Page 5 of 11

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:57 am
by Secret Alias
I don't think Carrier's wordz "wafted down from on high".
Yeah it's holy writ save for the 'controversial statement about Philo and Paul being contemporaries. I really wish he had maintain his measured argumentation except for this one 'slip up.' Damn. Human all too human.

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:00 pm
by MrMacSon
Secret Alias wrote:
I think there is more discussion to be had about the relevant passages in Philo's works.
Wow that's a controversial statement. Conversations like books are without end as the scripture says. Too bad for you and your gang of three people all the conversations are going to come up with no references to this Jesus angel.
Did you mean -
  • Conversations, like books, are without end, as the scripture says ??

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:02 pm
by Secret Alias
He can find fault with my use of commas but only Carrier's 'questionable dating' of Philo.

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:03 pm
by MrMacSon
Stephan, How about addressing -
Mr Macson wrote:
To me, the key parts of this passage -
  • (62) "... 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 the east has been given to him with great felicity."

    http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook15.html
are
  • " ..if you look upon it [ie. "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"] as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image.."
and
  • "... the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity"
Furthermore, the key parts of those excerpts are
  • " ...that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image --
    • ie. made in the image of God
    and
    • " ...the name of *the east* ---"

      -- given to him with great felicity"
I think these aspects of Philo-speak are highly significant ....so ... There is more to yet tease out there.
felicity -

1.intense happiness.
"domestic felicity"
synonyms: happiness, joy, joyfulness, joyousness, rapture, bliss, euphoria, delight, cheer, cheerfulness, gaiety; ...

2.the ability to find appropriate expression for one's thoughts.
"he exposed the kernel of the matter with his customary elegance and felicity"
synonyms: eloquence, aptness, appropriateness, suitability, suitableness, applicability, fitness, relevance, pertinence, correctness, rightness
"David expressed his feelings with his customary felicity"

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:05 pm
by Secret Alias
If it turns out MrMacson is Carrier this 'solitary' self-criticism will have been worth this whole conversation.

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:05 pm
by MrMacSon
Secret Alias wrote:He can find fault with my use of commas but only Carrier's 'questionable dating' of Philo.
Wrong. I have issues with Carrier's (and others') dating of the documents attributed to Paul.

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:05 pm
by Secret Alias
Mistake 1:

felicity ...

Why not start with the Greek?

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:06 pm
by MrMacSon
Secret Alias wrote:If it turns out MrMacson is Carrier ...
polyamory takes on a whole new meaning?

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:06 pm
by MrMacSon
Secret Alias wrote: felicity ...

Why not start with the Greek?
Good idea ...

Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:08 pm
by Secret Alias
I have issues with Carrier's (and others') dating of the documents attributed to Paul.
So that's it? The thesis is fine save for his conservative dating issues. But the real Carrier - like every scholar - has personal views on what the real dates of things are. He can't say them - like other scholars keep quiet - because they aren't proven as of yet. This is hardly a criticism. Sounds more like a confession of real Carrier that he has to go along with the consensus so that his main point gets read without the distraction of other tangents like (a) whether or not Paul and Philo were contemporaries and (b) the date of Paul's letters.