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

[Secret Alias]

This is what so fucking aggravates me about your posting here. You know nothing and exclude things from consideration because of it. For instance Wegner suggests that the name Nazarene may come from the Hebrew נָצַר (to guard, or protect, a keeper of something hidden). This interpretation also supports the Gospel of Philip explanation for the Nazoreans: “he who reveals what is hidden.” Why then do we have to limit ourselves to this false dichotomy of two choices and then arrive at the understanding that 'branch' is behind this or that. It doesn't have to be that way. It's just your ignorance of Hebrew and Aramaic that lead you to that false dichotomy in the first place.

You should be shutting your mouth and learning rather than pontificating because you aren't authoritative here.

[Secret Alias]

If you would shut up and learn you'd see that natsar is a viable explanation for 'Nazarene' given its close parallels in meaning to other groups (= shomrim) and its use among the Aramaic speaking Mandaeans:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_5341.htm

Shut up and think about the examples here. Notice that natsar is virtually a substitute for shamar. Think about that before you race to your next stupid idea. The point is that we can't be certain about anything related to the name 'Nazarene' stop pretending we can.

[Secret Alias]

Notice also that Jeremiah knows a form = נֹצְרִ֖ים which closely resembles the modern Hebrew terminology for Christian = נוֹצְרִי and one of two words commonly used to mean "Christian" in Syriac (Nasrani) and Arabic (Naṣrānī, نصراني).. These things can't be ignored. Only an imbecile would race to a self-serving conclusion with all this uncertainty.

[Secret Alias]

Your point - if you knew about this evidence - would only be that some later Christian might have invented Jesus's association with Nazareth because of a perceived association with a messianic shoot elsewhere in the scriptures. But consider how weak this argument really is trying to connect this back to Zechariah and Philo:

1. Zechariah doesn't use this term
2. The term Nazarene might have nothing to do with this term (a term for 'shoot' that Zechariah doesn't use in chapter 6)
3. Philo doesn't make any connection between 'Jesus' and the term for 'shoot' that Zechariah does use

So of what value is any of this? Why are you wasting everyone's time with an argument which has so little going for it? Are you retired and are trying to fill up the hours of the day? Try gardening.

[Giuseppe]

Your point - if you knew about this evidence - would only be that some later Christian might have invented Jesus's association with Nazareth because of a perceived association with a messianic shoot elsewhere in the scriptures. But consider how weak this argument really is trying to connect this back to Zechariah and Philo:

1. Zechariah doesn't use this term
2. The term Nazarene might have nothing to do with this term (a term for 'shoot' that Zechariah doesn't use in chapter 6)
3. Philo doesn't make any connection between 'Jesus' and the term for 'shoot' that Zechariah does use

So of what value is any of this? Why are you wasting everyone's time with an argument which has so little going for it? Are you retired and are trying to fill up the hours of the day? Try gardening.

You are ignoring that Zech 6:12 in Greek uses Anatole/Raising and in the original language uses Shoot to hail the same guy (the future messiah, whoose I think Joshua is the symbol). A term of a place (East) is a messianic term (shoot) and describes the act of growing (Raising) of the Messiah.
Philo is independent evidence that he applies Anatole to his Logos in both his possible meanings: the archangelic Logos is messianic and comes from Anatole (just as the anti-messiah: Balaam).
I insist: my thesis gives the best explanation of the false historicist problem: if the messiah is born in the messianic Bethleem, what serves a messianic Nazaret? "Therefore" Nazaret existed.

Really, Nazaret serves to make *raise* (Anatole) there the Messiah/Shoot, where "raising" is distinct act from the "birth" tout court. Matthew 2:23 cannot write simply: "he will be called Anatole" because the Star, not Jesus, comes from East (and Bethlem is already used as place of birth of the messiah). A place with implicit meaning "Branch" serves that goal.

But Matthew did create not only a Nazarene (Jesus) but also the Nazarenes (the inhabitants of Nazaret): evil people. Because they should be the loyal guardians/branches at defence of the messianic shoot, but really are evil custods. Judaizers. Persecutors of the church as the pre-christian Paul. Acts uses the term as anothet name for zealots. In Mark Jesus himself is a bad branch insofar he had to be forgiven by John the Baptist.

Therefore there was no Christian sect who called herself "nazarenes". The catholics called them so. As an insult.

[MrMacSon]

Therefore there was no Christian sect who called herself "nazarenes". The catholics called them so. As an insult.

I think the term, as an insult, started with Jews.

[Secret Alias]

An illustration of the way a moron reasons:

You are ignoring that Zech 6:12 in Greek uses Anatole/Raising and in the original language uses Shoot to hail the same guy (the future messiah, whoose I think Joshua is the symbol).

What are you even talking about? The discussion started with whether or not Carrier was correct in saying that Philo called his logos 'Jesus.' Philo does not so the case should be closed. But then you come along and develop this other strange argument that has absolutely nothing to do with this original thesis by saying that this 'really' has something to do with the name of 'Nazareth.' It can't because Nazareth doesn't even resemble tsemach in any way shape or form. So now we enter the twilight zone because 'branch' is used in bad English translations for two different Hebrew words, one which resembles Nazareth but not the one that Zechariah used. There is absolutely no relevance to the discussion here unless you argue that Philo knew these bad English translations that gave you your brilliant idea.

Next mistake:

A term of a place (East) is a messianic term (shoot) and describes the act of growing (Raising) of the Messiah.

No, once again it is bad English translations that make anatole mean 'east.' Do people actually LEARN Hebrew or Greek, or do they just use dictionaries, and do it badly? Anatolê does NOT mean the direction of east. It means the newly risen sun, or otherwise the first appearance of anything at all. It only means the east in the phrase anatolê hêliou literally “the appearance of the sun”, and even then only with the right preposition in front, e.g. en anatolêi hêliou “in the east”. It does NOT mean the East in this passage, as anyone with any feeling for Greek will see. The word can mean the time or point of rising of a constellation over the horizon; the Ascendant (as an astrological term); the first half of the morning; teeth coming through; the first sprouting of new grass above ground; the first appearance of a river above ground. The nearest I can get to an English equivalent for it in this passage is the upwelling or the first shining.

Yes, it does mean the Logos. Proverbs 8:22: The Lord acquired me (or brought me into existence, wrought me) as the first (or at the start of, reshit) his ways (not “his act of creation”).

And just to make clear to you Giuseppe once again. Tsade-Mem-Ḥet does not mean a branch in Hebrew. It means a new shoot. There are two meanings of the root in Hebrew and in Aramaic. In Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic it means to sprout, except here in Hebrew. In Syriac it means shining, but occasionally means sprouting or a sprout. Have a look at the root Tsade-Mem-Ḥet in Syriac. Have a look at Malachi 3:20. It would definitely be a mistranslation to say either the Hebrew or the Greek word means the sun in Zechariah 6:12, but it would be correct to say that in the right context they can both mean the first appearance of the sun, and a suitable English equivalent in this verse would be “the newly-risen sun”.

Philo is independent evidence that he applies Anatole to his Logos in both his possible meanings: the archangelic Logos is messianic and comes from Anatole (just as the anti-messiah: Balaam).

See above. It does not mean 'East' in spite of what bad English translations say (and Philo didn't use bad English translations).

I insist: my thesis gives the best explanation of the false historicist problem: if the messiah is born in the messianic Bethleem, what serves a messianic Nazaret? "Therefore" Nazaret existed.

No one besides you understands WTF any of this means. Typical retarded logic coming from your brain. Makes no sense to anyone but you.

Really, Nazaret serves to make *raise* (Anatole) there the Messiah/Shoot, where "raising" is distinct act from the "birth" tout court. Matthew 2:23 cannot write simply: "he will be called Anatole" because the Star, not Jesus, comes from East (and Bethlem is already used as place of birth of the messiah). A place with implicit meaning "Branch" serves that goal.

Of course here is where your retarded logic gets you in trouble. This is why you should stay away from ancient languages until you study. While anatole and tsemach can have solar implications where is your evidence that netser has that same implication? Hint: it doesn't. In other words, your construction of all this nonsense from Nazareth and some association with netser (which is entirely debatable) falls flat on its face when netser unlike tsemach has no solar or astral significance (go consult a dictionary if you don't believe me). It simply means 'shoot' or 'offshoot' and that's all. No 'rising.' Have you even looked to see if anatole ever translates netser? That would have been the place to start this adventure.

[Secret Alias]

That the figure in Philo is called 'man' and not Jesus:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5-ntA ... xx&f=false

[MrMacSon]

That the figure in Philo is called 'man' and not Jesus:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5-ntA ... xx&f=false

From p 34 -

Even though Philo does not make the connection explicit, the eschatological rulers of the nation from Num 24:7, who is the "incontestably messianic" man in Num 24:17,may be identified with the man named 'Rising', also a messianic figure. In this sense, J de Savignac rightly contends that Philo's exposition of Zech 6:12 in De confusione linguarum 62-54 is "an assimilation of Logos and Messiah"

and, from p.31 -

In recognition that Philo invested the names of Biblical characters with great symbolic meaning, Philo made this text emphasize Balaam's sight of God, to the exclusion of other ways of 'knowing'. The result of casting the Gentile prophet as one who saw God clearly is Philo's identification of Balaam with Jacob, who was renamed Israel, the one who sees God.70

70 Hayward "Balaam's Prophecies" ... on Philo's etymologies of Hebrew names ... Hayward contends that Philo's knowledge of early Targumic traditions about "hidden mysteries", which were taken from Jacob-Israel and which were revealed to Balaam, is behind Philo's understanding of the biblical text.

[Secret Alias]

And what's your point?