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.