Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thief of fire · 02-06-2013, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

....
I responded to your reply at posts #301 and #320 as follows.

By your own logic this putative separate author may have been a Christian.

Sorry I missed an opportunity to shoot this down.

Thank god you are here to do that cos otherwise people would have believed it. But, carry on with your mission.

aa5874 · 02-06-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...Eusebius used the text of VC to argue that the Therapeutae were Christians, but he had to distort the text in order to do so. This argues against VC being a Christian fabrication. It is too early, it does not use Christian themes, and a Christian forger would have done a much more convincing job, or at least worked in some themes that were important to Christians.

No, No, No Toto.

Eusebius, the supposed author of 'Church History' did NOT distort the text.

Eusebius merely implied or asserted the Therapeutae were Christians based on Philo's description.

Church History 2.17.3.

Quote:

In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeutæ and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshipped the Deity in purity and sincerity.

4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.

stephan huller · 02-06-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Eusebius, the supposed author of 'Church History' did NOT distort the text.

Eusebius merely implied the Therapeutae were Christians.

But if they weren't Christians then it is a distortion of the original testimony which does not identify them as Christians specifically. Eusebius and Philo agree however that the sect members were Hebrews.

aa5874 · 02-06-2013, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Eusebius, the supposed author of 'Church History' did NOT distort the text.

Eusebius merely implied the Therapeutae were Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But if they weren't Christians then it is a distortion of the original testimony which does not identify them as Christians specifically. Eusebius and Philo agree however that the sect members were Hebrews.

How illogical can you be?? If the Therapeutae were NOT Jews or of Jewish origin as you propose then it does not mean you distorted the text. It may merely mean that you did NOT understand the text, did NOT read the text yourself but may be merely repeating the flawed opinion of some other person or don't know what you are talking about.

Examine On the Contemplative Life

Quote:

They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they take as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect...

Eusebius did NOT distort 'VC' but his claims are in error exactly like you.

Examine Eusebius' 'Church History' 2.17

Quote:

11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as models, and imitate their principles.

12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles.

stephan huller · 02-06-2013, 11:47 AM

Honestly. I know what sort of a mind you possess. It works up to a point and then ---.

Let me break it down for you. Let's suppose I wrote a restaurant review. The restaurant is in Seattle and you have never been to Seattle so I am your window to the world so to speak - just like Philo was for Eusebius.

I start of by saying that it is a Chinese restaurant. I say that it has all sort of noodle dishes, Chinese broccoli in oyster sauce. One can also get Jasmine tea etc.

Okay so far.

Then you, aa, tell your friends about this place. You've never been here but again - based upon my report - you tell your readers that it is a Szechuan restaurant in which all the menus appear in Chinese characters. If you only speak English, you tell your friends, you have to ask one particular waiter named 'Jackie' and he will help you.

Now your friends are going to Seattle so they are really interested in finding out about this restaurant and they Google my name (because you told them you read my review) and nothing else on the internet. They notice the discrepancies and wonder - whose telling the truth? Who should we believe?

Since they know I am your source, your friends are probably going to take my review as 'certainly true' and all the stuff in your review which differs from my account with a grain of salt because (a) they know you are nuts and (b) you've never been to Seattle, never been to this restaurant.

The same thing is true in antiquity with respect to Philo and Eusebius. Philo is the only guy who saw the Therapeutae, Eusebius - a known exaggerator - makes the connection with early Christianity. Maybe it is true, maybe it is half true, maybe its made up. We don't know.

stephan huller · 02-06-2013, 11:54 AM

As I said, I think my highly intelligent Bichon Frise would understand this point by now (she takes no interest in religion unfortunately). But here is Oden's explanation of the relationship:

Quote:

Though Eusebius was obviously exaggerating when he connected Philo's Therapeutae with Christian converts, Philo “was right in stressing that the 'apostolic men' of the days of Philo and Mark were 'of Hebrew origin and thus still preserved in a strictly Jewish manner." Hence the testimony of Eusebius should not be ruled out just because he misunderstood the precise chronology between Philo and Mark. [http://books.google.com/books?id=uOV...ed%22&f=false]

The Jewish character of the Therapeutae even in Eusebius's account is also echoed by Birger Pearson http://books.google.com/books?id=c8m...tly%22&f=false. It is in Eusebius account - i.e. he says they were Hebrews, crazy man

stephan huller · 02-06-2013, 12:41 PM

And just to make clear, I have separate issues with each of the participants. mountainman is outright dishonest with his use of the sources, aa has problems connecting the dots, tanya pretends not to understand things when they get in the way of his/her interests. But Robert Tulip is a special case. I am sure Robert (or Murdock) has a great deal of knowledge. But in his his/her case he/she is only interested in Christianity (and even less interested in Judaism) to use as a Trojan horse to bring Eastern ideas into any discussion. I just haven't heard how and why such a connection can be made with the Therapeutae - the specific group referenced by Philo. My guess is that Robert can't make the arguments because that would tip his/her hat to his/her real identity (= Murdock) just as Dave35 was his/her previous incarnation. My advice is - come out of the closet, be who you are - and then we can have a real discussion.

I think having a separate thread - are the therapeutae Buddist? - would be a welcome idea. Let's deconstruct the Jewish group referenced by Philo. Let's see what is possible with respect to the existing evidence. But let's be savage about it because we have to protect ourselves from using the evidence in a self-serving manner.

andrewcriddle · 02-06-2013, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop posting on this issue until you do that research.

The only article that I have found by searching (both via google and within JSTOR) is Coneybeare's English translation of "VC".

Would you or anyone else be able to point me to his (1898??) argument / thesis which would appear to have been accepted by all modern scholarship?

Thanks.

Conybeare's translation (available at about the contemplative life ) contains a long argument about authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 02-06-2013, 03:05 PM

Well there you go. A reasonable person would of course (a) read the book or (b) not read the book but slither away admitting that he doesn't have the right to make a pronouncement on the state of the text until he does so. But that won't be the case here. And I can't understand how so many people at the forum don't see that. You don't have a right to declare the text is a forgery until you climb over the mountain of evidence, witnesses and authorities who assume it is Philonic. What will happen instead is that Pete will either go on pretending to ignore that such a study exists or finding a different approach to making the original testimony go away. Why? Because he knows what he wants to be true and arranges or marshals whatever scraps of broken citations and innuendo that he can use to achieve his results. I can almost accept that there is one lone wolf like this out there. But how do we get to the state of affairs were there is a pack of these ravenous beasts, disagreeing with one another but allied with only one goal in mind - to make the weaker arguments, even the silliest, most ridiculous theories, triumph over the better constituted ones.

Sheshbazzar · 02-06-2013, 04:38 PM

Philo was a Hellenist. He employs syncretized religious ideas and terminology drawn from the pig-sty's of Greek paganism.

We wouldn't be having these debates if he had remained faithful to the religion and religious terminology of the Hebrews.

Reading the book will not remove the pagan Greek pig shit in it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2013, 11:47 AM	#625
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Honestly. I know what sort of a mind you possess. It works up to a point and then ---. Let me break it down for you. Let's suppose I wrote a restaurant review. The restaurant is in Seattle and you have never been to Seattle so I am your window to the world so to speak - just like Philo was for Eusebius. I start of by saying that it is a Chinese restaurant. I say that it has all sort of noodle dishes, Chinese broccoli in oyster sauce. One can also get Jasmine tea etc. Okay so far. Then you, aa, tell your friends about this place. You've never been here but again - based upon my report - you tell your readers that it is a Szechuan restaurant in which all the menus appear in Chinese characters. If you only speak English, you tell your friends, you have to ask one particular waiter named 'Jackie' and he will help you. Now your friends are going to Seattle so they are really interested in finding out about this restaurant and they Google my name (because you told them you read my review) and nothing else on the internet. They notice the discrepancies and wonder - whose telling the truth? Who should we believe? Since they know I am your source, your friends are probably going to take my review as 'certainly true' and all the stuff in your review which differs from my account with a grain of salt because (a) they know you are nuts and (b) you've never been to Seattle, never been to this restaurant. The same thing is true in antiquity with respect to Philo and Eusebius. Philo is the only guy who saw the Therapeutae, Eusebius - a known exaggerator - makes the connection with early Christianity. Maybe it is true, maybe it is half true, maybe its made up. We don't know.

02-06-2013, 12:41 PM	#627
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And just to make clear, I have separate issues with each of the participants. mountainman is outright dishonest with his use of the sources, aa has problems connecting the dots, tanya pretends not to understand things when they get in the way of his/her interests. But Robert Tulip is a special case. I am sure Robert (or Murdock) has a great deal of knowledge. But in his his/her case he/she is only interested in Christianity (and even less interested in Judaism) to use as a Trojan horse to bring Eastern ideas into any discussion. I just haven't heard how and why such a connection can be made with the Therapeutae - the specific group referenced by Philo. My guess is that Robert can't make the arguments because that would tip his/her hat to his/her real identity (= Murdock) just as Dave35 was his/her previous incarnation. My advice is - come out of the closet, be who you are - and then we can have a real discussion. I think having a separate thread - are the therapeutae Buddist? - would be a welcome idea. Let's deconstruct the Jewish group referenced by Philo. Let's see what is possible with respect to the existing evidence. But let's be savage about it because we have to protect ourselves from using the evidence in a self-serving manner.

02-06-2013, 03:05 PM	#629
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well there you go. A reasonable person would of course (a) read the book or (b) not read the book but slither away admitting that he doesn't have the right to make a pronouncement on the state of the text until he does so. But that won't be the case here. And I can't understand how so many people at the forum don't see that. You don't have a right to declare the text is a forgery until you climb over the mountain of evidence, witnesses and authorities who assume it is Philonic. What will happen instead is that Pete will either go on pretending to ignore that such a study exists or finding a different approach to making the original testimony go away. Why? Because he knows what he wants to be true and arranges or marshals whatever scraps of broken citations and innuendo that he can use to achieve his results. I can almost accept that there is one lone wolf like this out there. But how do we get to the state of affairs were there is a pack of these ravenous beasts, disagreeing with one another but allied with only one goal in mind - to make the weaker arguments, even the silliest, most ridiculous theories, triumph over the better constituted ones.

02-06-2013, 04:38 PM	#630
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Philo was a Hellenist. He employs syncretized religious ideas and terminology drawn from the pig-sty's of Greek paganism. We wouldn't be having these debates if he had remained faithful to the religion and religious terminology of the Hebrews. Reading the book will not remove the pagan Greek pig shit in it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.