to point out that it was your error. I'm sorry. I'm a rationalist.

You wrote the statement: But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world " says nothing about that physical life.

This above argument was shown false. Then the argument changes in order to salvage the argument.

But somehow its my error.

Okey-dokey.

Ummm...Yes. What other Jesus would it be? It was the ancient Jesus whom Paul claimed not to have learned about from other men, but from something like 'spirit visits'.

Why would Paul not have learned about Jesus from other men if A) he didn't know Jesus in Jerusalem and B) he considered Jesus his lord and savior?

He even claims to have visited with 'the disciples' in Jerusalem. Yet he says he didn't learn about Jesus from them. Don't you find that curious?

What gives you the idea Paul didnt learn about Jesus from the boys in Jerusalem? Surely the topic of the life of Jesus came up when he visited Peter for two weeks.

Paul says he received his Gospel not from man but a revelation of Jesus (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul then says after three years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter for fifteen days and also saw James, the Lords brother (Galatians 2:18-19). Paul then went again fourteen years later to vet his Gospel through the boys in Jerusalem (2:1-2). Nothing was added to Pauls Gospel by them (2:6). Paul was given the right hand of fellowship by James, Peter, and John and commissioned to the Gentiles (2:9). Whats the problem here? Paul received his Gospel from Jesus, vetted it through the boys in Jerusalem. Which, incidentally, is where he most likely picked up details about Jesus life.

Yes. Paul's silence about a contemporary Jesus, among a whole bunch of other stuff.

What do you mean silence about a contemporary Jesus? And how does that falsify the inference that Paul lived at the time of Jesus? Whats this whole bunch of other stuff?

Are you the one who thinks that Paul both lived and didn't live at the same time as Jesus?

Nope, not me. I argue that Paul lived during the lifetime of Jesus or Jesus lived during the lifetime of Paul. It can be stated either way.

Or is it someone else who thinks that?

Well you specifically argued, But Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul. That's what I'm trying to argue with you."

Ive asked you to go ahead and support that argument.

I was mistaken to think that you were ready to follow an advanced discussion of the Historical Jesus.

Oh boy. Enough with the condescending rhetoric already. Just make the arguments.

But now I am adjusting myself to you.

Well now that youve finished making those adjustments can you make an argument?

And I was forgetful... about the hostility many Christians feel against anyone who questions the historicity of Jesus.

You are projecting here. Im hoping you will also remember that arguing an opponents statement is false is not being hostile.

Oh, and as a side note. There are atheists who get hostile with those who reject the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey come to mind.

So forgive me and let's move on?

Whenever you are ready.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 63 by Tart]

This help establish the historicity of the Book of Acts... That why Wikipedia is quoted saying:

"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

The only commonality between Acts of the Apostles and Delphi is the mention of a one Proconsul Gallio.
Delphi does NOT do as you say it does "archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials", because Delphi does NOT mention the trial of Paul.
Again, if I take your high school yearbook, find mention of you, can I say that your high school yearbook is archaeological evidence supporting your work as legal counsel for Microsoft, as mentioned in a biography of you written by a friend (pretending for sake of argument that that is your job)?
What Delphi does is support the existence of Proconsul Gallio. What it does NOT do, to say again, is support the trial of Paul.
If you want to say we have archaeological evidence for the existence of Gallio, fine. I will not disagree with that. But why do you persist in saying Delphi does what it in fact does not do?
Your high school yearbook would help me establish the years where you couldn't have worked for Microsoft as legal counsel, since it would mention which years you were in school, but it wouldn't support the claim that you worked on the famous anti-trust case in 1998 because it wouldn't mention it.
All Delphi can do with regards to Paul is establish when and where Gallio was.

You are the one who keeps bringing this particular piece of evidence up

Au contraire, I have never once in my life mentioned Delphi or talked about it without you mentioning it first, sir. Think about it...why would I the atheist, mention it first?

Ok here is a quote from a reference other then myself...
"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

You've already quoted this to me. You're reading into it what you want to see, rather than what it actually says.
It provides a marker for the life of Paul, yes. I've already told you that I won't disagree with you on this.
However, when it says "relating it to the trial", it is not saying that the inscription is the thing being related, but the life of Paul.
As I've already explained, with an analogy even, the Delphi Inscription is not supporting evidence for the trial of Paul.

I will now ask you this. Please answer yes or no.
If you mention Delphi in the future, are you going to describe it as supporting evidence for the trial of Paul?

I will also ask you this. Please answer yes or no.
If I point to your high school yearbook, can that be used as suppporting evidence of a career you had after school?

First question... Yes... This is archaeological evidence backing the Book of Acts... Period... The evidence confirms that Paul's trial was with a guy that actually existed... It helps establish the historicity of Acts, and there is no reason to suggest this trial didnt happen....

And that is really the point... This conversation is happening because you would like to discredit the evidence where possible...

Do you believe Paul had a trial with Gallio, or not?

Your second question isnt equivalent to the evidence....

[Tart]

Here is the passage... I have added Boldness where this evidence backs up the historicity of the passage... This is evdience in support of the passage... Period...

12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. 13 This man, they charged, is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.

14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law"settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things. 16 So he drove them off. 17 Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever.

[Jubal]

Lets look at the first ten in the list.

1. Philo " granted.

2. Justus of Tiberius " none of his works have survived so we dont know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

...

10. Juvenal " was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

This page has more details on those early writers, and others besides :
http://kapyong.net/EarlyWriters.html

Jubal

[RedEye]

Well, thats fine but Jesus is the Truth... So... Ya...

This is what is called a thought-terminating cliche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-t ... lich%C3%A9

Religions teach the use of such phrases as part of the brainwashing they instill in their adherents.

[RedEye]

For now, I will leave out the extra-biblical sources, while there are many of them and as i said before, I havent found a single source from antiquity supporting Jesus as myth or fictional, and in fact scholars agree there is no sources from antiquity that suggest Jesus didnt exist...

That's just not true if we are talking about a historical human Jesus.

Marcionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Also, I give you the writings of a Christian bishop late in the 2nd century, Theophilus of Antioch. (Acts tell us the this was where the term "Christian" originated).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html

When telling us how Christians got their name this is what he says:

• And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first anointed? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

No mention of a Jesus Christ. In fact if you read all three of his books you will not find a single mention of Jesus! How would you go about explaining this?

I mean we even have sources that were extremely anti-Christianity, from various Romans, that laid out cases in entire books of why they didnt believe in Christianity, and they all confess and suggest Jesus really existed...

Confess? I don't think so. Most were just reporting on what Christians believed. The problem is that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans around 70CE. All the Jews were driven out and banished permanently. By the time these stories began circulating to a wider audience in the late 2nd century, there was no-one around alive to dispute that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the early part of the 1st century (which is probably why the main part of the story was set there). I put it to you that even if there had been vocal critiques of the existence of such a man, their writings would have been destroyed once the Roman Catholic Church started up. They destroyed everything which didn't suit their agenda including priceless ancient Greek literature. The destruction of the library at Alexandria is just one example. This kind of thing happened right across the Empire.

However, for now let look at our best evidence, the Bible itself and its reliability, where these stories originated...

Unfortunately the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Lets start with what everyone agrees on.. As far as we know, everyone agrees to certain things, like Paul existing, and Paul writing much of the New testament, with his ltters (Epistles)... Im not sure if you know of Dr. Carrier, or Dr. Price, but the biggest critics of a historical Jesus all confess these things, that Paul existed, and that Paul wrote His Epistles attributed to him.. And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts... Everyone agrees... (also as far as iv seen, the biggest critics dont even contest suggesting Paul having ill intentions, or alternative motives, we have much evidence supporting that Paul having genuine beliefs)

Well, someone wrote the authentic Pauline epistles. That is true. Undoubtedly he believed what he was writing. That is also true. So what? Unfortunately he tells us almost nothing about a historical human Jesus (and I am prepared to think that the one or two things he does say are probably later interpolations). He also displays zero knowledge about any teachings of this Jesus nor a single one of his alleged miracles. How does this help you?

Well we also have Paul mentioning the Disciples.

No. As explained in my other post. He mentions apostles, not disciples. Paul tells us nothing about what these people knew in relation to Jesus. Therefore the fact that these apostles (who seemed to advocate strict Judaism) existed proves nothing. The author of Mark later incorporated these people as disciples into his fictional account of the life story of Jesus. So what?

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels... Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

Religious claims are not evidence of anything.

Everything we can verify is historical... All the places mentioned in the Gospels are real places, and many of the events in the Gospels has other supporting evidence as well.

No. Many of the places (eg. Nazareth) have no evidence of existing in the early first century. That was a bit of mischief from the author of Matthew who was confused about what a Nazarene was. Another example is the ridiculous Roman census where everyone has to return to their home town to be counted. This is an absurdity. It never happened. The portrayal of Pilate as a weak and indecisive governor is also totally at odds with the secular record. There are plenty of examples like this. The Bible cannot be trusted at all. Regardless, the fact that a few historical details are thrown in does not magically convert the NT into a historical work. Fact and fiction can be mixed. Is the fact that the Harry Potter books mention London and other place names in the real world evidence that the Harry Potter universe exists?

The crucifixion of Jesus is talked in tons of sources, both biblical and non biblical, as well as the resurrection and trial of Jesus (both biblical and non-biblical sources)..

Citations for non-biblical sources please.

I mean, how would we even begin to dissociate Jesus from the magnitude of evidence, and make sense he is fictional? I mean, what other fictional stories, if any, has this kind of evidence in them, but turns out is based on fiction?

What evidence? All you have presented is religious claims.

Likewise the people like, Paul, Peter, John, James, Stephan, all mentioned in the Book of Acts, and also having etra-biblical sources mentioning the death of many of these men, the martyrdom.

Extra-biblical, yes. Non-religious, no. All those sources cannot be trusted to be unbiased.

And the church then continued to spread, from the first century onward, to real histocial people who knew the first Disciples, who knew Jesus... Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Scillitan Martyrs, Perpetua and Felicity, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, Pope Fabian, Saint Sebastian, etc... All of which are support to having existed historically and knowing the first Disciples.

You are still just giving us religious claims from religious sources. Nothing which constitutes acceptable evidence.

How would any of you make sense of the evidence, while supporting that notion that Jesus didnt exist? I dont even know how it would be possible to support such an idea.. Do you?

Ask yourself how members of Scientology (or even Mormonism) support the ideas they do. It is quite easy to believe in things that are claimed without the evidence to back them up. You think that about Muslims, don't you?

[Goose]

Lets look at the first ten in the list.

1. Philo " granted.

2. Justus of Tiberius " none of his works have survived so we dont know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

...

10. Juvenal " was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

This page has more details on those early writers, and others besides :
http://kapyong.net/EarlyWriters.html

Jubal

It's basically the same list.

[Goose]

...there are numerous contemporary or near-contemporary historians or non-religious writers who we would have expected to record some mention of Jesus but fail to do so. This link explains them all:

Lets look at the first ten in the list.

1. Philo " granted.

2. Justus of Tiberius " none of his works have survived so we dont know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

3. Plutarch " did not write about first century Judean affairs. In fact, Plutarch doesnt even mention Christianity at all, let alone its founder Jesus, in his writings. I guess Christianity didnt exist in the first century either.

4. Pliny the Elder " did not write about the affairs of first century Judea.

5. Seneca the elder " died in 39 AD so the timeline here is quite thin to say the least. But regardless Senecas historical work is lost. It was apparently a Roman history anyway so once again we have no reason to think he would have reported on the affairs of first century Judea.

6. Seneca the Younger " did not write historical works let alone anything relating to the affairs of first century Judea.

7. Damis " grasping at straws here. Its also ironic Damis silence on Jesus is appealed to since some scholars dispute the existence of Damis himself. All we know of Damis is what comes to us from Philostratus writing over a hundred years later. In any case, Damis didnt report on the affairs of first century Judea. If he wrote anything at all it was about Apollonius of Tyana.

8. Apollonius of Tyana " Well this is another interesting example to use as a source that did not mention Jesus. The first source to mention Apollonius in any detail is Philostratus writing over a hundred years after Apollonius.

9. Lucius Flavius Philostratus - didnt write about first century Judea.

10. Juvenal " was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

Do we see a trend yet?

The list goes on to cite numerous authors who either:

1. did not write about the affairs of first century Judea at all or;
2. if they might have written about the affairs of first century Judea their works are no longer extant.

The article itself quotes Richard Carrier as saying:

And though several historians wrote on Judaean affairs in the early 1st century (not just Josephus and Tacitus, but several others no longer extant), none apparently mentioned Jesus (see the Secular Web library on Historicity). " Richard Carrier.

Once again we are back to the fact I mentioned earlier. The only sources we have that wrote much at all about first century Judea are Philo, Tacitus, and Josephus. The last two of which mention Jesus.

Worth mentioning in regards to the above link is painfully obvious double standard being employed. In the first ten people listed the article appeals to two people, Damis and Apollonius, as sources who did not mention Jesus. The irony of course is that the existence of these two characters is just as questionable if not more so than that of Jesus. Two characters from history that have less and weaker evidence for their existence than Jesus himself. Damis and Apollonius existed, but Jesus on the other hand...

That is the standard Christian apologetic, but is it credible? No. He had ample opportunity to talk to people who would have known Jesus (including his parents).

Why isnt it credible to say Paul was writing letters and not a biography so we have no reason to expect him to write every detail about Jesus? You dont likewise expect Cicero to write every detail about Caesars life when Cicero mentions Caesar in a letter to Atticus do you? Of course not. Why not though?

That he mentions almost nothing about the personal life of Jesus might just be excusable, but no teachings and no miracles ?

Communion (1 Corinthians 11:23) and Jesus' resurrection (numerous citations in Paul's letters).

There is a good reason why Paul doesn't do this. It's because his Jesus is a celestial figure and not a human being.

who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh " Romans 1.

How do we know this? Because of Marcionism which featured the Pauline epistles and an edited version of Luke (with the human aspect of Jesus omitted). Marcion rejected Jesus as a Jewish Messiah and had him as a spiritual entity with only the appearance of human form.

You know because of Marcion? Okay what about the other church fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius who knew Paul and his letters and affirmed Jesus historicity? That gives us more evidence for Jesus if you can appeal to Marcions interpretation.

Paul never talks about disciples. He uses the word "apostle" which has a different meaning.

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother. " Galatians 1.

Cephas - Peter - and James, the Lords brother.

1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem... 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship " Galatians 2

Peter, James, and John.

Paul also mentions knwoing James, who is Jesus brother "I saw none of the other apostles"only James, the Lords brother."~Paul

Yes, that's one of the two or three personal details about Jesus that I will grant you. It's not much is it?

It doesnt need to be much. That detail alone, one you concede, is enough to sink the whole Jesus-myther position.

If Jesus had a brother how can you then go on to argue Jesus did not exist?

As to your question, name one historical figure from antiquity for which there are multiple accounts with ever-growing levels of details built on top of the previous accounts. Go ahead. (I can give you plenty of examples of myths which have grown like this).

Alexander the Great.

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Ask yourself why it would be necessary to plagiarize from the Septuagint in a story about a real live Jesus.

First off, that link lists numerous passages that are direct quotes from the OT where the Gospel author directly attributes the passage in question to the prophets. So these verses in particular cant be argued as a case of plagiarism. For example, the very first one regarding Matthew 1:23 is a direct quote from Isaiah 7:14 and is attributed by Matthew to the prophet (Matthew 1:22). You need to narrow the list down to instances that support the idea, The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. Then we can look at whether that is the case or not.

Bumping for Redeye, in case he missed this post.

[Jubal]

Hiyas,

1. Philo " granted.

That's it ?
When it goes against you - you give the minimum of a single word ?
Philo is strong evidence against a historical Jesus.
He wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history. Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul, he visited Jerusalem and had family there, he developed the concept of the Logos and the Holy Spirit, he was considered a Christian by some later Christians, he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues, including critical commentary on Pilate.

2. Justus of Tiberius " none of his works have survived so we dont know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

Nope.
We DO know what he said because we have a review of his works, as you noted. If "we don't know what he did or didn't say" - then what is "the argument" ?

3. Plutarch " did not write about first century Judean affairs. In fact, Plutarch doesnt even mention Christianity at all, let alone its founder Jesus, in his writings. I guess Christianity didnt exist in the first century either.

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120. Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus, Plutarch wrote on oracles (prophesies), Plutarch wrote on moral, spiritual and religious issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus. He didn't. Writers like this mention all sorts of persons, events, places, beliefs etc. that are not strictly limited to the specific subject. Your argument is not valid. Consider this example from Pausanias, who wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century. (That is not a book about Judaean affairs is it ?)

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of thousand names are mentioned - a large number of minor figures from within and without Greece. He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown : "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

A minor unknown prophetess from Palestine !
Mentioned in a book called "Guide to Greece". This clearly shows your objection is not valid. Jesus could easily have been mentioned in this book, and many others - some much more relevant.

4. Pliny the Elder " did not write about the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.70CE following on from Bassus (from 31 CE) Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions hundreds of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.) It is quite likely for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events - if they had happened.

6. Seneca the Younger " did not write historical works let alone anything relating to the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome. He wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings. He wrote a large work On Superstition between 40 and 62 CE that covered all the sects and cults of Rome. In fact, early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they forged letters between him and Paul. How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising void in Seneca's writings ?

10. Juvenal " was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Lucian, another Roman poet DID mention Christians (as gullible fools), along with many other persons and events, like Juvenal, or e.g. Martial :

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century - a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
Stoic suffering of discomfort and death, virgin's blood, Roman funerary practices, the way accused men look in court, Roman soldiers mocking their leaders, anointing the body with oil, Molorchus the good shepherd, Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise, the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter etc.

Another good example from a direct contemporary of the alleged Jesus Christ :
Gaius Petronius Arbiter or Titus Petronius wrote a large novel in Rome (a bawdy drama) the Satyricon c.60. Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including a crucifixion !
And a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen, a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision, gods such as Bacchus and Ceres, writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus, books such as the Iliad, Romans such as Cato and Pompey, people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus, female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers, baths, shipwrecks, meals...
This large work, covers many topics, including topics related to the Jesus e.g. a crucifixion, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly.

Do we see a trend yet?

Yes.
We see you incorrectly dismissing any work that is not a history of Judea.
An objection which is entirely invalid - as proved by the examples given - which show mention of wide-ranging topics from a crucifixion, to body stealing, to a minor prophetess from Palestine.

Jubal