outhouse

Well your wrong. No rabbis exist from second temple times, and your going against the Jewish encylopedia that states they were seen as equals by stopping idolatry.

It also states there were different adherance to laws to be seen as equal.

Hellenistic Judaism existed and you have to deal with that in context, they were Jews.




You cant ignore the multicultural nature of Judaism before the temple fell.

Sheshbazzar

You do err in your reading comprehension spin. The sentence you have qouted has no question mark, and is not an interrogative.
It is a statement that is a summary of all of the forgoing material.

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

'Why (for this reason) -with all conscious deliberation- Philo never once used the word 'Jew' or 'Jewish'...'

ie Philo used the word 'theraputae' because in the context, the words 'Jew' or 'Jewish' were both inappropriate and inadequate.

spin

If, as you say, it is "a statement that is a summary of all of the forgoing material", then you are merely agreeing with me that it is the basic issue, ie what you summarize. Sheesh, Shesh. Get a grip.

You are yet again asserting the same unsubstantiated claim, which I have shown to be unfounded by the fact that Philo doesn't "-with all conscious deliberation-" state that Moses is a Jew.

Can you indicate exactly who Philo calls Jews in his works, so we can eliminate everyone else who he doesn't think to label in that manner from the category?

Sheshbazzar

Your objections here are not relevant to your accusation of ME that;
Which has to do with the alleged 'narrowness' of MY 'definition of Judaism'.

To which I responded that I accept ALL Jews as being Jewish equally.

If you are now making an further objection to MY definition of Judaism, it appears that your complaint has now became one that MY definition of Jew and Judaism is too broad.

We weren't discussing ANYONE else's definitions or accptance of what constitutes a Jew, other than MINE,
which is obviously NOT 'rather narrow', but very inclusive.

Guess you need to make up your own mind exactly what it is that you wish to accuse me of with respect to MY accepting Jews as being Jewish.

I don't run 'em through some kind of strainer, or sorting and grading machine. If they are born Jewish, then Jewish they are. They all go into the same basket.
Only Adonai Elohim is qualified to sort them out and to reward them appropriately.

aa5874

We have gone through this many times.

You want to know WHO Philo calls Jews in his works??

The Essenes.

Every Good Man is Free See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book33.html

Sheshbazzar

Let our Greek experts search ALL of Philo's writings, and locate all of his uses of 'theraputae', and show that he reserves this Greek term exclusively for Jews.

outhouse

Sure they are.


Were talking about Philo, and for the most part about hellenistic Judaism, which for the most part your trying really hard to ignore.


Love ya bud, but the definition at this time was almost as multicultural as Judaisms origins.

stephan huller

I did that in the last thread (which was thankfully killed). Are you schizophrenic or what? I can't follow your line of thought and don't really want to. Shesh as an amateur psychologist, I have to say - there's just too much of you in your interpretation of history. You are too involved in the outcome. It's all about what you like and what you don't like. You have to start with indifference or try at the very least - as best as possible - to remain impartial. I know you know that you know that Philo thought the sect was Jewish. You're hate just gets in the way of you seeing things objectively.

Sheshbazzar

Since post #57 you and I bud, have NOT been discussing Philo, or Hellenistic Judaism.

Our little discursion here began at post #57 and proceeded through 60, 61, 64 . This was the context of our exchange.

There is not a word about, and not a single reference to Philo in any of those posts.

And the only thing at all about Hellenisim to be fond there is that which you attempted to insert, and which I DID NOT reply to, or 'discuss' with you.

The subject we -were- discussing is your statement that;
I don't know where you got that mistaken idea. but it is absolutely wrong.

My definition of Judaism is anyone born Jewish is Jewish.
And anyone that 'converts' to Judaism is Jewish.
The end of that.

Which statement can hardly rightly be catagorized as being 'rather narrow'

When I pointed that out. Your complaint then became that MY view was not that of 'The Jewish encylopedia' or of some ancient 'multicultural' milleu.
And my acceptance of Jewish Judaism was therefore too broad.

To which I pointed out that I don't have a strainer, or sorting and grading machine on which to run the Jewishness of Jews through. They all go into the same basket marke 'Jewish' for Adoni Elohim to sort them out.

But point of the entire exchange between us since post # 57 was about [i]MY[/u] 'definition of 'Judaism' and MY level of acceptance of Jewish peoples 'Jewishness'.

stephan huller

Who fucking cares what your definition is. The real question is - what is the right answer. What did the ancients think. How did they define the term. God, find a friend do something which satisfies your craving for personal recognition. I don't care what your faith is, what God you worship. Get these comments the fuck out of this forum.