Toto

I think they are inactive because they don't have a good response. They would rather post on James McGrath's blog where they can go on and on about creationism and denialism.

Adam

That may be the case in general, but of four inactives or self-ban on that thread, only one listed himself as a theist. No Christians.

What is "denialism"?
edited to add: Oh, that's easy. You're talking about Republicans!

Toto

An attempt to insult mythicists by comparing them to creationists.

Steven Carr

Jesus Denialism?

That's easy.

The fashion now is to deny that Philo ever referenced somebody whose name in the Bible is 'Jesus'.

stephan huller

Oh my Lord, this is ridiculous. I have nothing against Carrier but that was certainly not his best moment. Why not argue that Philo knew about the existence of America based upon some statement about the Isles of the Blessed? The only reason you support Carrier's ancient mind-reading efforts is because you are a partisan. I doubt very much you have ever read any of Philo's works from beginning to end. So why are you so 'into' this idea?

BTW I think I have found an exception to my rule about angels not being named with human names - Baruch. It came to me while reading the Philosophumena. An example of how partisans DON'T operate. They are honest enough to find evidence which contradicts their opinions.

Since you are so in love with Carrier why not ask him out on a date?

Steven Carr

Another person who denies the existence of the name of 'Jesus' in Zechariah 6:11-12....

I told you it was getting more fashionable!

Even the most dumb Christian apologists can read the Bible and see what the name of the person is that Philo was referring to http://gill.biblecommenter.com/zechariah/6.htm

I guess you have to be pretty sophisticated to miss what even the dumbest Christian apologist can see.

Steven Carr

Isn't Gabriel also a human name?

DrZoidberg

If you don't like it... don't pay. The charity is probably bullshit anyway. I'm sure he gets kickbacks somehow. Those are easy to hide. But if Bart thinks he can get rich this way... more power to him. Go Bart.

sotto voce

Perhaps this is to give the impression that hot air is worth paying for.

andrewcriddle

Many Christian do interpret the ambiguous Hebrew so as to identify Joshua (Jesus) the high priest with the branch. So interpreted this provides a welcome OT basis for a messianic figure who is both ruler and high priest.

Jewish commentators generally regard the branch as distinct from Joshua, sometimes the branch is identified with Zerubbabel.

The questions are: a/ did anyone in pre-Christian times interpret the Hebrew so as to identify Joshua with the branch ? b/ did anyone ever interpret the LXX in this way ?

Andrew Criddle