Re: For Philo, "Jesus" not given as a name of the Logos
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:09 pm
ευδαιμονία ?? = bliss? blessedness?Secret Alias wrote: felicity ...
Why not start with the Greek?
ευστοχία ??
ευστοχία ??
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
ευδαιμονία ?? = bliss? blessedness?Secret Alias wrote: felicity ...
Why not start with the Greek?
I hate mixed Greek and Latin words. Just a pet peeve of mine. Don't hate having multiple lovers. I hate hybrid words. Psychedelic is just badly constructed Greek to avoid the psycho- part.polyamory takes on a whole new meaning?
You meant to have a ? after "The thesis is fine save for his conservative dating issues."Secret Alias wrote: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.I have issues with Carrier's (and others') dating of the documents attributed to Paul.
I do and because of that I can't see the truth about Carrier's thesis.I think you have problems with inductive logic.
One time I tried to do that, you got nasty b/c the english translation I provided from the website that provide the greek was their translation of hebrew. So, excuse me if I pass - You provide it if You want it, your holeynessSecret Alias wrote: ... why not take the time to bring us the Greek text and we can spend some time together on the text and figure it out as a group ...
Carrier has provided that. I have repeated it in the other thread.Peter Kirby wrote:Okay. And what is Carrier's "reasonable inductive argument" (according to your understanding)?MrMacSon wrote:Given the vagaries of Zech 6 (and consideration of other aspects of the book of Zechariah, particularly Zech 3), and the vagaries of Philo's philosophizing, I think Carrier has made a reasonable inductive argument. I'm not sure Carrier's argument can be described as cogent.Peter Kirby wrote: Does Carrier make a good argument for believing that Philo identified the Logos with "Jesus"? What do you think?
Exactly. But why do you surround some reasonableness with such nastiness viz -Secret Alias wrote: Surely as an educated, learned man you would want to go to the source - i.e. the Greek text of Philo - to know that your ideas hold water.
Secret Alias wrote:
No my point is why would anyone (i.e. someone who is educated enough to have a keyboard that can produce Greek letters) want to start work on figuring out what Philo means by examining English translation of Philo and use an English dictionary to figure what Philo means ...
This sloppiness is so perplexing.