Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But it's just been explained to you that he does in fact do that very thing, i.e. use texts of antiquity, by linking Philo's quote with the "Jesus" in the Zechariah text. (He also uses Hebrews elsewhere, as it's obviously relevant too.)....

Originally Posted by aa5874

I no longer accept claims about the Pauline writings based on Presumptions.

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I understand, and it's good that you fly that flag on these boards, it's a perfectly respectable position and you argue well for it; but Carrier is talking in terms that do accept priority for some of the Pauline writings.

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

OK, on listening to the lecture again, Carrier's exact words are:- "[Philo] tells us this [...], he tells us that there was a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named Jesus." The emphasis is Carrier's. It seems he means "tells us" in the scholarly sense (i.e. upon exegesis), and the way he says "actually named Jesus" it seems likely that he means "the celestial being Philo is talking about is actually named Jesus" (i.e. in Zechariah); but it comes across as him claiming that Philo says there was a celestial being named Jesus.

The name given by the Lord to Jesus in Zechariah in the LXX here is ἀνατολή, which is the same word as used in Philo here. So the Lord names Jesus "Anatole".

Philo is clearly talking about an entity who is called "Jesus" by Zechariah, and Philo clearly describes Zechariah's "Jesus", also dubbed "Anatole" by the Lord, as "that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image".

(i.e., to be clearer, Carrier should have said "a study of Philo tells us ...", but I don't think he's saying anything that isn't backed up by the texts)

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, your statement is not really logical.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Philo doesn't mention "Joshua/Jesus" at all.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo wrote NOTHING about Jesus.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement is extremely troubling. Once you have reognised that my argument is respectable and well argued then why are you still clinging to arguments that are extremely weak and flawed???

Originally Posted by aa5874

the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is considered to be LATER than the Pauline letters

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am pointing out to you that Philo did NO such thing. Philo wrote NOTHING about Jesus and that is PRECISELY why you appeal to Carrier instead of showing me the passage in Philo's works where he mentioned Jesus.

And again, the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is considered to be LATER than the Pauline letters so they SUPPORT the claim that the CELESTIAL Jesus was LATER.

Your statement is extremely troubling. Once you have reognised that my argument is respectable and well argued then why are you still clinging to arguments that are extremely weak and flawed???

The actual DATED NT manuscripts have RESOLVED the Pauline puzzle.

The claims made by the Pauline writers did NOT happen in the 1st century BEFORE c 70 CE.

We have the BIG BLACK HOLE of the 1st century--that is PRECISELY what the DATED manuscripts show.

We have the FAKE 1st century authors of ALL books of the Canon.

We have FORGERIES of 1st century letters between Seneca and Paul.

We have FORGERIES of 1st century writings in the works of Josephus.

There is NO need for anymore flawed arguments---the EVIDENCE from antiquity is already in place.

A BIG BLACK HOLE and FORGERIES for the 1st century.

There can be NO BETTER circumstantial evidence AGAINST the argument for a real humnan Jesus.

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Wasn’t Philo big on the Nomina Sacra thing?

Didn’t Philo write a dissertation called, “On the Change of Names?”

Maybe that would explain why he didn’t explicitly say “Joshua” or “Jesus”.

Maybe he was on a campaign to remove all divine names from the scripture.

- I'm just speculating. But I think it's a possibility worth considering.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Carrier writes that "Osiris descends to the sublunar air, becomes incarnate, dies, and is restored to life". Does Plutarch suggest this? Carrier and Doherty argue "yes". I argue "no".

I've already looked at the "incarnation" issue above, and Doherty's explanation. I won't go over that part again here.

I'll now look at Doherty's defence of Carrier's comment on Plutarch on the other parts of the Osiris myth playing out above the earth in a sublunar air.

Below I've repeated the central part of Doherty's argument to support Carrier. (Doherty does have more on his webpage, but I've extracted what I think is the main argument.) From here:

So that's pretty clear. Typhon operates in the area below the moon, and messes with Osiris and Isis there.

But is that what Plutarch tells us? The problem is that Doherty and Carrier have read "below the orb of the moon" as inferring "above the earth". But that is not the case. Let me give a more complete quote of that section from Plutarch (my bold throughout) from 376D:

The sistrum (rattle) also makes it clear that all things in existence need to be shaken, or rattled about, and never to cease from motion but, as it were, to be waked up and agitated when they grow drowsy and torpid. dThey say that they avert and repel Typhon by means of the sistrums, indicating thereby that when destruction constricts and checks Nature, generation releases and arouses it by means of motion.340

The upper part of the sistrum is circular and its circumference contains the four things that are shaken; for that part of the world which undergoes reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb of the moon, and all things in it are subjected to motion and to change through the four elements: fire, earth, water, and air.

Here "destruction" is Typhon and "Nature" is Isis. The sistrum is like a drum used by Egyptians to represent the universe. The reference to Nature, fire, earth, water and air shows that "underneath the orb of the moon" encompasses EVERYTHING under the orb of the moon, including the earth, etc. This is NOT indicating a special region above the earth. Doherty's and Carrier's use of it to that effect is incorrect.

So what about "Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas"? Doherty uses that to explain that Typhon is operating in "the area near the orbit of the moon". But is that the case? No! The myth of Isis and Osiris refers to the Nile and the land of Egypt. Isis is Nature. Osiris is the water and flood that gives life to the earth. Typhon is the drought that comes from the hot winds of Ethiopia. From 366C:

The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. This is why they give to Nephthys the name of "Finality," and say that she is the wife of Typhon. Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions, they call this the union of Osiris with Nephthys, which is proved by the upspringing of the plants...

The insidious scheming and usurpation of Typhon, then, is the power of drought, which gains control and dissipates the moisture which is the source of the Nile and of its rising; and his coadjutor, the Queen of the Ethiopians, signifies allegorically the south winds from Ethiopia; for whenever these gain the upper hand over the northerly or Etesian winds which drive the clouds towards Ethiopia, and when they prevent the falling of the rains which cause the rising of the Nile, then Typhon, being in possession, blazes with scorching heat; and having gained complete mastery, he forces the Nile in retreat to draw back its waters for weakness, and, flowing at the bottom of its almost empty channel, to proceed to the sea. The story told of the shutting up of Osiris in the chest seems to mean nothing else than the vanishing and disappearance of water.

Now a more complete quote from 375A to 375C, incorporating Doherty's use of "the outermost part of matter". Note the reference again to "generation", which is used of Isis to refer to her role in Nature:

Some think the seed of Woman is not a power or origin, but only material and nurture of generation. To this thought we should cling fast and conceive that this Goddess also who participates always with the first God and is associated with him in the love of the fair and lovely things about him is not opposed to him, but, just as we say that an honourable and just man is in love if his relations are just, and a good woman who has a husband and consorts with him we say yearns for him; thus we may conceive of her as always clinging close to him and being importunate over him and constantly filled with the most dominant and purest principles. But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas, there we may conceive of her as seeming sad, and spoken of as mourning, and that she seeks for the remains and scattered members of Osiris and arrays them, receiving and hiding away the things perishable, bfrom which she brings to light again the things that are created and sends them forth from herself.

The relations and forms and effluxes of the god abide in the heavens and in the stars; but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, earth and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations. For this reason the fable has it that Typhon cohabits with Nephthys and that Osiris has secret relations with her; for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys or Finality. But the creating and conserving power distributes to this only a weak and feeble seed, which is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis takes up and preserves and fosters and makes firm and strong.

Plutarch has given the allegorical meaning to the Isis and Osiris myth, which relates to the flooding of the Nile and the land of Egypt, and the coming hot winds from outside Egypt that dry up the Nile. Isis is Nature, the generative power that preserves and brings new life. Osiris is the Nile that floods the land. Typhon is Drought, the destructive force that dries the Nile and the land. So the allegory is the story of Nature, the Nile and of Egypt. That's all clear enough.

But if all the actions are confined to an area above the earth and under the Moon, what does the allegory mean? What is Typhon? A destructive force against... what exactly? What is Osiris? What is Isis? It makes no sense.

Guys, the kind of quote-mining being done by Carrier and Doherty here is simply why you need to investigate these types of claims for yourselves.