The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

Almost certainly he did not. Philo died in 50 CE. Too early for such works.

Maybe. I still think it's possible that he may have mentioned Jesus in his book about Pilate and that he might not have thought very highly of him.

Of course this is pure speculation and unless someone digs up a copy of the complete works of Philo we will never know.

I still hold out hope that the Pompei library might contain something interesting if they ever manage to read it all.

http://time.com/3674934/scrolls-pompeii-science/

...In the famous eruption, they were burned black by a blast of hot gas and had been thought to be indecipherable, since any attempt to unroll the brittle scrolls would destroy them.

But thanks to the new, advanced imaging technology, scientists in Naples, Italy have begun to decipher the first lines of two scrolls. CNET reports that the X-rays are so powerful that researchers analyzed the handwriting to determine the author of one of the scrolls, Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. These scrolls are just a small piece of what is thought to be still buried in the library of the Herculaneum villa, and this breakthrough could lead to the rediscovery of many long-lost texts by Rome and Greece’s most famous philosophers, according to the NYT...

Or maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist...

 

[dejudge]

I'm not so sure about that. These Christian Apologists only ever seem to address arguments that they think they can refute easily. It would be a lot harder for them to refute someone like Philo if he claimed to have personal contact with those "Pillars" of the early church. Philo knew enough about the state of the Jewish religion to put up some sophisticated rebuttals to the early Christians, if he wanted to.

Why would Philo need to make arguments against obvious ridiculous non-historical accounts that Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, born of a Ghost and a Virgin who Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended to heaven in a cloud?

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Paul's Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks.

1 Corinthians 1:23---But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

The Pauline Corpus was already known as foolishness by the Greeks since the time of Philo of Alexandria if it is argued that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

About 300 years later it was also admitted that the story of Jesus was fiction, foolishness and childish by Julian.

Hierocles and Macarius Margnes admitted writings under the name of Paul and Peter were written by men who were LIARS.

Church writers documented those negative claims.

Of course I don't know if he actually did that, because the books where any such arguments would have been written no longer exist.

Well, it was expected that you would make stuff up. You really have no evidence from antiquity to support the HJ argument except the Christian Bible which was used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Writers of antiquity who used the Christian Bible ARGUED AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] and argued that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

It is intellectually dishonest to use the same Christian Bible to argue that Jesus of Nazareth had a human father when the NT specifically DENIES such an account.

Jesus is God of God who became Incarnate by the Holy Ghost and a Virgin in the Christian Bible.

 

[Brainache]

Why would Philo need to make arguments against obvious ridiculous non-historical accounts that Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, born of a Ghost and a Virgin who Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended to heaven in a cloud?

He wouldn't. He might have written about a certain preacher who said foolish things and was killed by the Romans for sedition. If he wrote about it as a witness, later Church authorities might have found it easier to erase his works than to refute them.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Paul's Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks.

1 Corinthians 1:23---But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

The Pauline Corpus was already known as foolishness by the Greeks since the time of Philo of Alexandria if it is argued that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

And? So what? Are you saying that because it was foolish to Greeks that Philo didn't say anything about it?

About 300 years later it was also admitted that the story of Jesus was fiction, foolishness and childish by Julian.

Hierocles and Macarius Margnes admitted writings under the name of Paul and Peter were written by men who were LIARS.

Church writers documented those negative claims.

That doesn't mean that they documented every single negative account.

Well, it was expected that you would make stuff up. You really have no evidence from antiquity to support the HJ argument except the Christian Bible which was used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Writers of antiquity who used the Christian Bible ARGUED AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] and argued that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

It is intellectually dishonest to use the same Christian Bible to argue that Jesus of Nazareth had a human father when the NT specifically DENIES such an account.

Jesus is God of God who became Incarnate by the Holy Ghost and a Virgin in the Christian Bible.

The bible contains several different conflicting stories about Jesus. Please stop claiming that it is just one unified source, it obviously isn't.

 

[dejudge]

Why would Philo need to make arguments against obvious ridiculous non-historical accounts that Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, born of a Ghost and a Virgin who Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended to heaven in a cloud?

He wouldn't.

Your speculation is worthless.

He might have written about a certain preacher who said foolish things and was killed by the Romans for sedition. If he wrote about it as a witness, later Church authorities might have found it easier to erase his works than to refute them.

Your speculation is worthless. You just made up that story.

The Pauline Corpus was already known as foolishness by the Greeks since the time of Philo of Alexandria if it is argued that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

And? So what? Are you saying that because it was foolish to Greeks that Philo didn't say anything about it?

I said that the Pauline Corpus was already known as foolishness by the Greeks since the time of Philo of Alexandria if it is argued that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

About 300 years later it was also admitted that the story of Jesus was fiction, foolishness and childish by Julian.

Hierocles and Macarius Margnes admitted writings under the name of Paul and Peter were written by men who were LIARS.

Church writers documented those negative claims.

That doesn't mean that they documented every single negative account.

That means the writings attributed to Philo does not help the HJ argument.

The bible contains several different conflicting stories about Jesus. Please stop claiming that it is just one unified source, it obviously isn't.

Well, you still display intellectual dishonesty. I never claimed that the Christian Bible is one unified source.

You rely on the Christian Bible for the history of your Jesus even though you admit it contains several conflicting stories about Jesus and it is not a unitary source.

Tell us which conflicting story of Jesus you employ?

1. The author of gMark claims Jesus the son of the blessed was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who was raised from the dead.

2. The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus the son of God was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who was raised from the dead and then commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

3. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus the Son of God was a Resurrecting Transfigurer who commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel BEFORE he ascended in a cloud.

4. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was GOD who walked on water for miles.

5. The unknown author of Pauline Corpus claimed Jesus was the LORD GOD from heaven, God's own Son who was raised from the dead and commissioned him to preach to the uncircumcision.

 

[Brainache]

Your speculation is worthless.



Your speculation is worthless. You just made up that story.





I said that the Pauline Corpus was already known as foolishness by the Greeks since the time of Philo of Alexandria if it is argued that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

So what? I think it's still foolish to claim that Jesus was a god who was crucified and rose from the dead.

That means the writings attributed to Philo does not help the HJ argument.

They also don't help the MJ argument. Plus we don't have all of Philo's writings. Max pointed out that we don't have copies of what Philo wrote concerning Pilate's rule in Judea. We don't know what he wrote about Jesus, if he mentioned him at all.

 

[Brainache]

...
Well, you still display intellectual dishonesty. I never claimed that the Christian Bible is one unified source.

You rely on the Christian Bible for the history of your Jesus even though you admit it contains several conflicting stories about Jesus and it is not a unitary source.

Tell us which conflicting story of Jesus you employ?

1. The author of gMark claims Jesus the son of the blessed was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who was raised from the dead.

2. The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus the son of God was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who was raised from the dead and then commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

3. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus the Son of God was a Resurrecting Transfigurer who commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel BEFORE he ascended in a cloud.

4. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was GOD who walked on water for miles.

5. The unknown author of Pauline Corpus claimed Jesus was the LORD GOD from heaven, God's own Son who was raised from the dead and commissioned him to preach to the uncircumcision.

If you took the time to actually try to understand the HJ arguments, you wouldn't waste so much time and effort on useless rubbish responses like this.

 

[dejudge]

If you took the time to actually try to understand the HJ arguments, you wouldn't waste so much time and effort on useless rubbish responses like this.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. You have no credible or contemporary historical data for your HJ argument.

Your HJ argument is also void of logic.

I understand that you admit that Paul was a Liar and con-man but still use the Pauline Corpus as a credible historical source for the HJ argument without external corroboration.

I understand that the Pauline Jesus was the Lord God.

In the Pauline Corpus and writings of the NT Jesus the Christ had the very same NOMINA SACRA as the God of the Jews.

I understand that the NT is the MAIN SOURCE for the HJ argument.

The NT was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] by Christians writers of antiquity.

Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Jerome, Eusebius, Sulpitius Severus, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Optatus, Rufinus, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus describe Jesus as the Son of God without a human father.

 

[dejudge]

So what? I think it's still foolish to claim that Jesus was a god who was crucified and rose from the dead.

I know.

That is why you admit Paul was a Liar and con-man??

That is why you fabricate your own story of Jesus??

Who was the father of your Jesus?

When did your Jesus die??

You can't remember your own story!!!

That means the writings attributed to Philo does not help the HJ argument.

They also don't help the MJ argument. Plus we don't have all of Philo's writings. Max pointed out that we don't have copies of what Philo wrote concerning Pilate's rule in Judea. We don't know what he wrote about Jesus, if he mentioned him at all.

What nonsense!!! Ghost stories of Jesus support mythology and fiction.

Jesus and Romulus were both of the same Ghost substance--myth and fiction.

I know what the Pauline Corpus states about Jesus, the Lord GOD from heaven.

I KNOW what gMatthew and gLuke state about Jesus the Holy Ghost child.

I know what gJohn states about Jesus God Creator.

I know what gMark states about Jesus the Transfiguring WATER walker.

Nobody said anything about Jesus of Nazareth with a human father.

Please, just go and get familiar with manuscripts of antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth [the LORD GOD] was FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. You have no credible or contemporary historical data for your HJ argument.

Your HJ argument is also void of logic.

I understand that you admit that Paul was a Liar and con-man but still use the Pauline Corpus as a credible historical source for the HJ argument without external corroboration.

I understand that the Pauline Jesus was the Lord God.

In the Pauline Corpus and writings of the NT Jesus the Christ had the very same NOMINA SACRA as the God of the Jews.

I understand that the NT is the MAIN SOURCE for the HJ argument.

The NT was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] by Christians writers of antiquity.

Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Jerome, Eusebius, Sulpitius Severus, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Optatus, Rufinus, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus describe Jesus as the Son of God without a human father.

I know.

That is why you admit Paul was a Liar and con-man??

That is why you fabricate your own story of Jesus??

Who was the father of your Jesus?

When did your Jesus die??

You can't remember your own story!!!






What nonsense!!! Ghost stories of Jesus support mythology and fiction.

Jesus and Romulus were both of the same Ghost substance--myth and fiction.

I know what the Pauline Corpus states about Jesus, the Lord GOD from heaven.

I KNOW what gMatthew and gLuke state about Jesus the Holy Ghost child.

I know what gJohn states about Jesus God Creator.

I know what gMark states about Jesus the Transfiguring WATER walker.

Nobody said anything about Jesus of Nazareth with a human father.

Please, just go and get familiar with manuscripts of antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth [the LORD GOD] was FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later.

Well since I don't believe god exists, I don't accept the idea that Jesus was god.

I believe that stories of Jesus existed since the first century. It seems logical to assume that Jesus was a man, because god doesn't exist.

The title "Christ" is a title applied in those days to human beings, not gods.

Pliny spoke of Christians who had left the religion in the 80s CE.

None of your objections amount to a useful argument against the HJ. You can repeat them another thousand times if you like, they will still be useless rubbish.

 

[maximara]

This Pliny and Trajan stuff came up because Max said that Christianity didn't really get going until after the Bar Kokhba revolt (ca 130 CE). Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan about 20 years before that and mentioned ex-Christians who said they left the group 20 years earlier. So the point was that Christianity had already spread a long way 40 years before Bar Kokhba.

And John Frum movement supposedly started in the 1910s some 30 years before any outsider recorded it. The Luddites claimed their movement had been around for 40 years.

As I said before there were no shortage of would be messiahs who likely took up the title of christ bouncing around. It is unlikely Romans paid that much attention to the difference and so lumped followers of any 'christ' into one mammoth pile.

 

[maximara]

It is, however, evidence for the existence of a "Christ" movement for upwards of twenty five years prior to 111 CE, whose adherents had elevated the messiah to the status of a god.

No there isn't as has been explained before.

"Note that Pliny's hesitant phrase 'as if to a God' (quasi deo) could reflect his response to the exoteric myth (if his Christian informants were simply repeating the Gospels in which Jesus allegorically presented as a historical man) or the esoteric one (Jesus then being confusingly explained to him as a celestial archangel or demigod they pray to, but not exactly to 'God'). It could also be a textual corruption, as there is some external evidence Pliny may have originally written Christo et Deo, 'to Christ and God' or Christo ut Deo 'to Christ as God' See Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man pg 640" "

The idea possible textual corruption is demonstrated in Tertullian who refence to this passage says ad canendum Christo ut deo. It should be also be noted that the actual phrase quasi deo is sometimes translated as 'as to a God' so Carrier isn't talk off his head here

S. Carroll, ‘A Preliminary Analysis of the Epistle to Rehoboam’, Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, 4 (1989), pp. 91-10 talks about how Jews of the 1st century likely prayed to angels as well to god.

Given how both numen and genius loci were applied to the Emperor (ie a 'god', a divine presence, and a guardian spirit) and Roman attitude I strongly doubt Pliny took the time to find out if the Christians were actually praying to Jesus as a numen deus (ie on par with Zeus), a general numen (a divine presence or on par with how angels and saints work in modern Christianity), or a genius loci (akin to a guardian angel in modern Christianity)

So with Pliny we have translation issues (is quasi deo 'as to a god' or 'as if to a god'?), possible transcription issues (did Pliny write quasi deo or some other similar to different phrase such as Christo et Deo?), and the possibly Pliny misunderstood what the Christians and-or Tacitus was telling him (would Pliny know the difference between god, an archangel, and a demigod whose prayers were being offered to?)

 

[Craig B]

So with Pliny we have translation issues (is quasi deo 'as to a god' or 'as if to a god'?), possible transcription issues (did Pliny write quasi deo or some other similar to different phrase such as Christo et Deo?), and the possibly Pliny misunderstood what the Christians and-or Tacitus was telling him (would Pliny know the difference between god, an archangel, and a demigod whose prayers were being offered to?)

This, and the rest of your post, is entirely baseless. Pliny knew what a god was, and he knew what a christ was. His uncle had even studied and published on the topic of Jewish sects. But in any case, so what, even if what you say is true? Christians, and they alone, worship the Messiah as a god. That's what Pliny says, and it's true now, so it was almost certainly true then.

But none of this affects the observation that unless Pliny was being misled by his informants, his testimony indicates that the sect he was investigating was already in existence by the 80s CE.

 

[dejudge]

Well since I don't believe god exists, I don't accept the idea that Jesus was god.

We are not really interested in what you believe since you cannot ever present the contemporary historical evidence to support your belief.

Christians writers of antiquity actually believed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and that he was God Creator without evidence.

I believe that stories of Jesus existed since the first century.

Please tell your beliefs to the Church. This thread was not initiated for belief but for evidence from antiquity.

It seems logical to assume that Jesus was a man, because god doesn't exist.

What??? Assumptions are illogical and without evidence. Do you assume Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel were men??

Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem and the Angel Gabriel was in conversation with Mary in Galilee.

The title "Christ" is a title applied in those days to human beings, not gods.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The title "Christ" [the Anointed] would not be applied to your HJ [an obscure criminal/preacher/ sage/unknown character]

Your HJ was not PHYSICALLY ANOINTED as a King of the Jews or an High Priest.

Pliny spoke of Christians who had left the religion in the 80s CE.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You very well know that in "Against Heresies" there were Christians who did NOT BELIEVE the stories of Jesus and claimed Jesus was not born or that Christ was an heavenly being.

None of your objections amount to a useful argument against the HJ. You can repeat them another thousand times if you like, they will still be useless rubbish.

You have acheived nothing. You only display intellectual dishonesty a "thousand" times.

You use the same Christian Bible which was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Christians of antiquity used the NT to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] and stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost, was God and the LORD from heaven and an ascending, resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker.

You use the same NT as a source of history in a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty while admiting Paul was a Liar and conman.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument--based on admitted discredited sources.

 

[Brainache]

We are not really interested in what you believe since you cannot ever present the contemporary historical evidence to support your belief.

Christians writers of antiquity actually believed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and that he was God Creator without evidence.




Please tell your beliefs to the Church. This thread was not initiated for belief but for evidence from antiquity.



What??? Assumptions are illogical and without evidence. Do you assume Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel were men??

Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem and the Angel Gabriel was in conversation with Mary in Galilee.



Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The title "Christ" [the Anointed] would not be applied to your HJ [an obscure criminal/preacher/ sage/unknown character]

Your HJ was not PHYSICALLY ANOINTED as a King of the Jews or an High Priest.




Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You very well know that in "Against Heresies" there were Christians who did NOT BELIEVE the stories of Jesus and claimed Jesus was not born or that Christ was an heavenly being.



You have acheived nothing. You only display intellectual dishonesty a "thousand" times.

You use the same Christian Bible which was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Christians of antiquity used the NT to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] and stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost, was God and the LORD from heaven and an ascending, resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker.

You use the same NT as a source of history in a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty while admiting Paul was a Liar and conman.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument--based on admitted discredited sources.

Keep making these posts. They are literally the worst arguments I've seen since I left the CT forum. Anyone who could be convinced by this gibberish needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

 

[dejudge]

Christians, and they alone, worship the Messiah as a god.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

We have "Against Heretics" attributed to Irenaeus, and "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

There were People of antiquity called Christians who did not worship an earthly Messiah as a God and did not accept the Jesus story.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[dejudge]

You have acheived nothing. You only display intellectual dishonesty a "thousand" times.

You use the same Christian Bible which was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Christians of antiquity used the NT to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] and stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost, was God and the LORD from heaven and an ascending, resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker.

You use the same NT as a source of history in a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty while admiting Paul was a Liar and conman.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument--based on admitted discredited sources.

Keep making these posts. They are literally the worst arguments I've seen since I left the CT forum. Anyone who could be convinced by this gibberish needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

You have wasted all your time with your logically fallacious arguments.

The HJ argument is dead.

You have nothing.


The Jesus of Nazareth character in the NT NEVER had any real existence.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth God fabricated in the 2nd century or later.

Jesus of Nazareth has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the God of the Jews in existing manuscripts and the Christian Greek Bible.

Jesus is GOD.

GOD is myth.

Jesus of Nazareth was always mythology and fiction.

 

[Craig B]

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

We have "Against Heretics" attributed to Irenaeus, and "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

There were People of antiquity called Christians who did not worship an earthly Messiah as a God and did not accept the Jesus story.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you don't know what you are talking about.

At least I don't commit such elementary breaches if logic. I said, only Christians worship the messiah as God. For example messianic Jews don't.

You say, but some Christians don't. Even if I accept that such people are truly Christians, it doesn't alter the fact that the people who do worship God are Christians.

I'll put it in repetitive list form, which I know you like.

There are people who don't worship the messiah as a god. Some of these are (you say) Christians, and some are not.
There are people who do worship the messiah as a god. All of these are Christians, and none are not.

 

[Brainache]

You have wasted all your time with your logically fallacious arguments.

The HJ argument is dead.

You have nothing.


The Jesus of Nazareth character in the NT NEVER had any real existence.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth God fabricated in the 2nd century or later.

Jesus of Nazareth has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the God of the Jews in the Christian Greek Bible.

Jesus is GOD.

GOD is myth.

No, you are wrong.

The Hj argument is still very much alive. They teach it at many Universities all over the world. It is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity, despite what Richard Carrier says about Davidic sperm banks in the sky...

Why not contact these Universities and tell them your ideas? I'm sure they'd love to hear from you:
https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=9172
http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/2014/Units/PGUnit/ECJS853
http://sydney.edu.au/arts/hebrew_bi...rgrad/units_of_study.shtml?u=BBCL_2609_2015_1
https://webapps-prd.oit.umn.edu/courses/courses.jsp?campus=UMNTC&designator=CNES
http://www.gla.ac.uk/coursecatalogue/course/?code=TRS4033

Or if those Universities don't appeal to you, you could probably find one near you that teaches a similar course, most of them do.

Or, you can carry on making useless and stupid posts on an obscure internet forum. Your choice.

 

[dejudge]

At least I don't commit such elementary breaches if logic. I said, only Christians worship the messiah as God. For example messianic Jews don't.

So what are you arguing about??

Once you have not commited any breach of logic then Pliny's letter to Trajan is completely useless in the argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the reign of Augustus and Tiberius..

In the letter to Pliny the TORTURED victims displayed "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

There are people who don't worship the messiah as a god. Some of these are (you say) Christians, and some are not.
There are people who do worship the messiah as a god. All of these are Christians, and none are not.

You have committed elementary breaches of logic.

Pliny discovered "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

You have ZERO evidence that all people who worship the messiah as a God are Christians.

 

[Craig B]

You have committed elementary breaches of logic.

Pliny discovered "nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

So, he demanded to know what their religion was all about, and they said "Our religion is nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition". Fine. OK.

You have ZERO evidence that all people who worship the messiah as a God are Christians.

If you know of any community of non Christians who worship the messiah as a god, simply tell me who they are. Muslims for example venerate Jesus as a prophet, not as God. I would say that Christians, or Christ worshippers, is a good definition of this faith, that Pliny described, and that exists to this day.

On the other hand, the idea that gods send messengers, who are themselves not gods, is quite common. Jews and Muslims believe this. But that is not the normative Christian view of Christ. He is not a mere messenger. He is God in person.