[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion Sadducees (MMT) et al, Part 1
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Yirmiyahu Ben-David wrote:
> At 13:05 16/07/97 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >If we utilize the term "Christian" for those immediate followers of
> No. Continuity between Christianity and this period must be
> not assumed.
First, this is getting a bit afield from Dale's original question
regarding thepresence of "proto-Christians" near Damascus. Since Orion
is a forum for
the scholarly discussion of the DSS and the people of the DSS, I assume
that underlying Dale's question (and Dale can qualify this) was a
connection between the "DSS people" and "proto-Christians" defining the
term as PRWTOJ, the "FIRST" in time or place, in any succession. The
"continuity" between the period of those that were *first* (the
surviving followers of Y'shua and the Jamesian community of Netzarim)
is indeed in the form of a "stemma" from an historical standpoint
of the directions taken in the development of Christologies in the
and Gentile arenas.
> >In this format, it is very likely that "Christianity" in that sense,
> preceded Yeshua in >the form of the style of Enochian/Messianic
> Judaism into
> which they fit.
> This undefined "format" and "sense" is not Christianity. Define some
> precisely, then use them consistently.
Please note that "Christianity" is in quotes. I thought it was
clear that I wasreferring to a genre within Judaism that can be
exemplified by some of the DSS
texts as well as some of the pseudepigraphal writing of the time...a
which those that were *first* in succession (and perhaps the DSS people)
> >This is why I prefer the term "Yeshuine Judaism."
> historical name of this sect is Netzarim. Now some regularly accuse
> me of
> mixing "my religion" into this because I happen to believe the
> Netzarim were
> "correct." That's ad hominem.
> This is no excuse to exclude historical
> evidence and documentation about the sect which virtually everyone
> recognizes as a key player in this period just because it comes from
> me and
> I happen to believe it. My beliefs don't invalidate historical
> documentation, nor logic.
No, but it does "interpret" them.
> > I think the DSS texts clearly reflect disputation on "legitimate
> Judaism" during >the 2nd temple period.
> There was no disputation "on 'legitimate Judaism'"
> during this period.
Of course there was.....sometimes violent.
> (Continues in part 2)