[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus
At 07:18 22/05/97 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>>(I still see MMT as being an early document with a
>>>context that requires a "peaceful" gentile presence in Jerusalem that is
>>>highhandedly being excluded from the temple.) So the following has no
>>>historical basis whatsoever.
>>Gentiles being highhandedly excluded from the Beyt Miyq'dash as the theme of
>>MMT? I think this discussion has become exhausted.
>"Concerning the offering of the wheat of the Gentiles which they [...] and
>they defile it: you shall not eat it. None of the wheat of the Gentiles
>shall be brought into the temple."
>You refuse to see that this (and similar) sets a context for the document.
I certainly refuse to "see" that, given the documented large numbers of
geyrim non-Jewish "sympathizers" or "G-d-Fearers, this citation indicates
that the "Gentile presence in Jerusalem" was peaceful. Try reading
Feldman's article in BAR (86.09-10).
>>>Is there in fact any post 63 bce pre 100 ce evidence for Sadducees that goes
>>>beyond reminiscences of no resurrection and the affirmation that one high
>>>priest was a Sadducee? For a group that seems so important noone seems to
>>>know very much about them at all.
But they do about the Essenes, right? And also about the Netzarim? And
also about the Evyonim? And scores of parallel and spin-off sects? By your
reasoning none of those existed either. Of course the campaign of the
Romans and their Church to destroy all Judaic documents conflicting with
Church claims of displacement theology wouldn't have anything to do with
this I suppose. This is not an area that Orion seems to want discussed.
And since I require that people read the materials I've published before
getting into lengthy discussion outside the forum too, this would appear to
be where this thread ends.
>You have no evidence for anything after 63 bce in the texts. The site was
>handed over to the control of the Romans and then abandoned after 63 bce.
>There is no clear evidence for habitation until the next century.
That establishes a "perhaps." No evidence is just that. No evidence does
not constitute proof to the contrary. The matter is still unresolved.
>People keep falling over their sects.
And their failings in logic.
>You keep stating your belief but you don't argue the position. You just keep
>saying he's right. I don't believe you.
You don't believe him. I'm merely agreeing with him and stating that I find
his arguments logical and compelling. No one has shown me that his
arguments aren't logical. I really don't care whether you believe me.
>>>Let me ask the question once again, as you talk of a Qumran sect: what sect?
>>Qumran. But nice try.
>Dogma. We've had this dogma for too long. If you repeat something long
>enough, no matter how silly, people will start to believe it. There is no
>proof of a so-called Qumran sect as separate from mainstream Judaism of the
>epoch in which the texts were written.
Who said it was separate from mainstream Judaism? Not me. You jump to
conclusions more than anyone on this list. You equate Qumran to dogma?
>The only contemporary documents are
>the scrolls themselves. If you don't agree you should state your position
>with suitable evidence and stop falling back on authority. You should know
>better as a logician.
Build a strawman and attack it. I'll just watch. But you shouldn't confuse
that with logic.
>I would love anyone who has some evidence for a Qumran sect to buy into the
Perhaps your definition of the term "sect" is what is giving you so much
>isn't either -- then again neither are the mishmarot. Well, hell, someone
>has some idea of what the sect was. Not everyone is shooting air on this
>sect business are they? How many feet does one have to tread on to get some
>serious reaction. I wouldn't mind a bit of egg on the face if only someone
>would come across with the goods.
The sect is adequately distinguished in MMT; whether it was limited to
Qumran or represented throughout Y'hudah is hardly "dogma". While I lean
toward the latter, this is based on the arguments of others and, like
Qimron's MMT, you need to argue those arguments with them, not me.
>From a logical perspective, it may also be, as I indicated above, that MMT
simply doesn't satisfy your preconceptions of what distinguishes or defines
a sect, specifically within 1st century Judaism.
In any case, I feel we've exhausted this thread, if not beaten it to death,
and I haven't time to pursue it further. You can have the last word(s).
Paqiyd 16, Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews
Netzarim Viritual Community Center