Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 11-25-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear all,

About these wands. Do we have a collection somewhere?

I have been unable to locate a high enough resolution picture to make out whether or not he is actually holding a wand. Do you have one?

mountainman · 11-25-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear all,

About these wands. Do we have a collection somewhere?

I have been unable to locate a high enough resolution picture to make out whether or not he is actually holding a wand. Do you have one?

Dear spamandham,

I appear to have lost the Dura image too for the moment. If I ever get the time to make a register for all these "wands" it would be a good thing. Many wands are point-blank pagan, for example:

1) The wands associated with the "Magi" of the Persian (Parthian before 222 CE; Sassanian afterwards) Zorastrianism/Mazdean monotheistic state (after Ardashir) religion which had (as prisoners of war) Roman soldiers (and Roman emperors!!!) constructing significant architecture in Persia - see Shapur I.

2) the series of wands associated with the figure of Apollonius of Tyana.

The "Wand Register of Antiquity" needs to be listed once and for all. The epoch we are dealing with, must commence from the epoch BCE and extend until at least the fifth century, since the christian origins end-game is still then being enacted by the infamus bishopus Cyrilus.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-25-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

At this late date, barring discovery and publishing of actual 1st and 2nd century B.C. temple and synagogue records, any statement regarding the numbers of proselytes in those times must remain conjectural and can only be based upon circumstantial evidence drawn from The Bible, and early Jewish writings.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Certainly The Torah, whenever it was written, contains quite a few specific rules, and evidences of Jewish interaction with proselytes.
I referenced The book of Job, which by most scholars is accepted as being a quite ancient work, some even placing it as the oldest book in the Bible.

I've never heard that, but I don't think it's an important issue for this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Ezekiel writing in approximately 600 BCE made reference (Ezek. 14:14 & 20) to righteous Job, whom because of being both a Gentile, and a believer in YHWH (Job 1:21) was by definition and example a proselyte, as were Jethro, Moses' father in law, and The Queen of Sheba, among others.

Jethro and the Queen of Sheba, in the stories, are clearly not Israelites/Hebrews/Jews. I can't find any similarly unequivocal statement about Job, although from the absence of references it seems likely that he too was a Gentile. But in any case, the fact that such characters exist in stories is not strong evidence that they were common in real life. I suppose it does have some evidentiary weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So while it might be easy to disregard the internal evidence, it is there, and unquestionably ancient and integral with the texts.

I'm not disputing that that evidence is there, but it's not evidence that bears directly on the point. It does have some indirect value, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Then there is the Talmud with its myriad references, which admittedly relatively late in composition, has been accepted by most to be what it purports to be, a written account of the oral laws that were in effect during the Second Temple period, and earlier, and the details of how the Law of The Torah was to be carried out, and a record of the judgements that were arrived at by the Temple Priesthood (Deut. 17:8-11)
Only "circumstantial evidence" to be sure, but none the less, STRONG circumstantial evidence.
If you are going to doubt the existence of proselytes, you may as well also doubt the very existence of both The Temple and the Priesthood, as all are interrelated.

I'm not persuaded of that, but again I don't think it's a critical point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Jerusalem in the 1st century was a quite cosmopolitan place, a center of culture and trade, with a very diverse population. I wouldn't consider it a good "bet" to dismiss a quite large measure of cultural and religious interaction. Travelers would be full of questions and Jews would be intense in their efforts to win proselytes (Matt 23:15)

Not so much a "change in attitude", as a long time festering undercurrent of Gentile resistance to the Law, to circumcision, and to the always implied Jewish primacy. (natural born Jews who were the direct lineal descendants of the Patriarchs, were the superior people who would eventually rule over all nations- and proselytes would simply then have the "honor" of surviving to become the servant slaves of this "real" Israeli lineage.)
Of course such a second-class status would grate, and grind-the-craw of devout Gentile converts. But they hung in there for the sake of their own religious convictions, all the while slowly developing and refining a Gentile believers view and interpretation of The Scriptures, and of their own place in God's plans, one that finally brought those high and mighty Jewish authorities down to the common level.

The difficulty I have with your account is that it implies a (substantial) group of people who are at the same time strongly attracted by Judaism and strongly repelled by it. I suppose it is possible that sophisticated account could reconcile this tension, but so far I haven't seen the signs that you're even aware of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

(The Jewish concern with the keeping of genealogies and pure bloodlines would always prevent mere "converts" from ever attaining to an equal standing, so they must be "brought down" as there was no way for converts to ascend beyond their permanant second-class station, not even in The Kingdom to Come)
Thus it was, that when the Jews rebelled against Roman authority, that it was easy for Gentile converts to quickly abandon their messianic but "Jewish" brethren.
The natural born messianic Jews, "Nazarenes", continued on in the Observances of The Law. But the faction which abandoned The Law, consisting mostly of Gentiles, contrived endless stories to explain their departure from the ways of Judaism, these eventually became that group identified by the term "Christian".
The Nazarenes, (Jewish believers) however, DID NOT become "Christians", but rather remained thoroughly "Jewish" in all major beliefs, and in practices.
Hope this helps.

Yes, it makes your views clearer, but I still don't feel that I have a full understanding. For one thing, I don't understand what your explanation is of the origin of the group of 'Nazarenes' that you refer to.

spamandham · 11-25-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I appear to have lost the Dura image too for the moment. If I ever get the time to make a register for all these "wands" it would be a good thing.

If you locate one, please do let me know. I sort of remember seeing one a month or so back when you started talking about the magic wand, but can no longer locate it. The problem with this forum is, it quickly swamps google on anything you are looking for that it discusses.

Sheshbazzar · 11-25-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The natural born messianic Jews, "Nazarenes", continued on in the Observances of The Law. But the faction which abandoned The Law, consisting mostly of Gentiles, contrived endless stories to explain their departure from the ways of Judaism, these eventually became that group identified by the term "Christian".
The Nazarenes, (Jewish believers) however, DID NOT become "Christians", but rather remained thoroughly "Jewish" in all major beliefs, and in practices.
Hope this helps.

Yes, it makes your views clearer, but I still don't feel that I have a full understanding.

For one thing, I don't understand what your explanation is of the origin of the group of 'Nazarenes' that you refer to.

Natural that you would not, because to this point I have made no attempt at all to explain the origin of the group of the Nazarenes.
My emphasis has been focused on the distinction that existed between the Nazarenes, and the christians, as two distinctly separate groups that ought never to be conflated, nor confused as being one and the same. m'bien?

Gentile believers were always free to chose to become nazarene, to call themself nazarene, and be called nazarene.
If they chose to so do, then they were (and are) Nazarene.

If they chose to go by -another- or a -different- name, (such as christani), then they have freely chosen to not be Nazerene.
This also is a shibboleth.
Words unite, and words divide.

hint. search the meaning of shibboleth and the meaning of netzer, perhaps you can percieve that place where the twain do meet; then again perhaps not, few do, and being unawares and culturally insensate to such, most cannot.
As the horse led to the water, yet will not drink, one cannot force any man to swallow such ideas as he will not.

spamandham · 11-25-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

hint. search the meaning of shibboleth and the meaning of netzer, perhaps you can percieve that place where the twain do meet; then again perhaps not, few do, and being unawares and culturally insensate to such, most cannot.
As the horse led to the water, yet will not drink, one cannot force any man to swallow such ideas as he will not.

If you would quit speaking in riddles, perhaps 1 or 2 fewer horses would drink voluntarily.

spin · 11-25-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

hint. search the meaning of shibboleth and the meaning of netzer, perhaps you can percieve that place where the twain do meet; then again perhaps not, few do, and being unawares and culturally insensate to such, most cannot.
As the horse led to the water, yet will not drink, one cannot force any man to swallow such ideas as he will not.

If you would quit speaking in riddles, perhaps 1 or 2 fewer horses would drink voluntarily.

I wouldn't if I were the horse. There's loco weed in that thar water hole.

spin

Sheshbazzar · 11-25-2008, 10:50 PM

It just don't, and won't work that way, the hearer needs to seek out the meanings and find out the answers, else they will never comprehend.
Hebrew is an idiomatic language, to understand the breadth of the meaning, one must open their mind to the breadth of, and to the possibilities of the idioms.

Be ye not as the horse, [or] as the mule, [which] have no understanding:
every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.
Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

Some things no other can do for you, you got do them for yourself.

J-D · 11-26-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, it makes your views clearer, but I still don't feel that I have a full understanding.

For one thing, I don't understand what your explanation is of the origin of the group of 'Nazarenes' that you refer to.

Natural that you would not, because to this point I have made no attempt at all to explain the origin of the group of the Nazarenes.
My emphasis has been focused on the distinction that existed between the Nazarenes, and the christians, as two distinctly separate groups that ought never to be conflated, nor confused as being one and the same. m'bien?

Gentile believers were always free to chose to become nazarene, to call themself nazarene, and be called nazarene.
If they chose to so do, then they were (and are) Nazarene.

If they chose to go by -another- or a -different- name, (such as christani), then they have freely chosen to not be Nazerene.
This also is a shibboleth.
Words unite, and words divide.

hint. search the meaning of shibboleth and the meaning of netzer, perhaps you can percieve that place where the twain do meet; then again perhaps not, few do, and being unawares and culturally insensate to such, most cannot.
As the horse led to the water, yet will not drink, one cannot force any man to swallow such ideas as he will not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It just don't, and won't work that way, the hearer needs to seek out the meanings and find out the answers, else they will never comprehend.
Hebrew is an idiomatic language, to understand the breadth of the meaning, one must open their mind to the breadth of, and to the possibilities of the idioms.

Be ye not as the horse, [or] as the mule, [which] have no understanding:
every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.
Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

Some things no other can do for you, you got do them for yourself.

Either you have a view about the origin of the Nazarenes you speak of which you are able and willing to communicate, or else you don't. I think it really has to be one or the other.

Sheshbazzar · 11-26-2008, 08:48 AM

The wind blows where it will;
Can you see it?
all the branches move,
and speak of the wind.
Will you grasp at it?
Will you trap it?
And hold it fast in your hand?
But, nay, say, what is this wind?
We will not see,
we will not hear.

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

11-25-2008, 10:50 PM	#488
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It just don't, and won't work that way, the hearer needs to seek out the meanings and find out the answers, else they will never comprehend. Hebrew is an idiomatic language, to understand the breadth of the meaning, one must open their mind to the breadth of, and to the possibilities of the idioms. Be ye not as the horse, [or] as the mule, [which] have no understanding: every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle. Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Some things no other can do for you, you got do them for yourself.

11-26-2008, 08:48 AM	#490
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The wind blows where it will; Can you see it? all the branches move, and speak of the wind. Will you grasp at it? Will you trap it? And hold it fast in your hand? But, nay, say, what is this wind? We will not see, we will not hear.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.