Sheshbazzar

The story is a story, not history. Yet IMV the ethical teaching is that ethical persons traveling toward that Promised Land become interwoven into one fabric.
I have no problem with the stories of Scripture being allegories and metaphorical, rather than being accurate historical reports.

stephan huller

Aquila's association with the lack of reference to circumcision in the ten commandments is further complicated by the fact that he is said to have accepted circumcision later - undoubtedly a rabbinic addition.

stephan huller

With respect to Bar Kochba being a proselyte. Think about his association with Akiva and then the statement that at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt, it was said that proselytes “impede the arrival of the Messiah” (Nid. 13b). The extent to which some of the sages despised converts is seen in the declarations that “converts are as hard for Israel [to endure] as scabs'" (Bavli Yebamot 47b). If Kochba was fully Jewish, then the implication of the original statement would be that he really was the messiah but the proselytes (= Akiva) failed him. But that's not how the rabbinic tradition judges matters.

Sheshbazzar

I expect intelligent readers will be more impressed with reasoned and cogent refutations than with such empty zingers.

It may be noted by the more astute readers that you have directly addressed less than 10% of the individual observations I have made in this thread.

aa5874

What you say is not logical. It is extremely easy to conceive that that he was not talking about Jews. It is extremely difficult to assume that Philo was addressing ONLY a Jewish audience when he wrote in Greek and lived in Egypt where the Majority of the inhabitants were non-Jews.

outhouse

Actually there is almost no writing from this early period one way or the other.


Different hellenistic communities like Sepphoris for example. Would not have seemed Jewish at all, but did they have a synagogue, I believe so but they have yet to be found. They did hower find no pig bones.

You may not have had whole communities of half Proselytes, but communities mixed with different levels of commitment to Judaism. But they all would have seen themselves as Jews due to theri devoted nature to the Israelite god.



When you have Hellenistic people like Paul and Josephas who didnt follow the law for beans, but claimed they were very Jewish, sort of tells me the definition of Judaism was wide open.

outhouse

Only by your definition of Judaism which seems rather narrow.


Judaism was multicultural a few different times. It owes its origin to multicultural diversity. Why deny how diverse it was during Hellenistic times?

Sheshbazzar

As I related earlier, the members of my Gentile congregation are quite srictly observant of all of those Scriptural Laws and Commandments that are generally considered to be 'Jewish'.
Most are more strict in their interpretations and application of The Laws than most people that are born Jews.
But we are NOT 'Jewish'. We understand ouselves, and present ourselves only as being Gentiles.
Gentiles that seriously believe in, and pray to YHWH the G-d of Israel.

As the Scriptures teach, the 'Jews' and the 'Nations' (gentiles) shall serve and worship YHWH together.

Gentiles will not become 'Jews' (unless they undergo circumcision by Jewish authorities with a stated intent to become 'Jews') and 'Jews' will not become 'Gentiles'.

A 'Jew" that is Jew by birth is always a Jew no matter how non-observant or 'back-slidden' they become, they never become Gentiles.

A Gentile can by 'conversion' become a Jew. But one that is born Jewish can never become a Gentile.

In the end, The Scripture demands the continuance of both Jews and Gentiles, finally all worshiping together The ONE Elohim, to be faithful to its Promises to Jew and to Gentile.

So we work to preserve and to add onto that Gentile number that Name The Name.

No one that joins our congregations becomes a Jew. To do that they would have go to the Jews and submit to whatever the Jewish authorities might require of them.
But then they would no longer be Gentiles, nor belong within our Gentile congregations.

spin

Well, you'd better start posting some. There was more italicization in your previous post than argumentation and none of it engaged in the main issue you were asked to respond to.

Well, you fall at the starting blocks, carrying your baggage with you.

The basic issue in your o.p. was "Why, with all conscious deliberation, Philo never once used the word 'Jew' or 'Jewish' when writing of these theraputae 'worshipers'." That has been answered. Your quibbling doesn't reflect the context. There was no need for Philo to bother, when he made it obvious that he was generally dealing with Jews as he talked of the therapeutae and there is nothing that he wrote to make one think otherwise.

Sheshbazzar

See the above post. Anyone that is born Jewish is always Jewish, anyone that is circumcised according to Jewish rules, by recognized Jewish authorities, is Jewish.
-Its a one way trip and there is no going back. Ask any rabbi.
All of these are fully Jewish, every one of them is just as Jewish as the other. Thus, our definition of Judaism is as inclusively broad as it can possibly be.
Hellenism does not prevent one from being Jewish, howbeit it is a betrayal of their ancestral Hebrew culture.
Even Demon worship does not make a Jew non-Jewish, it just makes them into a back-slidden Jew. but they are still fully Jewish.

The only 'Jews' that we reject as being truly Jewish, are those gentiles that were not born Jews, and who have not officially joined Judaism by being circumcised in accordance with Jewish Law and custom by recognized Jewish authorities.

A gentile cannot become a real Jew just by claiming to be one. The Laws of Judaism demand obedience unto circumcision,
No circumcision of that gentile, then he is no Jew. Ask a rabbi.