Toto

From your link-3

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm saying that unless I see good evidence to the contrary with respect to Jesus and meat, I have no reason to doubt that the image of Jesus as a meat eater that is preserved in what came to be the canonical tradition is "authentic". Is not this image also preserved in the non canonical tradition, too?

You keep saying this, but you don't document it. Why is that? And this a shifting of the goal posts, isn't it? More importantly, your original claim was that that there traditions about Jesus being a vegetarian that were more authentic than those which show him as one who ate meat, not what the practice regarding the eating of mean "among many christians" and a few (unnamed) church fathers was.

I ask again, where specifically are these traditions about Jesus to be found? And what renders them more original and "authentic" than the ones that show him eating meat?

It's not my claim, so I have no obligation to look up anything. You, however, do if you want to be taken seriously.

What evidence other than that which appears in Heggessipus that James took a vow of abstinece from meat is there. You mentioned Patristic writings there?

And where does it say -- even in Heggissipus -- that the reason that James did it was because of what Jesus did or advocated? Did Jesus also pray in the Temple as often and as fervently as James is depicted as having done. If so, why was Jesus not also given the Title "Just"? Why, if Jesus advocated vegetarianism for his followers, did Peter feel that he could eat all things, as Galatians testifies? Why would "Luke" indicate that not only meat, but traditionally unclean meat, could be eaten?

And since you are shifting the burden here, shall I take it that you don't know what these patristic texts are?

Jeffrey

Jedi Mind Trick

You can choose to take what ever you want. I don't have anything to prove and judging by your tone I don't think you are really interested anyway.

Jeffrey Gibson

I am interested in seeing the evidence that supports your -- otherwise I wouldn't have asked for it. And I'm sure others are as well. So will you please provide us with it?

Jeffrey

mountainman

I am not arguing there is any parody in the canonical texts.
I am pointing out that Jesus Christ is presented as an
incomplete ascetic, whatever that may mean.

Maybe Constantine liked his pork chops and beer?
And women. Who knows?



I find it difficult to understand what you are responding to.
In this thread I am asking about the canonical NT text.
In other threads, I argue that at least 6 non canonical
texts are written with a non christian polemic, that
is identifiable as parody. Which thread are you addressing?


I am interested more in the evidence.
But thanks for thinking of me anyway.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Asceticism is better modelled by the Hellenic Pythagorean
tradition, of which tradition Josephus likens the Essenes.
Buddhist influence has not gone unnoticed by scholarship.

Who were the therapeutae?
What impact had the therapeautae?
Who were the therapeutae gathered in Egypt,
described by Philo of Alexandria?
Was Galen a therapeutae of Asclepius?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

One Ancient source for issues relating to asceticism,
specifically in that issue of "vegetarianism" is:

ON ABSTINENCE FROM ANIMAL FOOD

Porphyry, perhaps c.300 CE.
Also wrote on mathematics.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Amaleq13

Good to know.

Shouldn't you know what you are talking about when you manufacture terms?

A single "ascetic element" is sufficient to warrant calling him some sort of incoherently defined ascetic?

Shouldn't it suggest, instead, that "ascetic" is probably not a good description?

I'm responding to the apparent foolishness of defining Jesus as some sort of incoherently defined "ascetic" when there is only one aspect of the character that qualifies and the character explicitly describes himself as not being an ascetic like the Baptist. IOW, your OP.

The story is the evidence, Pete. Remember? You thought it necessary to point that out to me.:


Jeffrey's thesis seems to be supported by more of the canonical NT text than yours.

Jeffrey Gibson

None of this is an answer to my question.

I note too, Pete, that you've not answered my question about the validity of your claim, made here,
that there is a "standard" tradition that the Buddha's austerities took place over "40 days".

Do you or do you not have some documentation of this claim?

Jeffrey

mountainman

My only involvement with the traditions associated
with Buddha was to compile for the web the publication
of Paul Carus from late in the 19th century, which
he called The Gospel of Buddha

Buddhas ascetic austerities were more extreme I think than
forty days, but the notion of anything more than fasting
for a day or two perhaps three is remote to most people.

The figure is unimportant. It represented "a long time".
Far longer than the average person in the street.
It was a task reserved for a practicing adept of the
ascetic path -- known to the other practitioners and
adepts of the ascetic path


(hence my question to
you concerning the known traditions of Asclepius,
the god of Healing, and his therapeutae and/or
temple staff, asclepia, gymnasia and libraries.)


Just as Buddha's enlightment involved a successful battle
with Mara the Evil One, and Jesus purportedly battled Satan,
so too -- one day -- BC&H Scholars must battle Eusebius.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown