Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-12-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo wrote NOTHING about Jesus.

Dear aa5874,

Please get a clue: I don’t think anyone is arguing that Philo explicitly said “Jesus.”

I think the issue is if Philo wrote about Joshua/Jesus implicitly when he quoted Zechariah LXX.

And unless I’m mistaken, it is axiomatic (at least for this discussion only) that the High Priest Joshua/Jesus character in Zechariah LXX was a precursor or building block for modern Jesus worship.

Now what part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Please keep in mind that you cannot agree or disagree with anything unless you understand it first.

Right?

Philo did NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth, who was God the Creator, and the Son of a Ghost.

aa5874 · 06-12-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

By who?

Not me.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is unique in that it does not conflate “the LORD LXX” with Jesus. The Jesus in Hebrews appears to be based on Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah LXX.

The Pauline letters on the other hand, do conflate “the LORD LXX” with Jesus.

The trajectory that Jesus was first associated with Joshua the High Priest - and then later associated with ‘the LORD LXX’ makes more sense to me.

Do you date writings by Paleography???

Well the earliest texts of Hebrews P 114 is dated by Paleography to c 250 CE and the Pauline writings P46 is dated to c 200 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

I cannot assume when Hebrews and Pauline letters were written when we have DATED sources.

aa5874 · 06-12-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

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???

Dear aa5874,

Your 'argument' is laughable - not respectable.

You do not appear to understand the issue at hand.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

I was merely repeating what a poster claimed.

You have EXPOSED yourself as not credible.

You have placed your integrity under suspicion.

Grog · 06-15-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

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".

To tell the truth, as soon as "Osiris" is mentioned in relation to "Jesus" my brain does some thing where it just won't let information in. It is some sort of spam filter I guess.

EarlDoherty · 06-17-2012, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

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".

To tell the truth, as soon as "Osiris" is mentioned in relation to "Jesus" my brain does some thing where it just won't let information in. It is some sort of spam filter I guess.

Funny, the same sort of thing happens to me now when I see "GakuseiDon" at the head of a new posting on Plutarch and Osiris. Some sort of sanity-preserver filter I guess.

Earl Doherty

Bingo the Clown-O · 06-17-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo wrote NOTHING about Jesus.

Dear aa5874,

Please get a clue: I don’t think anyone is arguing that Philo explicitly said “Jesus.”

Philo did NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth

Dear aa5874,

Why are you telling us this?

tanya · 06-17-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Please get a clue: I don’t think anyone is arguing that Philo explicitly said “Jesus.”

I think the issue is if Philo wrote about Joshua/Jesus implicitly when he quoted Zechariah LXX.

WHAT???

So, let's try again, bingo bubba. no one is arguing that Philo explicitly said Jesus, but the issue is whether or not Philo wrote about Jesus....

WHAT????

What are you trying to communicate here, fella?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

And unless I’m mistaken, it is axiomatic (at least for this discussion only) that the High Priest Joshua/Jesus character in Zechariah LXX was a precursor or building block for modern Jesus worship.

Now what part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Exactly.

I am having trouble understanding ANY part of your writing.

GIVE US A QUOTE FROM Philo, else apologize to aa5874.

I have NEVER encountered ONE WORD in Philo, about Jesus. never.

GIVE ME A QUOTE, or shut up.

manoj · 06-19-2012, 05:04 PM

I asked Carrier to explain and here is what he had to say (quoting from his blog):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier @ Richard Carrier Blogs

Quote:

Originally Posted by manoj

You mentioned that Philo “tells us that there was a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named Jesus.”

Would you provide more details – what Philo says and where? Perhaps a blog post?

I discuss it in Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 250-51. See the intertextual content of Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63 and 146 and On Dreams 1.215 (for starters). The first of these refers to Zech. 6 which is (or was originally) talking about Jesus ben Jehozadak (in legend the first high priest after the exile; although this passage has him appearing in God’s throne room in heaven). Modern bibles will call him “Joshua ben Jehozadak” but that’s the same name. Philo rejects the historical reading (and thus does not regard this as Jesus ben Jehozadak, but Jesus the Logos, the firstborn of all creation). His discussion of this figure elsewhere makes clear this is not his innovation, but an existing element of Jewish theology he has inherited.

James The Least · 06-19-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

The very earliest form of Christianity is just this: people communicating with this divine being, having hallucinations of him. Paul is one of those. Then later, the myth gets "euhemerized" - i.e. it's brought down into a specific historical context on earth. I'm also pleased to see Carrier taking up my emphasis on the concept of "euhemerization" as a key concept in all this business

)

That would be euhemerization in reverse: what started as a myth (cosmic Jesus) later became historicized (gospel Jesus). Euhemerus proposed that what started as history became mythologized.

The history-to-legend model is the most familiar and plausible in most cases.
It sure seems to me that Jesus was the reverse, but that's a lot harder to prove, especially since we don't have any pre-first century references to cosmic Jesus.

GakuseiDon · 06-20-2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

The very earliest form of Christianity is just this: people communicating with this divine being, having hallucinations of him. Paul is one of those. Then later, the myth gets "euhemerized" - i.e. it's brought down into a specific historical context on earth. I'm also pleased to see Carrier taking up my emphasis on the concept of "euhemerization" as a key concept in all this business

)

That would be euhemerization in reverse: what started as a myth (cosmic Jesus) later became historicized (gospel Jesus). Euhemerus proposed that what started as history became mythologized.

That's right. I don't know why people keep getting this wrong. No "euhemerized" account would start with a virgin birth or end with an ascent to heaven.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.