mountainman

Snap out of the dogmatic dream of right answers.

There are obviously many possible answers.

This discussion is about possible answers.

Chili

Very interesting and I will read that link, but give you my first opinion on it now.

To read that they, or these here, were women is to equate their natural instinct as the womb of God who now feel spiritually empowered to suck the devil out of them [instead].

This is just opposite to the male being equal to mustard plant wherein the 'birds of the air' find refuse (not birds of the sky as material in Mark), and so here then these women are still 'cleaning house' as their end in the journey of life for them, and will actually 'do them' when the 'birds of the air' come flying in, which is timed just right as they were [so called] sick as the reason why they did stop in to find meaning in their own life, and hence 'birds of the air' with no home for them op there.

stephan huller

No this is not just a discussion of possible answers. That only assists those wanting to cloud the issue. It should also be a determination of what is the most likely answer. It is baffling to have someone embrace or entertain the idea that EITHER the Therapeutai never existed OR they were a pagan sect but discount out of hand the plain meaning of the text and the natural assumptions about its author. This would speak to either uncontrolled bias or mental incapacity on the part of the person making these judgments. It would be like the police stumbling on a dead person with multiple gunshot wounds lying in a gutter with no gun nearby and determining a priori that the only two possibilities they are willing to entertain are (a) natural causes or (b) a freak accident.

Iskander

The womb of God? what next?

Scholars of religion are easily fooled or , perhaps, easily corrupted, “until the end of the eighteenth century Eusebius' position was widely accepted among Christian scholars”

Doubts about the authorship of De Vita have been raised in the past,
THE THERAPEUTAE OF PHILO AND THE MONKS
Orthodox Research Institute


http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute...theraputae.htm

outhouse

As I stated early on in this thread. Your playing with imagination due to a lack of evidence.

And what evidence we have you discount, and do not apply your own same standards, to your personal invention.

stephan huller

i haven't even heard a coherent argument. more like a collective wish how to make it go away

Chili

Yes, but don't call them Christian monks as they are specifically Catholic, opposite to which also so called Christians do not have any, while in Buddhism monasteries are normal again. So now they, this entire Research Institute is very particular in their defining of their error by calling them Christian instead of Catholic are already wrong before one line is read.

To this I will argue now that Catholics are much more like Buddhist than the so called Christian that is warping the vision of the so called Research Institute who calls them Christian instead. And don't you see?

I do not see the Therapeutae as 'Catholic monks' who are monastic to seek deliverance. The Therapeutae have been delivered now with the 'gift of healing' as their bonus in evidence that they left the contemplative life 'with' or 'without' a monast-ery. I.e. it is for liberty that Christ set the Galatians free and so not to return to the monastic life a second time and take on the yoke of slavery again.

Womb of God? Of course they are since the woman in heigth of purity inside the female was never banned from Eden, and was taken from her man to be his dowry in betrothal so she could bare the first-born one unto him (from within but that is not the story line here).

In essence are they the Snow-white deep within against which the witch is raving when they look in the mirror, who they see in the duality they are and decide to put make-up on instead; which then is the basis for the idea that a natural smile is the best make-up for females who should never wear something more interesting than they are, and dare to 'show it' on account of that and flashing they will go.

In allegoy here then it is the divine suck, this time, so that deliverance will be the solution to the problem that they see, and right they are, except . . . that may-be still remains.

Toto

You originally wrote "Philo praises Hercules as a demigod. Would you then claim that Philo believed that Hercules was a demigod?"

But clearly, Philo does not praise Hercules "as a demigod" except to rhetorically invoke Hercules' virtues to someone who does believe that Hercules was a demigod.

What was this supposed to prove? You raised this as a counter to the claim that a group that studied Jewish scriptures was most likely Jewish. Surely you can see the distinction between studying Jewish scriptures, typically only done by Jews, and knowledge about the beliefs that are common in your society?

The subject of this thread is a group known as the Therapeuts, described in a work attributed to Philo.

What is there to comment except to note that these Therapeuts are not the particular Therapeuts that are the subject of this thread. You have not shown any connection except the use of a common name to refer to them.

What does this have to do with the group described in the OP? Nothing, so far.

Please stop referring to other groups known as Therapeuts until you establish a connection to the group described in the work attributed to Philo, which is the subject of this thread. Don't ask me to comment on them until you do this.

stephan huller

This thread epitomizes what has gone wrong at the forum generally. We have a text written by a Jew about a sect related to a well known Jewish community (= the Essaioi) - as such we are certainly dealing with a group of Jewish therapeutai unless someone can come up with a coherent argument or series of arguments to the contrary.

So by all means let's discuss the text of De Vita Contemplativa. By all means let's discuss the Essaioi, let's discuss the Therapeutai. By all means let's discuss the Jewish community in Alexandria and Egypt, the meaning of therapeutai in the writings of Philo. We can even use the pagan use of the term as a contrast or a parallel - close or otherwise. But the forum is called Biblical Criticism and History. If we ignore Philo of Alexandria, his writings, the Jewish experience in Alexandria, Egypt and the Roman Empire, what 'Biblical criticism and history' is there left for us? Even if your point is to say Philo is not a Jew, Alexandrian Jews embraced paganism, it is possible for paganism and Judaism to be reconciled, at least formulate a coherent argument, cite some examples so that we have something to work with.

Unless someone does this, there is nothing to discuss, nothing for us to reason out. We are dealing with graffiti spray painted on the doors to knowledge. It is hard to have a discussion when the other side is merely developing slogans.

tanya

icardfacepalm:

Sigh....

Sad...

Let us read, together, what the OP states, in black and white:

THERE IS THE OP. Not Philo. Not Alexandria. Not "The Contemplative LIfe".

Pete thinks, and I agree with him, that the Wiki article is defective, for the Therapeutae were NOT merely some Jewish sect, as described by Philo, and as explained in this propaganda piece at Wikiland.

The purpose of this thread, is to produce EVIDENCE, supporting, or repudiating, Pete's argument, that there were OTHER groups called Therapeutae, apart from the group referenced by Philo.

All of your theatrics defending Huller are useless. Focus, on the OP, please. I presented evidence, supporting the notion that there were in ancient times, groups, called Therapeutae, by respected authors, including Hippocrates.

Please examine that evidence, and either acknowledge it, or refute my point, but not by invoking Philo, for his role is irrelevant to the OP. You may wish to start another thread, on Philo, if so, fine. I would say, judging by your remarks vis a vis my quotes from Philo's letter to Gaius, that you NEED to focus a bit of attention on what Philo wrote, (another thread may be just the ticket, for you), because it is apparent, to me if no one else, that you don't have the slightest, foggiest idea of what Philo intended, writing as he did, to someone who held Hercules in the highest regard.

Of course not. He wasn't appealing to him to act like a demi-god. How could he? Philo had, with this letter to Gaius, appealed to the emperor to treat the Jews of Alexandria with more respect, in harmony with the treatment that Hercules would have shown in a comparable scenario.

By writing as he did, Philo sought to demonstrate to the Emperor that he respected (regardless of whether or not he actually did respect the mythical being) the Emperor's most beloved demigod.

Did you read post 263?

I indicated therein that Philo praised Hercules, not "as a counter to the claim...", but to refute Huller's point #8, in the preceding post.

You seem to be reading Huller's comments about my writings, instead of reading what I have written.

Strange.

:huh: