stephan huller

But Peter, what is there really to say to any of the 'proofs' (or 'possibilities') that you put forward? It is like being kids and trying to play with someone who keeps changing the rules of the game in order to assure he is always winning. The rules don't apply to you. It's not like there is an equal playing field. The evidence is accepted or rejected based upon its ability to reinforce the underlying conspiracy theory you promote. The rest of us have to respond reasonably to evidence which is brought up to contradict our theses. You just brush things aside and say the rules don't apply to you. Your revision of history is true because you want it to be true. And you are happy gathering a smattering of souls here at the forum - people who are motivated by the same hatred of reality - and that will be your life's achievement.

stephan huller

And yes I never had sex with that woman. To be honest I think I would have found it impossible to maintain any sort of arousal looking at a swastika inside of a star of David - even if it was couched between two lovely breasts. It's hard to look at that image and not be disturbed. I remember seeing an Ugo Tognazzi film in Italian where a blond guy has to go to Ugo to figure out why he is impotent with his wife. It turns out that he keeps a picture of his mother by the bed. This symbol is much worse than that.

mountainman

Thanks for this Mead reference.

So we have Mead (1900) openly championing Conybeare's 1895 thesis against the thesis (held for hundreds of years?) that "VC" was not written by Philo but some unknown author of the 3rd or 4th century.

It's interesting to note that the Jewish literature never directly mentioned or preserved Philo and that Philo's works may not even yet have been translated into Hebrew.

Nobody has yet responded to what appears to be an obvious conclusion that the author of "VC" borrowed (or stole) the prestigious term "therapeutae" from the Greek Classical tradition.

mountainman

Feel free to cite evidence in support of antithetical or alternative possibilities.

Don't be so petulant. The game is ancient history: and it is based on evidence and hypotheses about the evidence.


AC/DC - All Hail Caesar

stephan huller

There is very little to talk about as you aren't led by the evidence. If I dropped you in the middle of a nowhere and you had to figure out a way home, you'd inevitably figure out that the sun sets in the west and rises in the east. You'd figure out what time it is by the sun. You'd might be able to navigate by the stars. There are certain rules of nature that you'd have to adhere to if you wanted to survive. But in this intellectual wilderness you have no such prerogative. With you there are no rules. There is no attempt to follow what we know to be more likely and most likely. You just want to play. So go ahead make up shit.

aa5874

There is no obvious evidence that the author stloe or borrowed the term "therapeutae" once they did exist.

You argue that the Therapeutae were mentioned by other writers so I don't understand why someone has to borrow or steal the term.

Philo did not even claim the Therapeutae were Jews or Christians which corroborates your position.

What is obvious is that the author of "Church History" HIJACKED "On the Contemplative Life" and made numerous False claims because there was NO history of any Christians of the Jesus cult during the time of Philo.

It is an extremely simply matter to deduce what was Hijacked by the Church.

Toto

The thesis that VC was written in the 3rd or 4th century was held by anti-Catholic Protestants, but it had no real reasoning behind it that we know of, other than a dislike of the Catholic monastic tradition. Conybeare provided more than a thesis - he provided a linguistic proof.

The author of VC appears to have used a generic term "therapeutae" that was also used for different other groups of worshipers.

tanya

Because you have avoided addressing any of the several questions posed to you, in post 395.

And you keep avoiding the several points offered in my post 395.

Toto

tanya/avi - let's start with the basics.

Do you agree that the term "theraputae" is a generic term, comparable to "priest" that does not refer to a specific religion? If not, why not?

tanya

In my opinion, the "basics" here, is the OP, in which Pete inquired about evidence regarding the link between groups of Greek pagans called Therapeutae, and the medical practitioners loyal to Asklepius, including Hippocrates, "father" of medicine, born in the town dedicated to Asklepius, as described by Clive-->THANKS Clive!!

If we are to approach this by starting with the "basics", then should we not remain in harmony with the OP?

You, Toto, suggested that Joan Taylor had offered a persuasive investigation of the Therapeutae, and indicated, (or at least, I interpreted your post as indicating) that her publication represented a fine example of "modern scholarship" on the topic.

I read her book, at your suggestion, based upon your glowing review, and found her book sadly wanting in every respect. There is, I find, nothing particularly useful about it.

However, the exercise was instructive, for, in search of Joan Taylor, I found, to my surprise, that Philo's text was full of gold nuggets, that I had not detected, previously.

In essence, Joan has convinced me, that I was wrong, and I now agree with you and Stephan, that Philo's text indeed has some points of utility to this question of the function and origin of this group of Greek pagans, situated on the outskirts of Alexandria. (That is not to write, however, that I am persuaded that VC had in fact, been authored by Philo, a brilliant Jew from Alexandria. It may have been, or VC may be the work of some much later author--I don't know.

What I do know is that there are nuggets within VC, that suggest to me, hence my questions to you, that "Philo" (if he were the author) considered the Therapeutae most definitely, not Jewish.

Of course this conclusion is diametrically opposed to Joan's presentation. I sought, in that post, 395, to engage you, Toto, in particular, or any other forum member, for that matter, because I believe that the Philo's VC text refutes the concept of a Jewish flavor to this group of Therapeutae.

Consequently, your suggestion to commence with the "basics", appears to me, misdirected. What is needed is continuity with the OP, and in particular, discussion about the reference you cited, with the implications of Philo's text, in regard to those points, (raised in post 395), that appear to refute Joan Taylor's conclusion.