Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-10-2013, 12:11 PM

And for those who aren't following the argument - it is a massive leap of logic to understand that a Jew (= Philo) interpreted Zechariah in such a way as to reinforce the idea that God or a god was named Joshua. There is no supporting evidence for this position which is not the case with respect to Christian interpretation of the material.

Steven Carr · 01-10-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And for those who aren't following the argument - it is a massive leap of logic to understand that a Jew (= Philo) interpreted Zechariah in such a way as to reinforce the idea that God or a god was named Joshua. There is no supporting evidence for this position which is not the case with respect to Christian interpretation of the material.

Is there any evidence that Jews , before Christianity, interpreted Hosea 11:1 as prophesying that the Messiah would go to Egypt?

If not, then we know for a fact that no Christian would ever have done so (unless there really had been a Messiah who had been hiding in Egypt)

We can go further. Until every single Christian reference to Biblical passages is proved beyond doubt to have been thought of by Jews first, we can prove that no Christians would ever have thought of using those Biblical passages as passages about Jesus.

stephan huller · 01-10-2013, 12:38 PM

But that's nonsensical. Jews were adamant about not giving God a name. This is basic stuff. To argue that Philo - a Jew - did something that we have no evidence for any Jew ever doing in the annals of history, there at least has to be some supporting evidence to allow us to assume things not recorded in his writings. As I said for a Christian this proposition would come naturally but in the case of a Jew there has to be some supporting evidence for us to even consider the proposition because it goes against everything we know about Judaism. Philo wasn't some wacky sectarian. He was a leading member of the Jewish community in Alexandria, an extremely prominent Jewish community. Writing or thinking that God was named Joshua (Jesus) would surely have made him out of step with contemporary Jewry.

Indeed another piece of evidence is that we have tradition after tradition which intimates or identifies that he opposed Christianity the Jesus religion - and specifically - according to Anastasius of Sinai, that Jesus was a God. According to Philo, Jesus the one taken to be God and the Logos by Christians was really an ordinary man. The tone of the argument does not lend itself to believing that Philo ever held that Jesus was the name of God.

What it all comes down to is weighing the evidence for what is likely that Philo could have believed about his god. Show me a scrap of evidence which would make it seem even possible that this Jew was a leading member of the religion at his time but at once, a complete anomaly.

stephan huller · 01-10-2013, 01:48 PM

Here is the original excerpt from the Hodêgos of Anastasius the Sinaite, which is surely very relevant to it. I refer to that passage in chap. 14 in which Anastasius reproduces part (the Jew's part) of a dialogue between Mnason the disciple of the apostles and Philo "the philosopher and unbelieving Jew."

Quote:

I am going to adopt and appropriate the role of Paul of Samosata for you, or, better, that of the unbelieving Jew Philo, the philosopher; for he argued against the divinity of Christ with Mnason, the disciple of the apostles, and called Mnason dichrota:

"What argument, what sort of argument, and from what source (comes) any argument to the effect that the Christ is God? Should you adduce his birth from a virgin, without seed as they say, the begetting of Adam (appears) more noble and more striking, a formation by the very hands of God and a vivifieation through God's own breath, and it was purer than the nine-month fetation of Jesus in his mother (terminating in) filth and wails and mess. Should you adduce the signs he performed after his baptism, I would say to you that no one on earth ever performed such signs and wonders as did Moses for a period of forty years. Should you then point out that Jesus raised the dead, well, the prophet Ezekiel raised up from the dry bones of the army of dead men a numberless people. Moreover, Jesus himself said that some men would perform greater works than he.

Now if you tell us that Jesus was taken up into the heavens as God, surely the prophet Elias was taken up more gloriously in a blazing chariot and with horses of fire. Calling Jesus the God of heaven must be reckoned as the most outrageous of your blasphemies, for God Himself said to Moses that "No man shall see my face and live." Further, our Scripture witnesses that "No one has ever seen God. No man has seen or is able to see God." How is it that Christian preachers are not ashamed to proclaim Jesus as God? For it is said that God is a consuming fire. Tell me, then, does a God of fire hunger? Does a God of fire thirst? Does a God of fire spit? Is a God of fire circumcised and does he bleed? And does he cast on the ground bits of flesh and blood and the refuse of the stomach? All such things were cast to the ground by Jesus and were eaten up and consumed by dogs, sometimes by wild beasts and birds, and trampled on by cattle. Every bit of his flesh that was cast off and discarded, whether it was sputum or nail-cuttings or blood or sweat or tears, was a part and portion naturally associated with the body and sloughed off or discarded in due process of growth. Indeed you say that he was like men in all things according to the flesh apart from sin. Yet you preach that he who was dead for three days was God. And what sort of a God who is a consuming fire can die? Why his very servants, the angels, cannot die, neither can the evil spirits of the demons, nor, for that matter, the souls of men. To press the matter, I ask: What sort of God, having the power of life and death, would take to flight—as Jesus fled from Herod lest he be put to death as an infant? What sort of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What sort of God becomes a curse, which is what Paul says of Jesus? What sort of sinless God commits sin? For, according to you, Jesus became sin for our sake. And if he is God, how is it that he prayed to escape the cup of death? And his prayer was not heard. If he is God, how can he speak as one abandoned by God: "O God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Is God abandoned by God? Does God need God (as would appear) when he says "Do not abandon my soul to the nether world"? Is God (such as to be) tied up, and abused and despised and put to death? If he was indeed God, he should have crushed those intending to take him prisoner, just as the angel crushed the Sodomites (who threatened) Lot. But you call the helplessness of Jesus "long-suffering."

Doesn't this at least require those claiming Philo claimed Jesus was the name of Philo's god put up some evidence to the contrary? I see no more need to argue about this. We have (a) knowledge of what normative Judaism has always believed (i.e. god doesn't have a name) (b) the fact that Philo was a leading Jew and thus 'normative' in some respect and (c) actual evidence from one of the greatest libraries in the world that Philo thought the idea that God was named Jesus blasphemous. Put up or shut up as they say in the movies. Carrier is more likely to be wrong than he is to be right on this issue.

Sheshbazzar · 01-10-2013, 02:15 PM

There is a lot of confusion in the matter. Particularly with the Christian jump that The Messiah of Israel would be ha'Shem himself.
But taking the Christian readings and interpretations out of the way, for the moment, as though they had never been or ever had any influence upon Jewish thought or opinion.
It seems quite conceivable that the ancient Jews reading these prophetic verses would conclude that they suggested the name that was 'the branch', and that would someday be the name of The Messiah would be the same as the name of 'Joshua' the son of Josedech.

Which considering that it was 'Joshua' יהושע (son of Nun) that 'delivered' (y'shua) Israel into the Promised Land and defeated the famous kings of that age, The Messiah to come would do the same only on a much grander scale.

Most Jews who still hold to a hope of or an expectation of a coming Jewish Messiah who will rule over the nations, do not seem to buy into the Christian propagated idea that this great Messiah will be ha'Shem himself, but rather will be a natural born human ruler raised up from among their brethren to become enthroned and empowered by ha'Shem.
Such not having or allowing Christian readings and superstitions to be foisted off upon themselves, should have no objections to another and greater יהושע again gathering and leading the twelve tribes in ruling over all the nations of the earth, as was much prophesied by Israel's Prophets.

The name 'Joshua' יהושע is pretty much a Hebrew natural for any such 'deliverer' and ruler.
Philo could have despised Christianity and its claims, and still very well held that the true and human Messiah when he came, would bear that ancient and honorable name which Moshe himself so named יהושע
I think it is sad how Christianity has driven a wedge into Jewish thought, and in so doing accomplished alienating Jews from certain parts of their own heritage.

Personally, While I don't buy into the Christians Ἰησοῦς Χριστός mythology. I most certainly respect the name of Israel's Elohim and the name יהושע and what it signifies.

Sheshbazzar

stephan huller · 01-10-2013, 02:50 PM

Shesh,

That's very nice. But the question here is whether Philo of Alexandria in particular could have conceived of Jesus as the name of the firstborn Logos. Not quite what you are discussing.

Sheshbazzar · 01-10-2013, 06:27 PM

Philo was a learned Jew. It follows that he would have been well familiar with the content of The Torah and the writings of Prophets.

The question you are asking is essentially not one of Judaism, but of just how much GREEK theological 'logos' reasonings and philosophy Philo would have been willing to syncretize into his Jewish faith. And that is something that varies with each individual.

Philo does not appear to have much respect for the reasonings and the 'Logos' 'logic' of the christians. He doesn't at all 'buy' into the Jebus Khrist tale.

Every Jew that is devout learns to discern, and put a difference between that which is unclean and that which is the clean, and between that which is קדש SET APART, and between that which is חל common and profane.

I highly doubt that he would 'buy' the common Greek name Ἰησοῦς to be the equal of the Holy 'set-apart' letters יהושע inscribed in הספר תורת יהוה by Moshe.

If he was a true Hebrew he would endorse the name that Moshe and the Prophets wrote, and eschew and scorn the הסוס השקר.

As he did.

stephan huller · 01-10-2013, 07:35 PM

why? philo explicitly denies the anatole is a man

Sheshbazzar · 01-10-2013, 07:46 PM

Doesn't make any difference. The name is the name, the same, man or no man.

The Name is The Name, the same, Elohim or no Elohim.

AdamWho · 01-10-2013, 08:23 PM

You know, every scholar has to pay to hear rebuttals, it is called journals and they are not cheap.

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

01-10-2013, 12:11 PM	#41
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And for those who aren't following the argument - it is a massive leap of logic to understand that a Jew (= Philo) interpreted Zechariah in such a way as to reinforce the idea that God or a god was named Joshua. There is no supporting evidence for this position which is not the case with respect to Christian interpretation of the material.

01-10-2013, 12:38 PM	#43
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But that's nonsensical. Jews were adamant about not giving God a name. This is basic stuff. To argue that Philo - a Jew - did something that we have no evidence for any Jew ever doing in the annals of history, there at least has to be some supporting evidence to allow us to assume things not recorded in his writings. As I said for a Christian this proposition would come naturally but in the case of a Jew there has to be some supporting evidence for us to even consider the proposition because it goes against everything we know about Judaism. Philo wasn't some wacky sectarian. He was a leading member of the Jewish community in Alexandria, an extremely prominent Jewish community. Writing or thinking that God was named Joshua (Jesus) would surely have made him out of step with contemporary Jewry. Indeed another piece of evidence is that we have tradition after tradition which intimates or identifies that he opposed Christianity the Jesus religion - and specifically - according to Anastasius of Sinai, that Jesus was a God. According to Philo, Jesus the one taken to be God and the Logos by Christians was really an ordinary man. The tone of the argument does not lend itself to believing that Philo ever held that Jesus was the name of God. What it all comes down to is weighing the evidence for what is likely that Philo could have believed about his god. Show me a scrap of evidence which would make it seem even possible that this Jew was a leading member of the religion at his time but at once, a complete anomaly.

01-10-2013, 02:15 PM	#45
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There is a lot of confusion in the matter. Particularly with the Christian jump that The Messiah of Israel would be ha'Shem himself. But taking the Christian readings and interpretations out of the way, for the moment, as though they had never been or ever had any influence upon Jewish thought or opinion. It seems quite conceivable that the ancient Jews reading these prophetic verses would conclude that they suggested the name that was 'the branch', and that would someday be the name of The Messiah would be the same as the name of 'Joshua' the son of Josedech. Which considering that it was 'Joshua' יהושע (son of Nun) that 'delivered' (y'shua) Israel into the Promised Land and defeated the famous kings of that age, The Messiah to come would do the same only on a much grander scale. Most Jews who still hold to a hope of or an expectation of a coming Jewish Messiah who will rule over the nations, do not seem to buy into the Christian propagated idea that this great Messiah will be ha'Shem himself, but rather will be a natural born human ruler raised up from among their brethren to become enthroned and empowered by ha'Shem. Such not having or allowing Christian readings and superstitions to be foisted off upon themselves, should have no objections to another and greater יהושע again gathering and leading the twelve tribes in ruling over all the nations of the earth, as was much prophesied by Israel's Prophets. The name 'Joshua' יהושע is pretty much a Hebrew natural for any such 'deliverer' and ruler. Philo could have despised Christianity and its claims, and still very well held that the true and human Messiah when he came, would bear that ancient and honorable name which Moshe himself so named יהושע I think it is sad how Christianity has driven a wedge into Jewish thought, and in so doing accomplished alienating Jews from certain parts of their own heritage. Personally, While I don't buy into the Christians Ἰησοῦς Χριστός mythology. I most certainly respect the name of Israel's Elohim and the name יהושע and what it signifies. Sheshbazzar

01-10-2013, 02:50 PM	#46
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Shesh, That's very nice. But the question here is whether Philo of Alexandria in particular could have conceived of Jesus as the name of the firstborn Logos. Not quite what you are discussing.

01-10-2013, 06:27 PM	#47
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Philo was a learned Jew. It follows that he would have been well familiar with the content of The Torah and the writings of Prophets. The question you are asking is essentially not one of Judaism, but of just how much GREEK theological 'logos' reasonings and philosophy Philo would have been willing to syncretize into his Jewish faith. And that is something that varies with each individual. Philo does not appear to have much respect for the reasonings and the 'Logos' 'logic' of the christians. He doesn't at all 'buy' into the Jebus Khrist tale. Every Jew that is devout learns to discern, and put a difference between that which is unclean and that which is the clean, and between that which is קדש SET APART, and between that which is חל common and profane. I highly doubt that he would 'buy' the common Greek name Ἰησοῦς to be the equal of the Holy 'set-apart' letters יהושע inscribed in הספר תורת יהוה by Moshe. If he was a true Hebrew he would endorse the name that Moshe and the Prophets wrote, and eschew and scorn the הסוס השקר. As he did.

01-10-2013, 07:35 PM	#48
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	why? philo explicitly denies the anatole is a man

01-10-2013, 07:46 PM	#49
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Doesn't make any difference. The name is the name, the same, man or no man. The Name is The Name, the same, Elohim or no Elohim.

01-10-2013, 08:23 PM	#50
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	You know, every scholar has to pay to hear rebuttals, it is called journals and they are not cheap.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.