Steven Carr

'show me where philo identifies jesus as the anatole'

And there is no reference to 'Jesus' in Tacitus or Suetonius.

Those people must have been talking about some other guy, not called Jesus.

Show me where Tacitus identifies Jesus as the Christ who was crucified.

stephan huller

What kind of a stupid argument is that? One has nothing to do with the other. And by 'Jesus' I mean the high priest not the star of the Broadway musical. And I know what spin is going to say, 'it's implicit in Philo.' I don't think it is.

spin

Seriously, when you don't quote who you're responding to, you don't make it clear who you are seeking a reply from.

I already have. Philo specifically cited LXX Zech 6:12 which refers to Jeshua, high priest at the foundation of the Persian era temple, as the man whose name is "east".

I still don't know what you mean by "Jesus". Do you mean the name of the central figure of the gospels? And why are you talking about the logos regarding Confusion 62?

Steven Carr

'One has nothing to do with the other'.

In other words, you are making up ad hoc rules on a case-by-case basis.....

I take it you mean by calling it a 'stupid argument' that Tacitus never refers to anybody called 'Jesus'.

The person he refers to must have had a different name.

He wasn't called Jesus, because Tacitus never refers to a 'Jesus', just like the person referred to by Philo can't have been called 'Jesus', because Philo never refers to a 'Jesus'.

What is the name of the person referred to in Zechariah 6:11?.

Steven Carr

Correct.

End of story.

Game over.

Case closed.

File it away , under 'character in Bible has name of Bible character'.

stephan huller

And I thought the pious were the only morons in this business. Really? Game over. I am very busy right now but I haven't seen a proof at all. Just an assumption. Well since I only have a few minutes to devote to this let's start with Philo. His citations of Greek translations of the Pentateuch are not the same as what we call 'the LXX.' If these differences existed between translations into the Greek we don't know what his edition of Zechariah especially when Spin (spin?) acknowledges editorial manipulations to the Masoretic text.

That alone means its not game over. Not even close.

stephan huller

I can't believe that Steve Carr thinks we've proved that Philo thought Jesus was the anatole. Why doesn't Clement of Alexandria ever mention this line of thinking if it were true. Oh, I forgot you don't care about the truth. Your just out to score points with bombastic claims.

stephan huller

I guess you could argue that Justin does connect Jesus Christ with Zechariah 6:12.

stephan huller

I've been looking at the passage in Philo. I can't see how he would have thought that the high priest named Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest who lived at the time Zerubbabel was the "Man according to the image." That's nuts. I am sorry. Here is the passage:

The LXX still retains the biographical information about Jesus the high priest. Sorry that's simply unbelievable. By spin's logic Philo thought Jesus the son of Josedec was the divine firstborn or better yet, because Jesus the son of Josedec is mentioned in Zechariah, Philo thought that the divine firstborn Logos had the human name Jesus. Really? This is what you are claiming?

Steven Carr

I see.

So the text Philo was reading might not have had the name 'Jesus' in Zechariah 6:11?

As this is simply throwing straws into the air, and clutching at one, perhaps this discussion is now useless.

It can now be filed under 'Bible character might not have had name of character in the Bible'.