Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus angel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Adam »

Based on style of taking on all comers with unruffled assurance and lambasting them all with equal vehemence, may I suggest:
SECRET ALIAS is actually our old friend Jeff Gibson (from FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard) resurrected in a form intended to make us think he is the second head of Stephan Huller. The real Stephan Huller is similar, just not so much.
Discussion?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Secret Alias »

I would consider it a victory if Jeffrey Gibson espoused my marginal views. Let's continue with the real discussion
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Giuseppe »

It is clear here Philo is only interested by the name "Rises" and found it very fitting for his incorporeal being. Prior to that, Philo separated the named man from "Rises" and applied that name (but not the man) to his Son of God.
Not correct. Philo is interested to the title "anatole'" but he sees what is for him an apparent contradiction:
1) that a Jewish guy dead years ago received that title.
2) therefore he concludes that that Jewish guy is an allegory of the Logos (exactly as Melchisedec).

The Great coincidence Here is that that guy was named "Jesus son of Iosedec".
Last edited by Giuseppe on Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Secret Alias »

Philo doesn't know anything about the resurrection of any Jewish man :facepalm:
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Giuseppe »

Precisely: therefore Philo excludes a priori that the guy that received the title "anatole'"" was a man.
He was for Philo an allegory of the his Logos. In this way he coopted the title "anatole'" for his Logos, by making that guy of Zacharia (named ''Jesus son of Iosedec'') an allegory of it.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by TedM »

Bernard Muller wrote:
I think everyone here agrees that the Servant/Branch is identified and isn't Jesus, but what is being proposed is the idea that it is possible that for one reason or another - including slightly different texts - the interpretation given by some to 6:11-14 was that the Branch was referring to Jesus, the guy given the crown, who actually ALSO helped rebuild the Temple (Ezra:2:2)
NOT just"Jesus", but "Jesus son of Josedec". Even if a man named "branch" is thought to be that Jesus, son of Josedec (a dead Jew long ago), there is no way he can be considered the same entity as the eternal Son of God of Philo. Confusing Jesus son of Josedec with Philo's Word of God & firstborn is absolutely impossible (except for Carrier's amazing discovery!).
I"m baffled by this. Bernard, surely you know of the phrase 'typology fulfillment'? Of course it couldn't have been the same person, just as many of the prophecies were fulfilled in history long before Christianity came along, but that didn't keep the creative and desperate Jews from seeing a DEEPER and more complete FUTURE fulfillment since obviously the promised peace had NOT been fulfilled. Clearly early Christians did this, as they do today. As such this Jesus, son of Josedec could well have been seen as a 'type of' Messiah also named Jesus to come later. Again, 1 out of 25 males in 0AD were named Jesus according to the source I gave so we can't just excuse or reason it away too easily IMO.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18320
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Secret Alias »

Giuseppe

Anastasis = resurrection in the NT not anatole
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Giuseppe »

but ''anatole'' (meaning 'rising' or similar) may allude to idea of resurrection. As 'West' may allude to idea of death.

I dont' understand why we should think that Philo did understand perfectly what really Zechariah thought and that he reported perfectly his view. Philo was an harmonizer of the Scriptures and, as all the harmonizers, an honest liar: he didnt'like basically that a mortal guy was named ''Anatolè'' by the prophet, therefore he before did cast that guy in an allegory of his Logos and then he coopted the title 'Anatolè' for his Logos (i.e.: what was his goal from the beginning).

If Philo had listened about a crucified messiah seen as a celestial archangel by his followers, then Philo would say that that crucified messiah was not a celestial archangel, but only an allegory for the real celestial archangel that is the Logos.
Even if a man named "branch" is thought to be that Jesus, son of Josedec (a dead Jew long ago), there is no way he can be considered the same entity as the eternal Son of God of Philo. Confusing Jesus son of Josedec with Philo's Word of God & firstborn is absolutely impossible (except for Carrier's amazing discovery!).
This is an exegetical error I can never forgive to Bernard. Allegorizing Jesus son of Josedec with Philo's Word of God & firstborn is absolutely POSSIBLE. At least for a harmonizer as Philo.

He did the same identical thing with Melchisedec (even having influence on Hebrews, in this). He did repeat that thing with Jesus Son of Josedec.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
2) therefore he concludes that that Jewish guy is an allegory of the Logos (exactly as Melchisedec).
I cannot see how you can deduct that from Philo. That's certainly not what Philo wrote:
"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of ‘Rises’ has been given to him with great felicity."
Precisely: therefore Philo excludes a priori that the guy that received the title "anatole'"" was a man.
No, Philo did not:
"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul."
by making that guy of Zacharia (named ''Jesus son of Iosedec'') an allegory of it.
Philo did not say he read the saying from 'Zechariah' or a prophet, but that was heard from a companion of Moses:
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this:“Behold, the man named Rises!”"

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier proposes the NT Jesus based on Philo's Jesus ang

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Giuseppe,
2) therefore he concludes that that Jewish guy is an allegory of the Logos (exactly as Melchisedec).
I cannot see how you can deduct that from Philo. That's certainly not what Philo wrote:
"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of ‘Rises’ has been given to him with great felicity."
Precisely: therefore Philo excludes a priori that the guy that received the title "anatole'"" was a man.
No, Philo did not:
"“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul."
by making that guy of Zacharia (named ''Jesus son of Iosedec'') an allegory of it.
Philo did not say he read the saying from 'Zechariah' or a prophet, but that was heard from a companion of Moses:
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this:“Behold, the man named Rises!”"

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard, In your view Philo is openly contradicting what a companion of Moses said (because you think that for Philo that companion of Moses was not an authority in matter as was Zecharia for him).

I don't think so. I think that for Philo that companion of Moses was claiming ex cathedra, i.e. words inspired by God. Therefore all that that Philo had to do was harmonizing these words with his theology : the companion of Moses had reason, but not in a letteral sense. By use of allegory, Philo put his words on the mouth of that companion of Moses:

1) the companion of Moses called 'Anatolè' a guy.
2) Anatolè is the title of the Logos.
3) but, according to Philo, a mortal guy cannot be named 'Anatole'.
4) therefore the problem is resolved by allegorizing that guy: he is the allegory of the Logos.

The same logic works with Melchisedec, too.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply