it is not possible or at least there is no reason to think that Philo would have gone against the plain meaning of the
But what is the 'plain meaning of the quote' ?
If you are Philo, how do you allegorize in your theology the high priest Joshua 'son of Jeova the Right' having already assumed that the man hailed Ἀνατολὴ is the High Priest and the Son of God ?
If you deny that Philo allegorizes along the lines 'high priest'/'son of Jeova', what do you do about the coincidence that Joshua is possibly just the candidate man hailed Ἀνατολὴ ?
If you deny that Philo did read Joshua as the candidate man hailed Ἀνατολὴ, what do you do about the coincidence that Joshua was an high priest and 'son of Jeova the right' while the Logos was High Priest and the Son of God?
You seem have very a lot of coincidences to exorcize far, frankly.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Carrier is made an assertion which is not supported by any tangible evidence. It is your job as the defender of this theory to show us we are wrong, to show us that there is 'real' evidence. You haven't done that and have resorted to name calling and endless distractions to keep alive a topic that you claim you don't really support. As I have said earlier you've acted extremely bizzarely throughout this whole tread.
“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
Why does any of this matter? These arguments and citations are becoming increasingly tangential. The question that Carrier opened had to do with Philo's interpretation of Zechariah. The further we get away from this the weaker any of these supporting arguments become. Carrier began with an incredibly weak argument even from its premise - i.e. can anyone 'know' with any degree of certainty how someone interpreted a text in antiquity beyond what is recorded or preserved in their known writings? But even in this case the "limitations of LXX Zechariah" would seem to work against Carrier's thesis (i.e. it is not possible or at least there is no reason to think that Philo would have gone against the plain meaning of the
bwahahahahahaha.
Carrier's reference to similarities in the Talmud are valid.
This is not about "limitations of LXX Zechariah" - again, you misrepresent, so you strawman fallacy, again
Allegorical interpretation is the opposite of taking the plain meaning of a text.
“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
Carrier's reference to similarities in the Talmud are valid.
If Carrier is attempting to understand what Philo wrote or believed he has to demonstrate evidence principally from the writings of Philo to support his thesis. It is incredible that this conversation has gone down a thousand rabbit holes so far. There simply is nothing in Philo that supports the existence of a 'Jesus angel.' Every other argument is a distraction.
“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
The enthusiasm of your defense of Carrier's weak thesis is at odds with your periodic claims not to believe Carrier's thesis.
“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
Carrier is made an assertion which is not supported by any tangible evidence. It is your job as the defender of this theory to show us we are wrong, to show us that there is 'real' evidence. You haven't done that and have resorted to name calling and endless distractions to keep alive a topic that you claim you don't really support. As I have said earlier you've acted extremely bizzarely throughout this whole tread.
Carrier has done more than make an assertion.
Your ad hominems are more fallacies.
It is your job as attacker of Carrier's theory to show us where he is wrong. Earlier in the thread you used fallacious assertions to do that.
Up your game. or at least concede this is all simply shades of grey about visions in Zechariah.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've said it before. Carrier could have written a New Age book about the existence of this 'Jesus angel' in the manner of someone in Madame Blavatsky's inner circle (i.e. Mead for example). He could have said 'I believe' that there might have been a pre-Christian Jesus angel in various Jewish circles and disseminated this book as some sort of initiation text for a like-minded reading circle. But as scholarship this thesis has nothing going for it.
“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
So what is the evidence in your mind that Philo knew about this 'Jesus angel'? I've asked for this a hundred times now. Just jot it out in bullet form. What is the direct evidence that Philo knew about a Jesus angel? The reason you haven't made any progress with this list is because at bottom Carrier's thesis is based on unsubstantiated assertions (assertions about Philo 'having to read' Zechariah in a certain way, Carrier's development of a shoddy translation of Zechariah etc).
“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
