[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:

> >those that were *first* (the immediate
> >surviving followers of Y'shua and the Jamesian community of Netzarim)
> >is indeed in the form of a "stemma" from an historical standpoint
> No such "stemma" may be assumed.

    I realize that Hellenistic Christianity offends your religious
construction in therevival of the Netzarim but I am attempting to be
historical.  Without Y'shua and
his immediate followers and Talmudaya, there would have been no
Regardless of whatever subversion, perversion or interpolation many
in its exportation and development from this sect of Judaism.  There is
a stemmatic relationship between the Jesus people and characters like
Cyril of
Alexandria.  The 20,000 or so various and sundry sects, from the sublime
the bizarre, active today can still be traced back to the original Jesus

> To describe this genre as Christian, even in quotes, implies
> substantiation
> of a begged question.  Any connection with Christianity must be
> demonstrated, not assumed.  The issue in question here is strictly
> your use
> of the term Christian, quoted or otherwise, in describing this group
> by
> *assuming* the connection, without demonstrating the connection or
> continuity.  Why don't you simply switch to a logical term?  If you
> have
> some bias against Netzarim that shouldn't be a problem.

    Not hardly since I consider myself wunna dem.

>  There's other
> logical descriptions.  If, for example, you used 'Yeshuine Jews'
> consistently I think that would solve the problem... unless you've
> some
> reason to continue insisting on anachronistically injecting
> 'Christian' into
> the equation.

    Your beating a deceased equine here.  Obviously, I find the
term"Christian" to be anachronistic to the Jesus people and the often
term "Jewish Christians" to be oxymoronic.  I even cringe at the use of
"primitive church" by some writers.  I do not have a problem, however,
in maintaining a continuity in this discussion with the somewhat
neologistic term "proto-Christian."

> >>   There was no disputation "on 'legitimate Judaism'" during this
> period.
> >    Of course there was.....sometimes violent.
> One may not *assume* it was about 'legitimate Judaism' with no
> substantiation whatsoever, particularly when MMT demonstrates
> otherwise, as
> both Qimron and Susskind have stated.  If you haven't read Qimron it's
> central to this issue and you should do so.

    Of course I have read them and expect much more about MMT which
pre-datesthe Herodian period.  I do not view "legitimate Judaeism" as
the monolith you do nor can
we forget that these three sects were political as well.  I remind you
that the founder
of the Netzarim had little good to say about the stewards of "legitimate
Judaism" at
the time, calling them a "nest of vipers," a stance which in
collaboration with the
Roman overlords, got him killed.

Jack Kilmon