Posts: 649
Threads: 25
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation:
22
I don't know anything about the theology of those who put the journal together. I think the articles might be interesting to read.
Posts: 649
Threads: 25
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation:
22
Interesting, my domain name used to be jhronline.com before it was thehebrewcafe.com.
Posts: 649
Threads: 25
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation:
22
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.
Posts: 11
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation:
0
Jason—well, since I am a guest on your forum and am not here to defend my beliefs, I will just state that I strongly (yet, respectfully) disagree w. your last paragraph—and I have also had Greek, and have continued on in my studies after completing Greek I. In fact, I am (slowly) taking Greek II now, along w. still trying to get a firmer grasp on Hebrew.
But, again, I am not here to cause problems—I am here to learn more about the Hebrew Scriptures. And, as already stated, I do have a lot of appreciation and respect for the Jewish people and have learned a lot from them concerning the Hebrew Scriptures.
In fact, I am wanting to begin a thread to inquire about the force of the masculine singular participles, singular pronouns, etc. employed by God in Isaiah 44.24—but still trying to get a good feel for this forum lest I color someone’s perceptions regarding my intents as a newbie. I assure you my intents are as I have stated—I am here to learn more about the inspired grammar of the TaNaKh and absolutely nothing else.
Thank you for your response nonetheless. The Philo angle is interesting.
. J/K.