10-26-2019, 07:04 AM
I think it was the idea of מַלְאַךְ יהוה (the Angel of the Lord) that eventually inspired the entire idea of Jesus. That is, I happen to lean toward mythicism, the idea that Jesus was never a real historical person. The teachings of Jesus and his biographical details are a composite of various wandering teachers (even major rabbis, like Hillel) and biographical details drawn from the text of the Tānāḵ (though having no real historical truth). So, yes, I think that the identification of “the Angel of the Lord” is a very relevant question when it comes to studies regarding the emergence of the Jesus Movement in the first century AD (and perhaps a bit earlier).
To be clearer, Philo related “the Angel of the Lord” to the idea of the heavenly sanctum and the high priest who serves at God’s celestial altar. If there is a temple in Paradise, there is also a priesthood — and that priesthood has a head, which is called Metatron or the Logos. I think JWs relate this character to Michael the archangel, and they also think that Jesus was Michael incarnated. This doesn’t seem far from what early Christians believed, in my opinion. Jesus was initially a celestial being, the high priest of heaven, and only later was biographical detail added to “flesh out” a human being named Jesus.
I don’t think the Jesus thing is real in any sense. It is a complete fabrication. He was never the high priest of heaven. He was never God’s son. He was never a man from Galilee. I’ve read the NT many times over (and know Greek), and I am completely unconvinced of any and every claim from those who think we can have historical certainty regarding Jesus of Nazareth.
To be clearer, Philo related “the Angel of the Lord” to the idea of the heavenly sanctum and the high priest who serves at God’s celestial altar. If there is a temple in Paradise, there is also a priesthood — and that priesthood has a head, which is called Metatron or the Logos. I think JWs relate this character to Michael the archangel, and they also think that Jesus was Michael incarnated. This doesn’t seem far from what early Christians believed, in my opinion. Jesus was initially a celestial being, the high priest of heaven, and only later was biographical detail added to “flesh out” a human being named Jesus.
I don’t think the Jesus thing is real in any sense. It is a complete fabrication. He was never the high priest of heaven. He was never God’s son. He was never a man from Galilee. I’ve read the NT many times over (and know Greek), and I am completely unconvinced of any and every claim from those who think we can have historical certainty regarding Jesus of Nazareth.