A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

[Jax]

I guess my main question would have to be "if Iesous is such a slam dunk then why are Justin and Origen bothering to argue that it is indeed the name for IC in the first place"?

[Secret Alias]

No.

Josephus then said that as Philo—the head of the Jewish delegation

Celebrity does not allow for individualism. If I am 'just some guy' I can end up in debauchery and no one cares. If I am the head of the community that isn't allowed because in exchange for power and privilege it is expected that I epitomize the community wherever I go. The same is true for public writings. Philo can't have had 'his own opinions' any more than 'his own behavior.' He was owned by his responsibilities. His opinions are the opinions of Alexandrian Jewry and the early Christians took them as such.

[Secret Alias]

why are Justin and Origen bothering to argue that it is indeed the name for IC in the first place"?

They aren't 'arguing.' Read the passage in Origen. If he was arguing it might have been picked up by scholars. He's just spelling out a Hebrew sentence (mostly to show he can read Hebrew because Africanus was fluent in many languages). Justin is just explaining - not arguing - what Christ's name meant. He says it means two different things in Greek and Hebrew.

[Secret Alias]

Re: Philo

That's why scholars are so terrible. They begin with:

1. we know what Judaism is. we know what Christianity is.
2. anything that isn't what we think either are is a sectarian opinion.

Really sucks. It is clear from the Torah that it was written by someone who thought the environs around Gerizim was holy. That's where God lives. There is no mention of 'Jerusalem.' As such the Torah is not a Jewish document. It became one in the same way it 'became' a Christian document. But it wasn't a 'Jewish' document and there are reasons to think that the Jewish Sadducees respected north Israelite assumptions and traditions as older than Jewish ones.

[Jax]

why are Justin and Origen bothering to argue that it is indeed the name for IC in the first place"?

They aren't 'arguing.' Read the passage in Origen. If he was arguing it might have been picked up by scholars. He's just spelling out a Hebrew sentence (mostly to show he can read Hebrew because Africanus was fluent in many languages). Justin is just explaining - not arguing - what Christ's name meant. He says it means two different things in Greek and Hebrew.

Ok, 'arguing' isn't perhaps the right way of saying it but my point is, why would they need mention it in the first place? I mean if it was so obvious and known to everyone there would need be no reason to belabor the point. Would there?

[Chrissy Hansen]

No.

Josephus then said that as Philo—the head of the Jewish delegation

Celebrity does not allow for individualism. If I am 'just some guy' I can end up in debauchery and no one cares. If I am the head of the community that isn't allowed because in exchange for power and privilege it is expected that I epitomize the community wherever I go. The same is true for public writings. Philo can't have had 'his own opinions' any more than 'his own behavior.' He was owned by his responsibilities. His opinions are the opinions of Alexandrian Jewry and the early Christians took them as such.

Because rich, Imperialistic friends of the Emperor like Philo, are famously great representations of the communities they discuss. IMO, Philo would say anything to make himself and his views look good and have his work passed on. If you think that his "responsibilities" kept him from saying what he wanted, or somehow made him a paragon representation of Alexandria at the time, then I think you should study just how often ancient authors would make stuff up, misrepresent, and idealize places... even in address to the Emperor.

I don't think we can trust theories that place certainty on the honesty and accuracy of rich, imperialistic figures with regard to general populace.

That's why scholars are so terrible. They begin with:

1. we know what Judaism is. we know what Christianity is.
2. anything that isn't what we think either are is a sectarian opinion.

I never made the case about any of this. In fact, I think people who just assume honesty of these authors are pretty much just denying human reality and dehumanizing ancient authors. Ancient authors contradict themselves, lie, fabricate, fictionalize, idealize, etc. just as much as anyone else, even in places of authority (in fact, especially in places of authority, because they get more protection for doing so there). IMO, trusting Philo to accurately represent the regular beliefs of the Jewish populace is like trusting Tertullian and Irenaeus to accurately represent Marcion's beliefs.

[Chrissy Hansen]

ויקרא or the קרא?

קרא has a gematria value of 301 (https://www.gematrix.org/?word=%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90). So, it doesn't work if you use the base term. You have to use the compound verb and conjunction... which are two different particles, to make this work.

The archaic way of spelling 'man' is aleph-shin (see passages in Ezekiel)
Yes ויקרא is used on its own. It's the name of the Third Book of the Torah.

So... instead of the more current variants of the word, we just go with the one that would be archaic and not used as much. Also, again, please give examples. When I look up אש in Ezekiel, I keep getting the word for "fire". The only time I've seen אש used for "man" is in Phoenician... which really makes the theory stretched if we have to do even more cross cultural numerology.

[MrMacSon]

I think the flaws in Brakke.

1. the Israelite tradition was rooted at Mount Gerizim originally, not Jerusalem.
2. the older Israelite traditions are found among the Samaritans and would be likely to be shared among the Sadducees, neo-Sadducaic groups (R Ishmael) and the Karaites.
3. the existence of a Great Power or angel is prominent among the Samaritans

I don't disagree. Brakke's overview was superficial and somewhat adversarial.

There's a long way to go to work out what was happening [in the background?] prior to Hellenism and beyond Hellenism.

---

eta:

As it was God's speech that brought the world into existence, Philo designate the Logos or Word of God as the divine principle that mediates between the ultimate God and the creation and the Word as God's chief messenger standing on the border and separating the 'creature' from the Creator.

fwiw, Philo's reference to and use of Logos / Word was a lot more elaborate than that ie. Logos means more than a simple assertion about creation

[Secret Alias]

I don't know how people use Google.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ehJoB ... an&f=false

When Moses and the elders SEE God on the mountain they see (a) fire and (b) a man. A Fire Man although not a 'fireman':



So the Israelite understanding is that God is a Fire Man.

[Secret Alias]

So when Moses sees the burning bush. He sees a 'fire man' in the burning bush because God is fire and a man.
When the Israelites see God on the mountain they see fire and man.
And so and so on.