Secret Alias wrote:
For Christians the figure identified by the nomen sacrum ΙΣ in their sacred writings is identified with the anatole in Zechariah 6:12. There is no question about it. But the earliest Christians never say that Zechariah identified Jesus the high priest as the anatole in his vision in chapter 6 (probably because the used the LXX). We have to be careful about crossing the line here too.
This is not about Christians - it's about a pre-Christian 'theology'.
Secret Alias wrote:For Philo the heavenly logos was called 'man' THAT'S IT! He never makes the jump to this figure being Jesus and the LXX precludes that possibility because the anatole can't be read to be Jesus the high priest.
But the bottom line is still the same Carrier's claim that Philo identified his heavenly 'man' with the name Jesus is a misrepresentation of what Philo says and undoubtedly what Philo himself believed. That's the bottom line. It's bad scholarship and 'cheating' in every sense of the word. You can't say Philo understood 'Jesus' to be his heavenly man who is the anatole. Nor can you say that Justin read 'Jesus' in his edition of the Bible when he identifies the Christian god with the man who wrestled with Jacob or the man who was the anatole in Zechariah. There are obstacles to the complete identification of 'Jesus' as the heavenly man of the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical tradition. Those obstacles should not be removed. They are there for a reason - Jews never knew anything about an angel named Jesus.
This is not about what Jews in general knew, or about what Justin 'read' - it's about one Jew (Philo) was extrapolating.
“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
Secret Alias wrote:
... You can't say Philo understood 'Jesus' to be his heavenly man who is the anatole. Nor can you say that Justin read 'Jesus' in his edition of the Bible when he identifies the Christian god with the man who wrestled with Jacob or the man who was the anatole in Zechariah. There are obstacles to the complete identification of 'Jesus' as the heavenly man of the Jewish apocalyptic and mystical tradition.
You seem to be trying to insert and assert the Christian Jesus retrospectively into your narrative about Philo.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is stupid. Philo was speaking as the leader of the Jewish community of Alexandria. Political leaders have the responsible for their communities and can never speak 'privately' when offering an explanation of things written in the sacred books of they held in common with their fellows. Stupid on top of stupid on top of stupid. If anyone was hunting for stupidity they'd find an abundance of it in this thread. Philo was writing an apology for the Alexandrian Jewish community. He was explaining their beliefs and attempting to demonstrate that all the bad things said by pagans about the Jews were false.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
You seem to be trying to insert and assert the christian Jesus retrospectively into your narrative about Philo.
No I am limiting the INTENDED implications of Carrier's DELIBERATE misreading of Philo.
“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
Secret Alias wrote:
Philo was speaking as the leader of the Jewish community of Alexandria. Political leaders have the responsible for their communities and can never speak 'privately' when offering an explanation of things written in their sacred books.
lol. He was speaking theologically (well, pontificating). This wasn't politics, other than by way of 'The Law' ie. theocracy.
Your reference to 'responsibility' is another red-herring, of which you are providing plenty.
"Stupid on top of stupid on top of stupid. If anyone was hunting for stupidity they'd find an abundance of it in this thread."
He was speaking theologically (well, pontificating). This wasn't politics, other than by way of 'The Law' ie. theocracy.
No he wasn't. He was writing in a time of great persecution for Jews. Everything he was writing was being watched. He was very conscious of the dangers facing his community. Any claim that he was just 'making shit up' misunderstands the times he was living in.
Your reference to 'responsibility' is another red-herring, of which you are providing plenty.
My reading of Philo is entirely in keeping with traditional exegesis of Philo and I have provided numerous citations during the course of this discussion. What Carrier says about Philo's logos being 'Jesus' has absolutely no support among traditional Philo scholarship and so has made Carrier a laughing stock among people who have written serious studies of Philo's writings.
“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
There is no escaping the understanding that Philo and his Alexandrian Jewish community knew nothing about an angel named Jesus who is the Logos. High school scholarship produced by a man with a PhD from Columbia.
“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
