stephan huller

The dumbest discussion ever

Clivedurdle

I wonder if there is a problem of scale here.

We have basic assumptions that monasteries are related to modern ideas of libraries, healing and caring.

We have throughout the med huge "temple" complexes that were actually healing and caring institutions with huge libraries and some very impressive skills and techniques, and a very long tradition of healing, albeit on completely incorrect knowledge foundations!

These were systematically destroyed from the 300's onwards.

It would be a very useful bit of propaganda to state that actually this new religion was using these ideas.

I must note from googling that I have not been able to find clear descriptions of the Kos complex, actually, maybe Google Earth....

stephan huller

This thread is getting dumber and dumber. The specific concept of 'monastery' is only foisted onto the discussion because of Eusebius. Yes it may have been 'like' a monastery but there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF HEALING GOING ON other than Philo's allegory that listening to God's word 'heals the soul.' Honestly, this like Sartre's No Exit. People talking but not listening to the material. It's just a bunch of people living by a lake who happen to be connected by a shared interest in Hebrew scripture and traditions. This is what we know - and perhaps that because Philo likes the group and connects the group to the Essaioi that they fit somewhere within the box of 'religious associations Philo could like' and 'groups related to the Essenes who were Jewish.'

It's like playing battleship. You don't know exactly where the whole ship is because you can't see it. But you've just scored two hits at H5 and G5. You know its not a two hole ship because the other guy didn't say 'you sunk me ship.' You don't know if the rest of the ship is at I5 and down or F5 and up and how big the ship is. But we know approximately where it is (the 5 row) and something of the character of the group because of (a) the person making the reference and approving of them and (b) the group he associates them with (i.e. the Essenes) and (c) his description of the group connecting them to Israel, the Jewish scriptures, prophesy etc.

tanya

I guess the question is then raised, how does one define "dumb", in the context of a forum devoted to assessing the evidence for, or against, various theories relating to the genesis of christianity.

At least, that's my reason for participation in this forum.

It is unclear to me, what stephan intends to accomplish here at the forum.

Many of his comments, indeed, entire threads, strike me, at least, as "out in left field".

Here's my three choices, arranged in descending chronological fashion (selected from among only the most recent topics on the forum) for "dumbest discussion ever". Of course these are not actually the threads which meander the most meaningless path possible, there are other threads, even more absurd, but, these three strike me, at least, as being far less amenable to receipt of some kind of praise, than most other threads, in recent months.....

1. "Why does it have to be 'Either Or' In the Mythicist Debates?" Date: 26 January 2013
OP, Post 1 stephan huller
Post 7 stephan huller
2. "An Argument for Egyptian Paganism" Date: 25 January 2013
OP, Post 1 stephan huller
Post 5 stephan huller
post 7 Toto
post 12 stephan huller
3. "What's the Citation" Date 12 January 2013
OP, Post 1 stephan huller
Post 2 stephan huller
Post 3 stephan huller
:wave:

mountainman

The reasoning behind the thesis (as I understand it) was not a dislike of the Catholic monastic tradition.

The following is extracted from Philo in Early Christian Literature by David T. Runia ...

I have had no success determining what Akrtumswissenschuft means.

But immediately following this is what I see as the reason for the thesis of Lucius, supported by Zeller, Harnack and Schtirer:


The reason appears to be based on evidence for monastic settlements, and its lack, before the 4th century.

The author of "VC" describes a monastic settlement that is not attested to before the Pachomian movement in the 4th century.

Furthermore it may be reasonably inferred that the Pachomian movement provided alternative shelter and community living arrangements - at least in part - for the 4th century class of pagan "therapeutae" whose temples were destroyed by Constantine, and who's traditional service and presence in the empire for centuries was effectively made redundant overnight. (For an example of some evidence for this inference see the discussions between Hermes and Asclepius in the Nag Hammadi codices.)

stephan huller

In Deutsch Altertumswissenschaft in English 'study of antiquity.'

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...mswissenschaft

mountainman

All the other different other groups of worshipers were from the pagan Egypto-Graeco-Roman milieu they were not Jewish.

The generic term "therapeutae" had been previously associated with the pagans and the pagans alone.


The generic term "therapeutae" had been previously associated with the pagans and the pagans alone and was specifically often reserved for the pagans who attended the Healing God Asclepius in his many churches temples throughout the empire.

When we understand why the author of "VC" borrowed (or stole) the term from the ancient and well attested pagan (non Jewish) heritage and applied it to this group of people of supposedly 1st century people, we may be half way there.



A very useful identity theft.




It might be argued that a universal pagan church was represented in part by the Sacred Assembly of the Pagan Priests (who in turn represented the pagan therapeutae) to the Lord God Caesar and Pontifex Maximus.

If the universal church of Christian ... Jewish ... pagan therapeutae was hijacked by the Centralised Monotheistic State Christian church in part by means of its preservation fabrication of the treatise "VC" (supposedly by Philo) then it follows that the "inferred memory" [via Eusebius] of the earliest Christians may have been invented. This invention may have been necessary later in the 4th century to explain to all the new centralised monotheistic state canonical Christians who the very well respected therapeutae actually were - even if the temples were in disrepair.

Who were the therapeutae in antiquity?

What does the Emperor's propaganda machine say?

Shall we make an appeal to authority?

Let's see what "Philo" says and close our eyes to the rest of the evidence.

Toto

It means that you are working off of a OCR produced, inadequately edited, possibly illegal copy of the book. Check out Google books - the term is Altertumswissenschaft.

Yes, that and the unwillingness of these good Protestants to think that Catholic monasticism had earlier roots in antiquity.
.
That depends on what you are smoking.

aa5874

Philo never claimed that the Therapeutae were Christians or Christians of the Jesus cult so I do not understand why you are trying to do so.

You argue that there were NO Christians of the Jesus cult before the 4th century yet you are trying to implicate Philo's "On the Contemplative Life" when it actually supports your own position.

No other Apologetic source before Church History ever claimed the Therapeutae were Christians or Christians of the Jesus cult which corroborates your own position.

"On the Contemplative Life" was NOT composed by the 4th century Church because it lacks all the elements and the profile of writings composed by the Church of Rome.

If you want to know what the Church wrote examine the Donation of Constatine, Church History, Against Heresies, "Against Marcion, Epistles of Polycarp, Epistle of the Church of Rome [1 Clement] and the Epistles of Ignatius.

stephan huller

There should be a special section at the forum for this nonsense