aa5874

It is virtually certain that the Pauline writings could NOT have been written before the Fallen of the Temple since they would have been immediately recognized as complete fiction.

And on the flip side, if the Pauline writings were historically accurate then the claim by Josephus that Vespasian was the Messiah as predicted in Hebrew Scripture would be known by all to be false and Josephus life may have been in jeopardy.

Josephus as a Captured Prisonner of War, in the presence of Vespasian declared that he was the Messianic ruler.

Now, if it is was ALREADY known and preached all over the Roman Empire in Major cities that the Jewish Messiah had already come and was known as Jesus Christ then Josephus would probably be EXECUTED by Vespasian.

Paul was supposedly a CONTEMPORARY of Vespasian and was preaching in ROME that the Lord Jesus was the Messiah, equal to God, to whom Every knee should BOW even the Deified Emperors of Rome and ALL citizens of the Roman Empire.

Vespasian himself may have heard Paul in Rome preaching about the Lord Jesus and Resurrected Messiah.

But it is obvious that neither Josephus, Vespasian or the people of Rome and the Roman Empire ever heard about the Pauline Lord Jesus and Messiah because Vespasian was declared the Prophesied Messianic ruler as found in Hebrew Scripture.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4
The Pauline writings are NOT compatible with the history of antiquity.

This is Paul in Philippians 2
This is the author of gMark 8The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus--there was NO known Jewish Messsiah called Jesus Christ up to c 70 CE and this is reflected in gMark.

Vespasian a CONTEMPORARY of the supposed Paul was the Prophesied Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture according to Josephus "Wars of the Jews", Tacitus "Histories" and Suetonius "Life of Vespasian".

Duvduv

Isn't it quite remarkable that for all the importance ascribed to the text ascribed to Philo concerning the Logos in "On the Confusion of Tongues" somehow the idea of the Son-Logos never reached the authors of the epistles or of the gospels (aside from the doctrinal supplement at the beginning of GJohn)?

One would think that had Philo been the source of this idea in the 1st century such an idea should have caught the eye of the authors of the epistles and the synoptics, but it didn't. It isn't even really part of the story narrative in GJohn either.

Thus, it is more than likely that Philo was not the author of this text and it was added under his name in that book much later on after the epistles and synoptic gospels were finalized.

Duvduv

AA, I am quite surprised that no one so far, including yourself, is addressing the issue I raised of why the so-called 1st century Philo references to the Son and Logos never found their way into the later epistles or the gospels (the GJohn doctrinal introduction excepted) if those Philo references were actually composed in the 1st century. Or even Justin and Irenaeus for that matter as second century "witnesses."

aa5874

You must address your own issues. Surely, you must understand by now that I hold the position that the initial Canonised Jesus story had NOTHING whatsoever to do the Logos.

The short-ending gMark did NOT mention the Logos and did NOT claim Jesus was a Universal Savior of Mankind.

The short-ending gMark Jesus was a Super-miracle worker, identified as the Son of a God, and TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and resurrect AFTER three days.

tanya

I doubt he is described as "so called". First century CE Philo of Alexandria is a well known Jewish scholar, whose writings are quite important, in my humble opinion.

I have no idea what issues you have raised. Can you give us a link, Duvduv? From my (rudimentary, casual) reading of his works, I find that Philo is an archtypical, devout, sincere, honest, genuine believer in monotheism, not someone spewing out the trinitarian nonsense of later centuries. Consequently, I am surprised by your surprise. I have no idea why you think the writings of Philo should have served as some sort of template for more modern revisions of Judaism, introducing polytheism, to replace stale, old fashioned monotheism.

Difficult for me to envision Philo supporting the concept of an omnipotent, divine creator either having, or wanting, or needing, a son, so I have no idea why you think Philo's writings should have been referenced in the Gospels. In other words, I doubt that Philo's writings served as some sort of guide to those who concocted the gospels. I suppose they were more influenced by the best seller of that era:

The Roman soldier's guide to improved sales of snake oil ointment and cream.

Duvduv

Hi, Tanya. I was just restating that I thought it unusual that the alleged statement by Philo concerning the Logos and the Son would not find its way into the ideas reflected in the gospels or integrated into the epistles which of course are all about the Son of God.

AA, I KNOW that the gospels don't reflect the ideas of the Logos, including the body of the text of GJohn, which never reiterates the doctrine of the Word becoming flesh, etc. etc. ALL I was commenting on is my amazement that these idea allegedly written by Philo in the first century never found their way into the world view of the epistles or the gospel story (yes, except for the doctrinal introduction in GJohn).

Wouldn't it be expected that it would become part of the Christian ideology early on IF IN FACT the material was written in the 1st century?!

Toto

Why would you expect the earliest Christians to read Philo and integrate his Jewish-Platonic ideas into their doctrine? As Christianity grew, it adapted elements of the surrounding culture in an effort to become more respectable, including Philo. But why would you expect this to happen immediately and uniformly?

Duvduv

All I would expect is that since the "Christian" writers were always tying into Jewish sources and concept in relation to the Son of God, and since allegedly Philo was the one who introduced this idea into the Jewish world view, it would obviously be a natural fit for anyone writing about the Son of God. I think it's pretty straightforward.

But in my opinion that material was not written by a Torah believing Jew and not in the 1st century either.
I also find it very unlikely that Philo did not know anything other than the Greek Septaguint if in fact he is the one who wrote what is ascribed to him.

arnoldo

Philo was aware that there were some disturbances in Jewish synagogues in Rome circa 41 AD. In a letter to the Roman Emperor Claudius, Philo writes;

Philo responds to this event by writing to Claudius to point out how Augustus had previously offered the jews better treatment. The possibility then arises that Philo was aware of some of the secondary effects of an emerging faith which Suetonius documented in the statement below.

Duvduv

This quote itself is most peculiar because the laws of redeeming first fruits for money ONLY apply to produce grown in the holy land, and not outside of the Land.
A Jew like Philo would have surely known this.