Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-05-2012, 02:56 PM

I would think whatever construct is imagined to have developed nachash into naaseni of the Philosophumena works better with nes. The original passage in Hippolytus:

Quote:

For from philosophers the heresiarchs deriving starting-points, (and) like cobblers patching together, according to their own particular interpretation, the blunders of the ancients, have advanced them as novelties to those that are capable of being deceived, as we shall prove in the following books. In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni, being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas (in Hebrew). Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators), many, detaching parts, have constructed a heresy which, though with several subdivisions, is essentially one, and they explain precisely the same (tenets); though conveyed under the guise of different opinions, as the following discussion, according as it progresses, will prove.

and again:

Quote:

And they affirm that the soul is very difficult to discover, and hard to understand; for it does not remain in the same figure or the same form invariably, or in one passive condition, that either one could express it by a sign, or comprehend it substantially. But they have these varied changes (of the soul) set down in the gospel inscribed "according to the Egyptians."

sotto voce · 10-05-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Daniel is a problem which has never been satisfactorily solved by anyone.

It's not a problem at all. It's a fact that you seem to have forgotten, surely. And of course millions of loyal Jews did not know any Hebrew, which is why they had to have that damned LXX, of troublesome reputation. It's actually Christians who identified Hebrew as 'God's own language', because they saw so much that related to their faith in it, that Jews do not see. But that's a recent, Protestant recognition.

Quote:

This does not obstruct the core notion of Hebrew as the language of the heavenly court.

So how do you know that Hebrew is used in heaven, stephan? Have you just got back?

Surely you know by now that God is an Englishman.

stephan huller · 10-05-2012, 03:11 PM

i am reporting not believing. i am different from you

stephan huller · 10-05-2012, 03:13 PM

the fact that it is the priests who are identified as naasenes opens the door also that the original term was nasoreans. the mandaean priesthood is still so called

stephan huller · 10-05-2012, 03:16 PM

I wonder how gnostikos = Naasene

sotto voce · 10-05-2012, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

i am reporting not believing. i am different from you

Well, yes. I haven't actually been to heaven. Are you sure you didn't fall asleep in a synagogue, have a dream and suppose you were in heaven?

sotto voce · 10-05-2012, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the fact that it is the priests who are identified as naasenes opens the door also that the original term was nasoreans. the mandaean priesthood is still so called

Aaaah, I see where you are going wrong. Christians don't have priests. Jews used to.

spin · 10-06-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The name goes back to another Hebrew term used side by side with nachash in Numbers 21:9 - nas (nes) = 'pole,' 'standard' or staff.

You don't seem to be considering the fact that the Greek Naassene has a double vowel. Beside LXX for Nahum and Johanan, consider,

[T2]
Verse|Name|Greek||
Num 21:19|Naxaliel|naalihl||
Num 21:21|Sixon|shwn||
Jos 2:3|Rachab|raab||
2 Sam 19:16|Baxurim|baourim||
1 Sam 11:1|Naxash|naas||
1 Chr 2:44|Raxam|raem||
1 Chr 6:26|Naxat|naaQ||
Ezr 2:6|Paxatmoab|faaQmwab||
Ezr 2:47|Gaxar|gaer[/T2]
Got another explanation for the doubled vowel of Naassene?

stephan huller · 10-06-2012, 08:42 PM

Well I am so happy you came to visit. I just came up with something much better. Something I know you are going to like and you might be able to help me make it work better. As for this, certainly the Catholics called them 'the snakes' in the same way people now call the Republicans 'Republicons,' 'Repugs' etc (I am not sure what the equivalent right way terminology is). The point is that the Church Fathers did not always preserve the original name. There is a Samaritan equivalent in Abu'l Fath too for the snakes too.

Example the borborites, koddeans etc. There is something here but certainly the sect itself did not refer to themselves as 'filthy.' Anyway I was looking at Jastrow. There is more to say here. But please go to my next thread. I have a really remarkable idea to explain the Latinized Christianoi. I haven't gotten it all to work yet. But I think its remarkably interesting.

outhouse · 10-06-2012, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Daniel is a problem which has never been satisfactorily solved by anyone. This does not obstruct the core notion of Hebrew as the language of the heavenly court.

Wo horsey

why is Daniel a problem

and you do understand the heavenly courts origins do you not? and what tie would that have to the hebrew language?

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

10-05-2012, 03:11 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i am reporting not believing. i am different from you

10-05-2012, 03:13 PM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	the fact that it is the priests who are identified as naasenes opens the door also that the original term was nasoreans. the mandaean priesthood is still so called

10-05-2012, 03:16 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I wonder how gnostikos = Naasene

10-06-2012, 08:42 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well I am so happy you came to visit. I just came up with something much better. Something I know you are going to like and you might be able to help me make it work better. As for this, certainly the Catholics called them 'the snakes' in the same way people now call the Republicans 'Republicons,' 'Repugs' etc (I am not sure what the equivalent right way terminology is). The point is that the Church Fathers did not always preserve the original name. There is a Samaritan equivalent in Abu'l Fath too for the snakes too. Example the borborites, koddeans etc. There is something here but certainly the sect itself did not refer to themselves as 'filthy.' Anyway I was looking at Jastrow. There is more to say here. But please go to my next thread. I have a really remarkable idea to explain the Latinized Christianoi. I haven't gotten it all to work yet. But I think its remarkably interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.