stephan huller

Getting back to the OP (assuming there is one) Philo makes clear on numerous occasions that the Jewish people are the priestly-people who act on behalf of the rest of the world. Philo describes the Sheaf-offering as follows (Spec. 162):

The Jewish nation acts as the “priest” (iereus) of humankind, checking the excesses of body and soul checking the excesses of body and soul (163). The Jews are priests because they read the law, lead a virtuous life and uphold their monotheism (164 f). The Jews correct the mistakes of the other nations as they focus on “the worship of the Uncreated and Eternal only”

http://books.google.com/books?id=9tr...levite&f=false

stephan huller

I think poor old Shesh doesn't get enough attention so he puts forward a ridiculous position and enjoys the fact that people who have actually some expertise on these matters waste their time trying to woo him over to the correct opinion. You hate Philo without having read his works. You don't know what you are talking about. Get a fucking life

spin

Read the text for once. Just stop and read it. Do not skim, do not pass go, read what it says. When it says, "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", you know that this is Philo's god.

We have to wait for Cassius Dio to delineate the Roman seven days in the 3rd century. At the beginning of the first century Philo outlines a group who has total rest on the seventh day, a day "of perfect holiness".

Perhaps you know of some group other than the Jews at the time of Philo that definitely celebrated the seventh day being holy and a day of rest?? You cannot separate this seventh day holy from the context of Moses and the prophets. You are forced to make the connection and cannot seriously doubt that it is the Shabbat.

stephan huller

I think only people who have actually read Philo's works should be entitled to say what he meant by 'therapeutai' or - by reverse inference - what characteristics we could expect or allow of a group approved by Philo because of restrictions inherent in his Jewish worldview (i.e. no idolatry, other gods etc). The only way around this is to cite experts who have also done the mental gymnastics to understand what is and isn't possible with Philo. mountainman doesn't read books, he scans texts for sentences and phrases to take out of context. Shesh is just bored and wants some attention. Neither of these characters should be taken seriously by anyone until they take a week off and read the lion share of Philo's writings.

I can honestly say I've attempt to read everything Philo has ever written (except the Special Laws and the Question and Answers stuff which I am not sure was even written by Philo). He's Jewish and as a Jew his opinions are pretty easy to figure out especially when it comes to a Jewish group called the therapeutai.

Sheshbazzar

We could finally get somewhere with this.

Those proselytes who have underwent circumcision are Jewish proselytes.
Those not circumcised are yet Gentile proselytes, worshiping with Jews. Still happens.
They may remain Gentile proselytes for as long as they wish, even for life. Ritual circumcision is not something taken lightly.

If they desire to become Jews the males must be circumcised. If they have already been circumcised (as is quite common) but not by a Jewish mohel, most Jewish religious authorities now will only require a small cut or prick to provide a few drops of blood so as to satisfy Judaism's ritual circumcision requirement.
But that is the smallest part on the way to becoming a Jewish proselyte that is accepted by the Jewish community. And few Jewish religious organizations will ever consent to circumcise a Gentile who has not first engaged in intensive study of the Jewish religion.

Where did you ever get the idea that Paul was a proselyte?
According to his testimony Paul was born Jewish, 'circumcised in the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;'

A proselyte is only someone that is of non-Jewish birth and that chooses to begin to keep the religion of Israel.

Men like Paul have no choice about their Jewishness, they are born with it.
All Jews can do is choose whether to follow the Laws and traditions of the Torah and of Judaism, or not. Either way they remain fully Jewish.
There are millions of non-practicing Jews in the world, many if not most are atheists, that does not make them one whit less Jewish.

Sheshbazzar

Yeah. I love you too.

And I don't 'hate Philo'. He was a product of his times. I don't hate anyone, but I find the intrusions of Hellenism into every aspect of religious thought disgusting.

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps you skipped fully reading the first post in this thread?

Who was the Catholic Church burning at the stake for 'Judaizing' and for keeping THE Sabbath of the Jews ?

Any gentile that lived among, worked for, fellowshipped with, and worshiped among the Jews in the 1st century would have been Sabbath keepers.
Even if they were not circumcised. And if they were not circumcised, by the Law they were not Jews but were Gentiles.

It was by Law a pluralistic society. Many of the commandments of The Law could only be kept and observed with a continuing presence of non-Jews among Jewish society.
One ('Jewish') could NOT keep; "'The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself;" if all Gentiles were circumcised and made to be Jewish. The Law demanded both tolerance of and LOVE of Gentile 'strangers'. Not forced conversions.

spin

Anachronism is not a successful form of argument.

Does Philo call them gentiles? Does he indicate that they come from gentile societies? Philo specifically indicates that they are not Egyptians, nor Greeks, nor Italians, nor barbarians. You have no single reason to consider them to be gentile.

Sheesh, Shesh, why do you keep fucking up? You've got nowhere other than to express your beliefs. Very few people here would give a fuck about your beliefs. You've made no progress in arguing that the therapeutae were not Jewish, yet to continue to crap on. Your imperviousness to reasoning certainly warrants your being on my ignore list.

Sheshbazzar

All right spin. This has became just about ENOUGH!

I DO NOT 'CONSIDER THEM TO BE GENTILES'. AND I DO NOT CLAIM THAT THEY WERE GENTILES. That is YOUR mistake.

Get your ass back to that thread on the theraputae that was locked, and you will find that at least a half a dozen times I allowed that the theraputae that Philo writes about WERE JEWISH

I do not 'consider them gentile'. although I believe it fully possible that there were gentile sabbath keepers among them, and that's why Philo did not use the word Jews.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT PHILO AND IT IS NOT ABOUT THE THERAPUTAE.


If you want another thread on Philo and the threaputae, start your own damn thread.

spin

Great post, Shesh. Really helping your cause.

You've been talking about these people throughout the thread. Your o.p. tells us

"Philo says not one single word about these 'theraputae' being 'Jewish'."

and finishes with

"Thus there is nothing that entails that the 'theraputae' of old Alexandria, -or of any other place- ever had to be exclusively 'Jewish'."

and

"Why, with all conscious deliberation, Philo never once used the word 'Jew' or 'Jewish' when writing of these theraputae 'worshipers'"

In fact, you use the term "therapeutae" five times in your o.p. Now here you are raging about not talking to your o.p.

I guess, although you didn't ask a question in that o.p., it must be the goo in the middle about you, the catholic church, Constantine, and your personal disgust for popery, that really tickles your fancy.

Ya know, if you didn't want to talk about the therapeutae and Philo, you actually picked a very funny way of going about it.