stephan huller

It's not that I don't want it discussed. I'd love to have a reasonable discussion about any number of topics related to the text. But whether the group is Jewish is unproductive - especially given the evidence already presented. It would be like spending 600 posts on the question of whether Dura Europa is dated to a period before Nicaea and has a Christian Church, or whether all surviving Christian texts are fourth century forgeries and the like. These are specialized questions which appeal to a certain small segment of the forum. But they aren't interesting. They arise from the desire of some to uphold an unworkable hypothesis. They don't arise naturally from considering the evidence with an open mind.

Toto

There are a few similarities and many differences.

The Egyptian priest were involved with gods and statues of gods, and sacrifices to gods. They had orders and ranks. They lived in temples, not in remote settlements. They do not seem to have included women, as the Therapeutae are described as including.

mountainman

Is the group described by Porphyry Jewish? (See post #676)

Conybeare claims that there are many similarities between Porphyry's group and the group described in "VC".



It does not have a Christian Church.
It does not have a Christian "Church House".

The Dura-Europos-Yale EXHIBIT is described as a "House Church".

On the contrary they arise from the desire to expose blind (unevidenced) dogmatism which has been entrenched in Biblical Scholarship since the age of Eusebius.

Toto

We cross posted. Clearly not. They sacrificed to idols.


It's so easy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as in the thrall to Eusebius. It's also getting old.

mountainman

Is blind dogmatism entrenched in Biblical Scholarship?

And if so when did the blind dogmatism which has been entrenched in Biblical Scholarship actually commence?

Sheshbazzar

Why don't you deal with what post #670 says stephan?

Really stephan? Philo was hostile to foreign religion?
Why then is he cuddling up with the pagan teachings of his "the MOST HOLY Plato" and of pagan religious teachings of Platonism and Stoicism?

Evidently Philo did not accept the statement of Scripture accepted by HEBREW Hebrews;
But thought it more convenient to syncretize and obscure The NAME, while adding his favorite flavors of pagan Greek pig-shit religious Philosophy onto the words of Scripture.

Sheshbazzar

Excuse me stephan. With all of your education, can't you read and understand plain English? I wasn't saying a damn thing about whether the group was 'Jewish'.

In fact I have clearly allowed such with my statements about them being the Hellenistic Jewish swine and vermin that had been forced to flee Jerusalem in the Maccabeean house cleaning.

No I was talking about the name 'Therapeutae' being used by this group to identify itself. What Philo writes on that matter is NOT abigious;
"the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they are called Therapeutae and Therapeutrides,"
There is no need for the wishy-washying of Eusebius or of you.
They were NOT called either 'Christians' OR 'Jews'. They were called by the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they were Therapeutae and therapeutrides.

Their religion was eclectic and syncretic being neither 'christian' nor Jewish, it borrowed and used whatever it wished from whatever sources were mutually accepted among them, which according to Philo included 'shrines' called the 'Holy Place' in each practioners house.

And if we are to accept Conybeare's arguments utilizing Porphyry's descriptions as applying to these 'Therapeutae', their practices as they were described by Porphyry (see mountainmans post #676 above) as being polytheisticly inclusive, rather than monotheistic. Polytheistic 'Jews' in the 1st century yet. Imagine that.
You want 'em? Far as I'm concerned you can have them, they're all yours.

Very likely they also included the tomes of the admired and "MOST HOLY Plato" and other pagan writers in their collection of 'spiritual' religious texts.

Because Philo was laudatory of their ascetic monastic life-stye, catho-christianity has always wanted to claim them for their own.
And of course with Philo being 'Jewish' <sic> some Hellenistic 'Jews' (like you) would like to claim this half-paganized Ethiopian group as being of their own.

I highly doubt that any devout practicing Hebrew of the Hebrews Jerusalem Jew, mindful of The Law would have cared to so much as touch this group with a ten foot pole, much less live among them.

stephan huller

It sometimes feels here like we don't even have a language in common. Shesh is the wannabe Jew equivalent of sotto. Only he knows what a real Jew is and that Jewish religion only existed in his own imagination

Sheshbazzar

Why not address the actual text points being raised rather than your perceptions of the person?

Sheshbazzar is NOT a wanna be Jew. Sheshbazzar wouldn't even consider being a Jew of any stripe.

You still haven't answered my question about what 'Ethiopian monastery' you were talking about, after you implied you were talking about some other monastery than that one described by Philo in VC.

You still haven't said a single thing about Philo's 'in every house is a shrine called the Holy Place' statement.

Or confessed to the obvious fact that there were some very strong differences of belief and practices among these various Jewish peoples. Differences so strong that they could not even live peacefully together within the same communities.

I see two major groups at odds here, The Hebrews and the synctretizers, and history shows they have been at odds, even to fighting against and killing one another for hundreds of years, even all the way back to Judges 12:4-6 the 'falling away' and traitorisim of syncretisim has been the problem.

Either the Hebrews defend their ancient culture and its original beliefs, or they 'sell out' cheap to the ideas and teachings of foreign powers.

I admit I have very little respect or sympathy for those, who should know better, yet 'sell out' to the ways of Hellenism.

stephan huller

It would take more effort than its worth. I've already explained it once. And I'm busy