aa5874

Can't you see the obvious contradiction in your post??

There is NOTHING at all in "VC" about Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Son of God, so it is most likely NOT written by the Jesus cult or Church in any century.

We know exactly what the Church of Rome would have written in they composed "VC".

AGAIN, EXAMINE "The Donation of Constantine", "Church History" and 1st Clement there is NOTHING about the Therapeutae in those writings.

We know exactly what the Church did.

They HIJACKED the writings of the Jews, and the Jesus cult.

Toto

Pete - WHY are you repeating this point as if it hadn't been addressed? Some Protestants in a past generation of scholars doubted the genuineness of VC, but their reasons have not stood up to scrutiny. No one currently entertains these doubts. DO NOT CITE THIS OUTDATED WEBSTER'S REFERENCE AGAIN.

mountainman

Runia states that "this is a real puzzle" and that there is no "scholarly agreement on all points" regarding this issue.

You on the other hand state that "No one currently entertains these doubts"

Although I have not yet been able to determine which scholars have recently discussed this specific issue, and what their claims may be, your statement and Runia's statement are not consistent.

And FFS I am not citing this 1913 Webster's reference as an authority - it is being cited for a discussion concerning the development and the nature of scholarly consensus.

mountainman

The text of "VC" supposedly describes a 1st century monastic settlement.


They may have also HIJACKED one of the more important classes of pagan religious groups in antiquity.

Toto

I gave you a fuller verson of Runia's quote, which you have ignored. There is no inconsistency. Runia says that there is no scholarly agreement on the issue of how Philo's Therapeutae so closely resembled Christian monks. He gives no indication that the issue of VC being a later forgery is still open.

The sentence you quote is footnoted to "See below section 11.4"

In Chapter 11, Runia notes. "We may be in the dark as to who the Therapeutae precisely were, but we may be sure that they were Jewish ascetics, and not proto-Christians." He goes on to discuss the question of whether the Therapeutae could have influenced the later development of Christian monasticism in Egypt. Later, he states that Eusebius was important because he realized the importance of historical sources, and VC is a genuine historical source.

I think you said that you downloaded a complete copy of this book. If there is anything in it that supports you - aside from a misinterpreted phrase - you should be able to produce it, instead of endlessly repeating the same damn quote with the same formatting.

Right now, you have nothing. Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.

stephan huller

He is only confirming what most of us already know about him. I can almost understand why the pious think that it is possible to be dishonest in order to serve God. I don't get how someone continually lies and misrepresents the facts in order to support a stupid idea that he himself invented. That individual would be truly wicked.

aa5874

That statement is wholly contradictory. Once it is admitted that that "we may be in the dark" then it is absurd to even suggest immediately that "we may be sure".

What utter BS. Ruina does not know what he is talking about.

You reject evidence with flawed opnion. Evidence TRUMPS opinion.

The actual contents of "VC" NOWHERE states the Therapeutae were Jews or of Jewish origin.

Philo Specifically identified the Essenes as Jews or of Jewish origin--NOT the Therapeutae.

stephan huller

No that's not true. Judging by the posters in this thread (a) I have no idea what they look like but (b) I am certain they are all monsters or at least monstrous. For what kind of mental cases would continue to argue against the Jewishness of the therapeutai? For what purpose? Who cares? How is this a hot button issue? Runia is speaking about the relationship of the therapeutai to the early Christians. This is what he finds uncertain. How do we get from this reasonable statement to - the therapeutai 'must be' pagans because pagans were also called therapeutai, or that the therapeutai weren't Jewish or this or that idiotic tangential argument? The answer is - the participants must be monsters who live in a cave or a dark place. You see. Y'all should appreciate this logic. 'It follows' just as the therapeutai were pagans.

Toto

Is this a parody of an argument?

Runia says that we may be in the dark about X, but we are sure of Y. How is this "wholly contradictory?"

tanya

Quite amusing.
In post 515, Toto scolds Pete, claiming that he has ignored a quote which she offered:

Meantime, back at the ranch, the great scholar is cooking up his own stew of insults, sans spices in the form of evidence to support his position:
I have argued against anyone, especially Dr. Joan Taylor, who claims the Therapeutae, described by Philo, were Jews. I outlined my rejoinder opposing Toto's invocation of Dr. Taylor's published conclusions, in post 395. Neither the great scholar, nor Toto, replied to either post, with evidence, i.e. quotes from Philo, to invalidate my comments.

MEMO: To the great scholar, and to Toto: please furnish one each quote from your authority, Philo of Alexandria, demonstrating the "Jewishness" of the Therapeutae.

Please cease insulting members of the forum, whose positions happen to be at variance with your own, based on their independent study of the evidence. If their scrutiny of the original sources has been inadequate, then, the proper, polite, scholarly reaction ought to be, to provide quotes from sources which have not yet been considered, in the argument.

Contrary to the great scholar and Toto, the Therapeutae were PRIMARILY a group of healers and nurses, not a group of priests. They looked to Hippocrates, not YHWH, for inspiration. It is Philo, who makes this clear.