Sheshbazzar

In line with the OP. But exactly what do we mean when we use the word 'proselytize'? and 'proselyte'?

A Jew who persuades a gentile to believe, and gentile who simply accepts and believes in the 'G-d' and the religion of Israel?

Or are only those gentiles that submit to a physical mutilation of their penile foreskin 'proselytes' ?

There were many gentile servants and 'strangers within the gate' and 'righteous strangers' that lived among the 'Jews' abiding by the Noachide laws, keeping THE Sabbath and worshiping the Holy one of Israel along with the 'Jewish' people.
Gentiles, whom under The Law of Moses, were NOT required to undergo circumcision, and did not undergo circumcision, and thus retained their gentile identities and status. Becuse The Holy one of Israel had promised that He would deliver the GENTILES along with his people Israel.
Gentiles did NOT have to become Jews to find favor with The Holy One of Israel.

Yet whenever evil was released upon the Jews, these uncircumcised gentile Sabbath keepers were usually the very first group to be rounded up, arrested, tortured, and put to death for their 'crime' of 'Judaizing'.

outhouse

That how I see it.


We have hellenization of Judaism that opened up wide and diverse definitions.


For me to define Paul or Josephas as under Judaism, is painting with a very broad brush using grey tones.

outhouse

And in many places these same people were seen as hellenistic Jews.


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...2391-proselyte


The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry.

Sheshbazzar

Ah. 'generally be Jewish', and 'the 'proselyte'. So now you allow that there may have been, or were 'proselytes' among these theraputae.

These theraputae were NOT Philo's audience, His De vita contemplativa was not addressed to them, but to the world at large, including us, Jews, and Jewish religion loving proselytes like me.

You are, without directly quoting the material I supplied, conceding the possibility that Philo was writing -of- the theraputae as a 'mixed multitude' of worshipers, to the mixed multitude of the world, and to his fellow Jewish believers in particular.

Philo and most Jews are aware of different types of 'proselytes'. Not all 'proselytes' were circumcised, because by The Laws, circumcision was NOT a requirement upon any gentile believer or worshiper, unless that one wished to become a 'Jew', or enter the Jerusalem Temple, or actually eat of the passover seder.

One could, and one can believe in haShem and 'l'qura b'Shemo' without being circumcised. Abraham did.

If there were any proselyte GENTILES among that group of 'theraputae', Philo was perfectly right and socially correct and polite to be writing 'theraputae' rather than simply 'Jews'.

stephan huller

No one denied the possibility of proselytes being part of the make up of the therapeutai. They are still 'Jewish' in the sense that they are part of the Jewish religion. The rest of the stuff you write about is nonsense. Philo does not mention as far as I know different types of proselytes etc.

Sheshbazzar

Even as uncircumcised Gentiles.

He doesn't have to. Any Jew or Gentile familiar with The Law would be aware of the distinctions, and what was (is) allowable and what is not under that Law.

The Nations cannot very well love haShem and His Holy Laws unless they are willing to learn, and to KEEP His Commandments.
(whatever of them apply to Gentile believers)

I may worship as a Gentile even with the strictest of Hassidic Jews, if I know my place, understand my limitations under The Law, and conduct myself peacefully and respectfully with due humility and propriety. (Else there would never be any proselytes)

outhouse

Doesnt make any sense when you can claim Saducees were Jewish. Distinctions were different wide and varied. Period.


There was no real orthodox Judaism within Hellenization, unless you want to claim Zealots views of opposing hellenization.

Horatio Parker

In the story, or do you believe this really happened? Abraham, Moses were historical?

spin

Way out, rocket man. This is hysterical. Literally.

You still totally miss the simple logic issue. There is no reason for you to think that these adherents to the basic religion of Philo were anything other than Jews. They may have been, but Philo doesn't give you a single hint. He certainly puts them into the context of the religion he accepts. This should make you think they are Jewish unless otherwise stated--and there is nothing to the contrary.

stephan huller

The issue of circumcision is an interesting one insofar as it was universally associated with Jews and Judaism but - interestingly - was not included among the ten commandments. So was it a divinely ordained or man-made commandment? Aquila apparently came down on the side that since it was not counted among the ten it was not God-given. But did this position exist before Christianity? It seems unlikely as there is no specific reference to communities of uncircumcised who considered themselves 'Jews.' It seems instead to be a specifically Christian position or at least one that emerged in the Christian era or because of the specifically Christian re-interpretation of the superiority of the ten commandments over the rest of the man-made ordinances.