120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is no basis for disqualifying the gospel accounts as evidence. As with all sources, we try to separate the fact from the fiction.

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence.

An account alone is not necessarily evidence that the account is true and accurate.

It may be mistaken.

It may be a work of fiction.

It may have been written to promote a set of religious beliefs.

This can be said of ANY written account or ANY source for historical events. In addition to promoting religious beliefs, they are written to promote patriotic and nationalistic agendas. We accept the various sources for history as reasonably true and accurate even though they contain all the above possible flaws. Having these flaws does not mean the accounts are discounted as reliable sources for the historical events.

The gospel accounts also can be accepted as reliable sources for the events, though they have these flaws and can be mistaken, so they are subject to doubt and have to be compared to other sources for possible discrepancies, as ALL accounts have to be.

You can't use the account itself to prove the account is a reliable description of events. It's circular reasoning.

But the written account is evidence for what happened. Any document saying an event happened is evidence that the event happened. But it's not proof, and ALL the documents are subject to critical scrutiny for possible inaccuracies.

If the document has ZERO value as evidence that the reported events happened, then it also has zero value as corroboration for any other document, which means ALL documents, and thus all recorded history, come crashing down as worthless, no matter how much written evidence there is. Which makes no sense. You have to acknowledge that the report that something happened is evidence that it happened if recorded history is to have any meaning.

Some of recorded history is based on one document only, with no corroboration.

And you can't single out only one set of documents, like the gospel accounts, and say these alone are unreliable and excluded as evidence. There is nothing flawed about the gospel accounts as evidence for historical events that cannot also be said of most other documents used as sources for historical events. Some are more flawed than others, but all have to be accepted as evidence for the events.

The miracle stories make the documents more doubtful but do not disqualify the source as evidence for events. And additional sources for the same miracle claims increase the credibility of those claims.

 

[bilby]

An account alone is not necessarily evidence that the account is true and accurate.

It may be mistaken.

It may be a work of fiction.

It may have been written to promote a set of religious beliefs.

This can be said of ANY written account or ANY source for historical events. In addition to promoting religious beliefs, they are written to promote patriotic and nationalistic agendas. We accept the various sources for history as reasonably true and accurate even though they contain all the above possible flaws. Having these flaws does not mean the accounts are discounted as reliable sources for the historical events.

The gospel accounts also can be accepted as reliable sources for the events, though they have these flaws and can be mistaken, so they are subject to doubt and have to be compared to other sources for possible discrepancies, as ALL accounts have to be.

You can't use the account itself to prove the account is a reliable description of events. It's circular reasoning.

But the written account is evidence for what happened. Any document saying an event happened is evidence that the event happened. But it's not proof, and ALL the documents are subject to critical scrutiny for possible inaccuracies.

If the document has ZERO value as evidence that the reported events happened, then it also has zero value as corroboration for any other document, which means ALL documents, and thus all recorded history, come crashing down as worthless, no matter how much written evidence there is. Which makes no sense. You have to acknowledge that the report that something happened is evidence that it happened if recorded history is to have any meaning.

Some of recorded history is based on one document only, with no corroboration.

And you can't single out only one set of documents, like the gospel accounts, and say these alone are unreliable and excluded as evidence. There is nothing flawed about the gospel accounts as evidence for historical events that cannot also be said of most other documents used as sources for historical events. Some are more flawed than others, but all have to be accepted as evidence for the events.

The miracle stories make the documents more doubtful but do not disqualify the source as evidence for events. And additional sources for the same miracle claims increase the credibility of those claims.

Describing events that violate the fundamental laws of nature is an EXCELLENT basis for disqualifying the gospel accounts as evidence.

We know how the universe works. If an ancient text describes people walking on water unassisted; returning to life after having died; or turning water into wine without the use of grapes and yeast, then we know that that source is incorrect on at least those points.

Old documents are riddled with impossible claims. That's not only a characteristic of religious texts; all kinds of documents record tall tales that cannot be true, unless modern science is deeply and fundamentally wrong.

That we are discussing this on the Internet demonstrates that modern science is NOT deeply and fundamentally wrong. It all fits together - it is simply not possible that science is wrong enough to allow for the possibility of miracles, while still being right enough to allow for the possibility of nuclear power, GPS, and semi-conductor based computer chips.

Therefore the basis for disqualifying the gospel accounts as evidence is, quite simply, that they describe events that we can be certain can not occur. Descriptions of such things are commonplace; we call them fiction. The ONLY issue you have is that you have selected a particular work of fiction that you feel (irrationally) should be accepted as fact. But reality doesn't give a shit about your feelings.

 

[DBT]

An account alone is not necessarily evidence that the account is true and accurate.

It may be mistaken.

It may be a work of fiction.

It may have been written to promote a set of religious beliefs.

This can be said of ANY written account or ANY source for historical events. In addition to promoting religious beliefs, they are written to promote patriotic and nationalistic agendas. We accept the various sources for history as reasonably true and accurate even though they contain all the above possible flaws. Having these flaws does not mean the accounts are discounted as reliable sources for the historical events.

The gospel accounts also can be accepted as reliable sources for the events, though they have these flaws and can be mistaken, so they are subject to doubt and have to be compared to other sources for possible discrepancies, as ALL accounts have to be.

It can apply to any account. But not all accounts are equal. If an event has several independent sources, which agree on the basics of their described events, this is far superior to an account coming from a single source, even if there are different writers contributing to the material. Having a vested interest in Christianity does not make them independent. They all draw from the same tradition and source material, each copying the original and each other over time.

Which does not happen with independent witnesses who write their own accounts based solely on their own experience, with no interest in promoting a religion, ideology or point of view.

We don't have this sort of objectivity or independence with the Gospel accounts.

But the written account is evidence for what happened. Any document saying an event happened is evidence that the event happened.

No it's not. It's only evidence that a document exists. A document that is describing events that may or may not have happened.

 

[Keith&Co.]

[There is no basis for disqualifying the gospel accounts as evidence.

Various reasons have been offered to you and you ignore them. pretending they don't exist or don't matter doesn't improve your presentation as one who understands how history works.

You just look like an insistent clown, capering in front of a largely bored audience.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some of recorded history is based on one document only, with no corroboration.

I've asked you before for an example of this.
Where do we consider it 'recorded history' when the conditions are:
1. Only one document recording the event
2. The document is anonymous
3. The document's age cannot established
4. The 'event' is impossible without direct support from supernatural sources of power

You keep saying this fucking shit, when there's no reason to think you have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.

Thus, you have been identified as a shit-maker-upper.

So, unless you can find at least one peer reviewed historian saying that it's a historical fact that, say, the ghost of King Henry haunts the tower, or a rain dance was directly responsible for ending a drought, or that a saint had a conversation with a demon, or, you know, any otherwise impossible shit, then you're just making shit up.

















Again.

 

[Atheos]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lumpenproletariat can deny this principal all he wants to, but he uses it in his real life all the time and rational people know it's true. When he says there is "no reason" to discount the Jesus myths he is ignoring this 800 pound gorilla which is sitting right next to him.

Religious believers who gobble up impossible narratives when it agrees with their beliefs are forced to come up with irrelevant rationalizations for impossible narratives they don't agree with. Rational people can simply file them under the same bin as all the rest of the insane stories people have gotten others to believe for as far back as human history goes.

We went through this with the comparisons to the Joseph Smith stuff. Wilford Woodruff wrote his journal entries within hours of the alleged miracles of Joseph Smith. We skeptics have no problem brushing these journal entries aside as fabrications because they describe impossible things and are no better corroborated than the Betty and Barney hill alien abduction bullshit. Lumpenproletariat, on the other hand, must resort to ear-stopping and eye-closing denial these journal entries exist. Or insist that somehow the advent of the printing press made people more likely to make shit up. Or whatever other rationalization du-jour can be applied.

The Jesus myth is among the many fantastic stories humans have created and gotten people to believe over the years. There is abundant evidence that the story developed over time (Paul->GMark), that it was continually embellished with ongoing fabrications with each retelling (GMark->GMatt/GLuke/GJohn) and that it became such a big hit that other "undesirable" variants (Gospel of Thomas/Peter/Judas, etc) also appeared over time. There is damning evidence that no person such as GMark describes existed in the time and places described. The silence of Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the time and place in question and wrote about Jewish sects such as the Essenes is inexplicable if Jesus did the incredible deeds and attracted hoards of followers and the attention of rulers such as Herod as described in GMark.

This is what we can know. And it is satisfactory reason to dismiss these ridiculous myths. Everything else is just bluster.

 

[Atheos]

Here's an example:

Lumpenproletariat, I happen to be the reincarnated spirit of Pontius Pilate. I vividly remember serving as procurator in the district in question for many years. I can say with certainty that I was misrepresented in these "gospel" accounts. Not once did I ever condemn a man without due cause or release a condemned man under duress from any angry Jewish mob. If such a mob had assembled in my courtyard I probably would have had the lot of them crucified. My well trained garrison would not have hesitated. The Pax Roma was mostly the result of killing people who disturbed it. I had a very great friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus who would have brought legions to defend my position if it had been needed. It never was.

It is clear that this is an extraordinary claim, but since such claims don't require extraordinary evidence you're just going to have to take my word for it. In my previous life as Pontius Pilate I never encountered this "Jesus" person of yours.

 

[James Brown]

Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage handles this well.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say....

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's no reason to reject the Gospel accounts as evidence for historical events.

Some of recorded history is based on one document only, with no corroboration.

I've asked you before for an example of this.
Where do we consider it 'recorded history' when the conditions are:

1. Only one document recording the event
2. The document is anonymous

I've named the Royal Frankish Annals several times as a document accepted for history, containing many facts not reported elsewhere, and which is anonymous.

3. The document's age cannot be established

But the age of the gospel accounts and the Paul epistles CAN be established. Very few documents can be dated precisely, to the exact year. The Paul epistles are 50-60 AD. The synoptic gospels are dated at roughly 70, 80, and 90 AD. Most mainline documents for history (1000+ years ago) cannot be identified exactly to the date of composition, so if this disqualifies a document as a source for history, then most of that accepted recorded history has to be scrapped.

So lack of a pinpointed date of composition does not disqualify a document as a source for history, and so this #3 criterion is a false item here on your list.

4. The 'event' is impossible without direct support from supernatural sources of power

The Royal Frankish Annals contain such reported events. These can be reasonably rejected as fiction because there is only this one source, whereas for the Jesus miracle events we have at least 4 (5) sources.

You keep saying this fucking shit, when there's no reason to think you have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.

Thus, you have been identified as a shit-maker-upper.

So, unless you can find at least one peer reviewed historian saying that it's a historical fact that, say, the ghost of King Henry haunts the tower, or a rain dance was directly responsible for ending a drought, or that a saint had a conversation with a demon, or, you know, any otherwise impossible shit, then you're just making shit up.

Historians are baffled about at least one case: From all the evidence, the mad monk Rasputin appears to have healed the child of the Czar when the medical doctors could not.

Of course some try to find a possible explanation, and probably no historians say categorically that Rasputin did in fact heal this child by some superhuman power. But no agreed explanation has been found for this case, in which it appears that real healing did take place even though the healer had no medical background.

I remember a "History Channel" program in which the historian being interviewed said that in this one case it has to be admitted that a real healing did in fact take place, even though "miracle" healings are generally rejected. The History Channel usually presents the "debunker" side of any paranormal claims, but in this case the facts presented just said this was a real healing, without any debate or alternative explanations being offered.

There are probably some other examples also, of a "miracle" type event which is documented, though this is the best example I know of where there is agreement that something unexplainable took place. Obviously there are thousands or even millions of anecdotes for "miracle" events, and probably at least a few of them have been investigated without finding any "natural" explanation based on the current known science.

 

[DBT]

But no agreed explanation has been found for this case, in which it appears that real healing did take place even though the healer had no medical background.

No such conclusion can be made based on the information that is available.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We have more corroboration than normal for the Jesus miracle events, in comparison to most other historical events.

atrib: why did no contemporary historian bother to record these events?

Virtually no historical events were recorded by "contemporary" historians back then. Virtually all sources for the historical events were written by NON-contemporaries.

Can you find an actual reference? Some professional who will say that "VIRTUALLY ALL" historical sources are non-contemporaries.

You keep talking in absolutes when you don't know fuck about the subject you're nattering on about.

Just "google" any historian's name (from 1000+ years ago), look at when he lived and when the events happened that he reports. Almost always the events reported are from before his own time. In a few cases he uses reports from witnesses of that time, but usually the events are earlier than that.

First, can you define 'contemporary?'

Whatever atrib's definition is will do.

BZZZZZZZT! Foul.

If you don't know atrib's definition, you're in no position to use it when you say things like 'virtually all' historical sources are not contemporaries.

I think I do know atrib's definition. In his recent post he is demanding to know why Philo the Alexandrian does not mention Jesus.

correction: Maybe it's atheos and not atrib. even so, let's use atheos' definition -- it's good enough.

Philo can be termed an "historian" and he was a contemporary to Jesus, living at the same time. Since atrib is using this example, we can assume he means someone living exactly at the same time as the events, not 50 years later.

So let's define "contemporary" as living at the same time, exactly during the period of the events, so not Josephus etc. 50 years later.

YOU, Lumpy, made a claim about VIRTUALLY ALL historical sources. Now you want to back off from that near-absolute claim and hide behind the alleged obscurity of Jesus.

The Gospel accounts are not "contemporary" by our definition, although it's possible the Mark writer/editor lived at the same time. Whereas Paul was contemporary.

However, most of the historians wrote at a much later time separation than only 30 years from the events. Name any of them -- their reported events were typically 100 years earlier. Less than 50 years was rare. But "contemporary" means they lived at the very same time as the events, zero time separation, which is extremely rare.

You can easily check this. You don't need a "professional peer-reviewed" expert to provide this to you.

But that proves MY point, actually. If there's no corroboration, there's no corroboration.

There is corroboration. But no writing from a "contemporary" except Paul attesting to the resurrection. Just as most historical events back then are not reported by a "contemporary" source. But we have more corroboration and more "contemporary" evidence for the Jesus events than exists more most of the historical facts of that period. (No, not the Caesar assassination, but most of the regular events happening, to those of less power or status. And as to those of no power or status, like Jesus, there is virtually nothing in the historical record.)

If your excuse is Jesus being a nobody from nowhere, that's still acknowledging the lack of corroboration, though you try to explain it away.

He had no political power or wealth or influence over events during his life. Such persons did not get mentioned in the historical record. For the few exceptions there has to be an unusual explanation.

I'll take one who sticks out a little for sensationalist reasons,

I will have to assume that you're ducking Julius' example because you realize there are LOTS of contemporary sources for corroborating Caesar's life and actions.

The two primary source accounts of the life and assassination of Julius Caesar were written by Plutarch and Suetonius.
http://www.assassinationinfo.com/Assassinations/Julius_Caesar/bibliography.htm

100-150 years later.

There's very little from those who lived during the events themselves. Cicero mentions the assassination, but there's very little about it. Virtually no confirmation of the details.

But we can't use the most powerful figure of the time as an example. We're talking about comparisons to Jesus the historical figure, who had no power or any status or recognition. Of course there's nothing from 30 AD about him. There's nothing like that about any person who had no recognition or fame during his life. The writings came years later, then copying over decades, and finally something written did survive (though probably 99% of all writings perished).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage handles this well.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say....

Since we know this is just a joke, there's no need to investigate.

But if such a report is given seriously, it should be investigated. To begin with, there needs to be more than only one source claiming it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But no agreed explanation has been found for this case, in which it appears that real healing did take place even though the healer had no medical background.

No such conclusion can be made based on the information that is available.

The conclusion that can be made is that this is a case for which there is no known explanation. Which means it is false to say that no "miracle" event can ever happen. I.e., it's possible that such an event can or does sometimes happen.

We have to leave open the possibility and just say we don't know.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Here's an example:

Lumpenproletariat, I happen to be the reincarnated spirit of Pontius Pilate. I vividly remember serving as procurator in the district in question for many years. I can say with certainty that I was misrepresented in these "gospel" accounts. Not once did I ever condemn a man without due cause or release a condemned man under duress from any angry Jewish mob. If such a mob had assembled in my courtyard I probably would have had the lot of them crucified. My well trained garrison would not have hesitated. The Pax Roma was mostly the result of killing people who disturbed it. I had a very great friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus who would have brought legions to defend my position if it had been needed. It never was.

It is clear that this is an extraordinary claim, but since such claims don't require extraordinary evidence you're just going to have to take my word for it. In my previous life as Pontius Pilate I never encountered this "Jesus" person of yours.

Since we know you're joking, this is pointless.

However, if you can find someone making this claim, not as a joke or as a way to contrive a philosophical point or argument, but someone who believes this, and if there's an extra source to confirm the claim, then maybe it should be looked into.

These witnesses would have to provide some information about the situation back then which could be verified, etc.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

... for the Jesus miracle events we have at least 4 (5) sources.

No we don't; in any case not 4 independent sources. We have GMark, and the other three gospels which copied from GMark. That's one independent source, and three non-independent sources. As for Paul, he makes no mention of any miracles other than the resurrection claim.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage handles this well.

Since we know this is just a joke, there's no need to investigate.

But if such a report is given seriously, it should be investigated. To begin with, there needs to be more than only one source claiming it.

The tall tales of Jesus have been investigated and don't hold water. The contradictions, obviously made up nonsense (infant narratives), bad prophecies etc. So sorry.

 

[Keith&Co.]

4. The 'event' is impossible without direct support from supernatural sources of power

The Royal Frankish Annals contain such reported events. These can be reasonably rejected as fiction because there is only this one source, whereas for the Jesus miracle events we have at least 4 (5) sources.

No, you continue to depend on made-up-shit, Lumpy.
First off, the gospels are not 4-5 sources.
And you can't use the gospels to support your argument that historians accept the gospels. You need an actual historical peer-reviewed document to show this.
And if you're tossing out fictional parts of the Royal Frankish Annals, you're missing the entire point of the list.

Is any historian going to say that because of this one, anonymous document, we know that God led Charlemagne?

Historians are baffled about at least one case:

Is English your fourth language or something?

If Historians are baffled by the supernatural explanations for this event, then you cannot say that history accepts the supernatural explanations based on the accounts.

Much the way you won't accept Mormon theology even though the documentation for those miracles is much, much better than those for Jesus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

atrib: why did no contemporary historian bother to record these events?

Virtually no historical events were recorded by "contemporary" historians back then. Virtually all sources for the historical events were written by NON-contemporaries.

Can you find an actual reference? Some professional who will say that "VIRTUALLY ALL" historical sources are non-contemporaries.

You keep talking in absolutes when you don't know fuck about the subject you're nattering on about.

Just "google" any historian's name (from 1000+ years ago), look at when he lived and when the events happened that he reports. Almost always the events reported are from before his own time. In a few cases he uses reports from witnesses of that time, but usually the events are earlier than that.

That's fascinating, Lumpy.
Aside from the fact that I'm not going to do your homework for you, you're saying that no one wrote anything down until it was a century or so later.

So when someone recorded a census, they listed the population of five generations previous.
If someone wrote down a recipe, such as how hams were cured, they wrote about what their great-great-great grandfather's cooks did.
Every culture that practiced epitaphs were so backed up no one could write anything down for people who'd lived in living memory.

Virtually no one, you insist, writes down what's happening until way, way after it happens?

These are all historical sources, Lumpy. History is not limited to someone writing down 'this is the history of ____.' Your ignorance on this issue is very clear. And very deep. And, i have to think at this point, very intentional.

 

[James Brown]

Carl Sagan's Dragon in the Garage handles this well.

Since we know this is just a joke, there's no need to investigate.

We do? How? Why is "dragon" obviously a joke, but "guy walking on water" not?

But if such a report is given seriously, it should be investigated. To begin with, there needs to be more than only one source claiming it.

Did you read the essay?

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages-- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Philo the Alexandrian AMAZINGLY SILENT about the famous Jesus of the gospels? Does his SILENCE prove Jesus didn't really exist?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You could put this cliché to music and chant it, but just repeating it over and over doesn't prove the Jesus miracles never happened, or that no miracle events can ever happen. What we need for miracle claims is EXTRA EVIDENCE. More than only one or two sources. And these need to be reasonably close to the time of the alleged events -- like the evidence we have for the Jesus miracles. This requirement eliminates probably 99% of miracle claims generally.

The silence of Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the time and place in question . . .

No, Alexandria is not the place in question.

Philo says very little about Judea and Galilee. His conflict with the Romans over their anti-Jewish tyrannical practices is mostly about the events in Alexandria, not Judea and Jerusalem, which he mentions very little.

His interest in those events is all focused on his "embassy" to Rome to make demands for more toleration toward the Jews. Though he complains about Pontius Pilate and the proposal to place statues of the emperor in the Jerusalem temple, it's protection of synagogues in Alexandria that he writes about, not Judea, and his version of Pilate and the Jerusalem events conflicts with the Josephus version, because Philo was unfamiliar with the events there.

Philo's interest in Judea is not about 1st-century AD events, but about the centuries of tradition going back to the earliest history of the Israelites, even back to Moses, or back to the Creation story. That's mostly what he writes about, not the contemporary history, other than the "embassy" to Gaius Caligula, and this event is all he reports on from his own time.

What he says about the Essenes could all be based on the history going back to before 100 BC, not necessarily about Essenes during the time of Jesus.

He not only omits any mention of Jesus, but also of other important figures, like Hillel and Shammai, the 2 most famous Jewish rabbis of the time. Also he omits any mention of the Zealots and the sicarii and Judas the Galilean, also anything of John the Baptist. At that time, 30-50 AD, Jesus was probably less famous/notorious than these other contemporary figures who were ignored by Philo.

. . . and wrote about Jewish sects such as the Essenes is inexplicable . . .

Not necessarily anything from the 1st century AD. He says nothing about the different factions and unrest in Galilee/Judea from his own time, other than his appeal to the emperor to stop the Roman attacks on Jews in Alexandria.

There's ONLY THIS ONE contemporary event you can cite concerning Judea, i.e., when he complained to the emperor about Roman oppression against Jews and their synagogues in Alexandria, he added to this a secondary complaint about putting the statue in the Jerusalem temple. Also he mentions that once he visited that temple. That's it. Otherwise he gives no attention to anything happening in Judea. And he never mentions Galilee at all.

Obviously you don't believe any of my claims about what Philo said or what happened. If you check into it -- Google, wiki, your library, etc. -- this is what you'll find. Or if you find that Philo was in Judea half the time, conferring with current Essenes and Zealots and protesting in the streets of Jerusalem or whatever, you'll get that information and post it here to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about.

But your argument back to me cannot be "Aww you're just makin' up shit, you liar!"

Philo's main writings on the contemporary events are In Flaccum and the On the Embassy to Gaius, which are about Alexandria, not Judea. You can easily check to determine if this is correct or if I'm just "making up shit."

. . . if Jesus did the incredible deeds and attracted hoards of followers . . .

There's no reason to assume Philo would have knowledge of it. His writings say very little related to current events in Judea and Galilee. If he heard anything about a reputed miracle-worker he no doubt dismissed it out of hand. There probably were some such stories about this or that alleged miracle worker, but hardly anyone believed them and they were totally forgotten as not being credible.

. . . and the attention of rulers such as Herod as described in GMark.

Philo never mentions Herod Antipas. It's Luke, not Mark, who said Herod was interested in Jesus. It's possible Luke was exaggerating about Herod being interested in Jesus.

Philo mentions a few major Romans, like the emperor and some Roman officials in Judea and Alexandria. Only the rich and powerful and their appointees. There's no reason to say he would have to make mention of Jesus, who had no status or recognition in 30 AD and about whom there were no writings circulating before 50 AD that Philo could have had any knowledge of.

So there's no "silence of Philo" here that needs explaining.