Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 04:22 PM

Okay so you are claiming that. But this crackpot claims otherwise:

Quote:

The name, “Therapeutae”, was a Greek cultic term for worshippers, particularly of an Hellenistic Egyptian god, Serapis https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...41248874,d.cGE

Why should your claim of 'most' be taken in favor of this jackass? Did you count the number of references? I doubt it. It was just convenient for you to claim that.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 04:28 PM

As I don't feel like unloading the dishwasher please tell me why any sane person would attribute a connection with either Serapis or Asclepius when Philo's very own words make clear that they are 'like' the Essenes:

Quote:

Having mentioned the Essenes, who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, and I will say what appears to me to be desirable to be said on the subject, not drawing any fictitious statements from my own head for the sake of improving the appearance of that side of the question which nearly all poets and essayists are much accustomed to do in the scarcity of good actions to extol, but with the greatest simplicity adhering strictly to the truth itself, to which I know well that even the most eloquent men do not keep close in their speeches. Nevertheless we must make the endeavour and labour to attain to this virtue; for it is not right that the greatness of the virtue of the men should be a cause of silence to those who do not think it right that anything which is creditable should be suppressed in silence; but the deliberate intention of the philosopher is at once displayed from the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they are called therapeutae and therapeutrides, either because they process an art of medicine more excellent than that in general use in cities (for that only heals bodies, but the other heals souls which are under the mastery of terrible and almost incurable diseases, which pleasures and appetites, fears and griefs, and covetousness, and follies, and injustice, and all the rest of the innumerable multitude of other passions and vices, have inflicted upon them), or else because they have been instructed by nature and the sacred laws to serve the living God, who is superior to the good, and more simple than the one, and more ancient than the unit; with whom, however, who is there of those who profess piety that we can possibly compare?

Do you have eyes? Well please notice the two possible meanings Philo attributes to the name. There is nothing about Asclepius. Nothing about Serapis. Nothing about inventing Christianity (which you can't hold because Eusebius wasn't even born then). Why? Why? Why do we need to make the massive leap to paganism? The meaning is plain. Philo doesn't know why the group calls themselves by this name (or he refuses to reveal it) but no one seriously doubts that they are Jewish. Look at their calendar. It is the 364 day calendar witnessed at Qumran.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 04:58 PM

And Philo plainly says they aren't pagans:

Quote:

But what shall we say of those men who worship the perfect things made of them, the sun, the moon, and the other stars, planets, or fixed-stars, or the whole heaven, or the universal world? And yet even they do not owe their existence to themselves, but to some creator whose knowledge has been most perfect, both in mind and degree. What, again, shall we say of the demi-gods? This is a matter which is perfectly ridiculous: for how can the same man be both mortal and immortal, even if we leave out of the question the fact that the origin of the birth of all these beings is liable to reproach, as being full of youthful intemperance, which its authors endeavour with great profanity to impute to blessed and divine natures, as if they, being madly in love with mortal women, had connected themselves with them; while we know gods to be free from all participation in and from all influence of passion, and completely happy. Again, what shall we say of those who worship carved works and images? the substances of which, stone and wood, were only a little while before perfectly destitute of shape, before the stone-cutters or wood-cutters hewed them out of the kindred stuff around them, while the remainder of the material, their near relation and brother as it were, is made into ewers, or foot-pans, and other common and dishonoured vessels, which are employed rather for uses of darkness than for such as will bear the light; (8) for as for the customs of the Egyptians, it is not creditable even to mention them, for they have introduced irrational beasts, and those not merely such as are domestic and tame, but even the most ferocious of wild beasts to share the honours of the gods, taking some out of each of the elements beneath the moon, as the lion from among the animals which live on the earth, the crocodile from among those which live in the water, the kite from such as traverse the air, and the Egyptian iris. (9) And though they actually see that these animals are born, and that they are in need of food, and that they are insatiable in voracity and full of all sorts of filth, and moreover poisonous and devourers of men, and liable to be destroyed by all kinds of diseases, and that in fact they are often destroyed not only by natural deaths, but also by violence, still they, civilised men, worship these untameable and ferocious beasts; though rational men, they worship irrational beasts; though they have a near relationship to the Deity, they worship creatures unworthy of being compared even to some of the beasts; though appointed as rulers and masters, they worship creatures which are by nature subjects and slaves.

II. (10) But since these men infect not only their fellow countrymen, but also all that come near them with folly, let them remain uncovered, being mutilated in that most indispensable of all the outward senses, namely, sight. I am speaking here not of the sight of the body, but of that of the soul, by which alone truth and falsehood are distinguished from one another. (11) But the therapeutic sect of mankind, being continually taught to see without interruption, may well aim at obtaining a sight of the living God, and may pass by the sun, which is visible to the outward sense, and never leave this order which conducts to perfect happiness.

This is not to mention the references to Moses, Miriam and countless other Jewish references. To argue against the sect being Jewish is simply madness - desperate madness.

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Philo's very own words ....

Do you have eyes? Well please notice the two possible meanings Philo attributes to the name. There is nothing about Asclepius. Nothing about Serapis. Nothing about inventing Christianity (which you can't hold because Eusebius wasn't even born then). Why? Why? Why do we need to make the massive leap to paganism? The meaning is plain. Philo doesn't know why the group calls themselves by this name (or he refuses to reveal it) but no one seriously doubts that they are Jewish ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller to tanya

Either you are interested in discussing the evidence - all the evidence - or you want to destroy, ignore or limit its testimony. There should be a special place for like-minded intellectuals - those who accept the reality that emerges from literary evidence and those who don't.

Firstly where is your provision for the reality that emerges from the archaeological (and all other non literary) evidence and secondly the reality that emerges from the literary evidence (such as Philo on the therapeutae), and the acceptance of that reality, can be questioned. One of the core criteria in the historical method is that

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki/Historical_method#Core_principles

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The OP asks who were the therapeutae in antiquity.

The source called Philo is one literary source.

However Philo is also suspected of being "Christianized" by later Christian preservers of his original writings.

But I have provided a whole swag of pagan references to these "attendants" and most of these references are corroborated - at least in part - by the massive amounts of archaeological evidence for the temples at which this class of people offered their "attendance".

Quote:

Why? Why? Why do we need to make the massive leap to paganism?

Because that is precisely what the evidence (outside of Philo) suggests.

It may be that you seek refuge in Philo and wish to close your eyes to the other evidence. It is your prerogative to either run with the dogma (as you are doing) or to question it (as I am doing).

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 06:46 PM

Where? Get explicit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Philo plainly says they aren't pagans:

Quote:

But what shall we say of those men who worship the perfect things made of them, the sun, the moon, and the other stars, planets, or fixed-stars, or the whole heaven, or the universal world? And yet even they do not owe their existence to themselves, but to some creator whose knowledge has been most perfect, both in mind and degree. What, again, shall we say of the demi-gods? This is a matter which is perfectly ridiculous: for how can the same man be both mortal and immortal, even if we leave out of the question the fact that the origin of the birth of all these beings is liable to reproach, as being full of youthful intemperance, which its authors endeavour with great profanity to impute to blessed and divine natures, as if they, being madly in love with mortal women, had connected themselves with them; while we know gods to be free from all participation in and from all influence of passion, and completely happy. Again, what shall we say of those who worship carved works and images? the substances of which, stone and wood, were only a little while before perfectly destitute of shape, before the stone-cutters or wood-cutters hewed them out of the kindred stuff around them, while the remainder of the material, their near relation and brother as it were, is made into ewers, or foot-pans, and other common and dishonoured vessels, which are employed rather for uses of darkness than for such as will bear the light; (8) for as for the customs of the Egyptians, it is not creditable even to mention them, for they have introduced irrational beasts, and those not merely such as are domestic and tame, but even the most ferocious of wild beasts to share the honours of the gods, taking some out of each of the elements beneath the moon, as the lion from among the animals which live on the earth, the crocodile from among those which live in the water, the kite from such as traverse the air, and the Egyptian iris. (9) And though they actually see that these animals are born, and that they are in need of food, and that they are insatiable in voracity and full of all sorts of filth, and moreover poisonous and devourers of men, and liable to be destroyed by all kinds of diseases, and that in fact they are often destroyed not only by natural deaths, but also by violence, still they, civilised men, worship these untameable and ferocious beasts; though rational men, they worship irrational beasts; though they have a near relationship to the Deity, they worship creatures unworthy of being compared even to some of the beasts; though appointed as rulers and masters, they worship creatures which are by nature subjects and slaves.

II. (10) But since these men infect not only their fellow countrymen, but also all that come near them with folly, let them remain uncovered, being mutilated in that most indispensable of all the outward senses, namely, sight. I am speaking here not of the sight of the body, but of that of the soul, by which alone truth and falsehood are distinguished from one another. (11) But the therapeutic sect of mankind, being continually taught to see without interruption, may well aim at obtaining a sight of the living God, and may pass by the sun, which is visible to the outward sense, and never leave this order which conducts to perfect happiness.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 06:54 PM

So let me get this straight. If Philo says he met the Emperor Gaius at a certain restaurant, and the remains of that restaurant have totally disappeared, it is safe to say the story is fictitious? Crazy.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Where? Get explicit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller

Philo plainly says they aren't pagans:

Quote:
But what shall we say of those men who worship the perfect things made of them, the sun, the moon, and the other stars, planets, or fixed-stars, or the whole heaven, or the universal world? And yet even they do not owe their existence to themselves, but to some creator whose knowledge has been most perfect, both in mind and degree. What, again, shall we say of the demi-gods? This is a matter which is perfectly ridiculous: for how can the same man be both mortal and immortal, even if we leave out of the question the fact that the origin of the birth of all these beings is liable to reproach, as being full of youthful intemperance, which its authors endeavour with great profanity to impute to blessed and divine natures, as if they, being madly in love with mortal women, had connected themselves with them; while we know gods to be free from all participation in and from all influence of passion, and completely happy. Again, what shall we say of those who worship carved works and images? the substances of which, stone and wood, were only a little while before perfectly destitute of shape, before the stone-cutters or wood-cutters hewed them out of the kindred stuff around them, while the remainder of the material, their near relation and brother as it were, is made into ewers, or foot-pans, and other common and dishonoured vessels, which are employed rather for uses of darkness than for such as will bear the light; (8) for as for the customs of the Egyptians, it is not creditable even to mention them, for they have introduced irrational beasts, and those not merely such as are domestic and tame, but even the most ferocious of wild beasts to share the honours of the gods, taking some out of each of the elements beneath the moon, as the lion from among the animals which live on the earth, the crocodile from among those which live in the water, the kite from such as traverse the air, and the Egyptian iris. (9) And though they actually see that these animals are born, and that they are in need of food, and that they are insatiable in voracity and full of all sorts of filth, and moreover poisonous and devourers of men, and liable to be destroyed by all kinds of diseases, and that in fact they are often destroyed not only by natural deaths, but also by violence, still they, civilised men, worship these untameable and ferocious beasts; though rational men, they worship irrational beasts; though they have a near relationship to the Deity, they worship creatures unworthy of being compared even to some of the beasts; though appointed as rulers and masters, they worship creatures which are by nature subjects and slaves.

II. (10) But since these men infect not only their fellow countrymen, but also all that come near them with folly, let them remain uncovered, being mutilated in that most indispensable of all the outward senses, namely, sight. I am speaking here not of the sight of the body, but of that of the soul, by which alone truth and falsehood are distinguished from one another. (11) But the therapeutic sect of mankind, being continually taught to see without interruption, may well aim at obtaining a sight of the living God, and may pass by the sun, which is visible to the outward sense, and never leave this order which conducts to perfect happiness.

Do you even understand what Judaism is? I doubt it as you have no idea what Christianity is.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:

The source called Philo is one literary source

:rolling:

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: And the other source for the Therapeutae who oppose paganism and only want to contemplate the Highest Power behind all things in the manner of Moses and Miriam? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Quote:

I pass over in silence the different fabulous fictions, and the stories of persons with two bodies, who having originally been stuck to one another by amatory influences, are subsequently separated like portions which have been brought together and are disjoined again, the harmony having been dissolved by which they were held together; for all these things are very attractive, being able by novelty of their imagination to allure the ears, but they are despised by the disciples of Moses, who in the abundance of their wisdom have learnt from their earliest infancy to love truth, and also continue to the end of their lives impossible to be deceived. But since the entertainments of the greatest celebrity are full of such trifling and folly, bearing conviction in themselves, if any one should think fit not to regard vague opinion and the character which has been commonly handed down concerning them as feasts which have gone off with the most eminent success, I will oppose to them the entertainments of those persons who have devoted their whole life and themselves to the knowledge and contemplation of the affairs of nature in accordance with the most sacred admonitions and precepts of the prophet Moses. [Philo Vita 64]

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

More evidence about these 'Asclepian therapeutae':

Quote:

When the Israelites saw and experienced this great miracle, which was an event beyond all description, beyond all imagination, and beyond all hope, both men and women together, under the influence of divine inspiration, becoming all one chorus, sang hymns of thanksgiving to God the Saviour, Moses the prophet leading the men, and Miriam the prophetess leading the women. (88) Now the chorus of male and female worshippers being formed, as far as possible on this model, makes a most humorous concert, and a truly musical symphony, the shrill voices of the women mingling with the deep-toned voices of the men. The ideas were beautiful, the expressions beautiful, and the chorus-singers were beautiful; and the end of ideas, and expressions, and chorussingers, was piety; (89) therefore, being intoxicated all night till the morning with this beautiful intoxication, without feeling their heads heavy or closing their eyes for sleep, but being even more awake than when they came to the feast, as to their eyes and their whole bodies, and standing there till morning, when they saw the sun rising they raised their hands to heaven, imploring tranquillity and truth, and acuteness of understanding. And after their prayers they each retired to their own separate abodes, with the intention of again practising the usual philosophy to which they had been wont to devote themselves. (90) This then is what I have to say of those who are called therapeutae, who have devoted themselves to the contemplation of nature, and who have lived in it and in the soul alone, being citizens of heaven and of the world, and very acceptable to the Father and Creator of the universe because of their virtue, which has procured them his love as their most appropriate reward, which far surpasses all the gifts of fortune, and conducts them to the very summit and perfection of happiness.

:rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:

mountainman · 01-17-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So let me get this straight. If Philo says he met the Emperor Gaius at a certain restaurant, and the remains of that restaurant have totally disappeared, it is safe to say the story is fictitious? Crazy.

The investigation would necessitate gathering up all mention of that certain restaurant in antiquity.

Who mentions "the restaurant" in antiquity?

Achilles Tatius
Aelian
Aeschines
Antiphon
Apollodorus
Appian
Aristides (numerous times)
Aristophanes
Arrian
Athenaeus (numerous times)
Cassius Dio
Chariton
Claudius Ptolemy
Demosthenes
Dio Chrysostom
Diodorus
Diogenes
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Epictetus
Euripides (numerous times)
Galen
Herodotus
Hesiod
Hippocrates
Homer
Hymn 3 to Apollo
Hyperides
Isaeus
Isocrates
Julian (many times)
Lucian (numerous times)
Lysias
Marcus Aurelius
Onasander
Philo of Alexandria <<<<<========================= (Philo)
Philostratus the Athenian
Pindar
Plato (especially popular in Plato)
Plutarch (many, many times - MOST references are in Plutarch)
Polybius
Procopius
Sophocles
Strabo
Theophrastus
Thucydides (numerous times)
Xenophon

Of course, because Philo mentions and describes the restaurant, and Philo is Jewish, the restaurant is a Jewish restaurant.

I see.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 07:07 PM

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

01-17-2013, 06:54 PM	#116
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So let me get this straight. If Philo says he met the Emperor Gaius at a certain restaurant, and the remains of that restaurant have totally disappeared, it is safe to say the story is fictitious? Crazy.

01-17-2013, 07:07 PM	#120
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.