[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion Sadducees (MMT) et al, Part 2
[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 10:21 17/07/97 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >self-designation used nowhere in the texts. Based on the evidence,
> >the DSS
> >people were Essenes" is a most logical statement.
>>Not when you string them together and then suggest the string of
> supports the conclusion you suggested when it does not.
I'll stand by my "ifs" as an accurate assessment of what we know
clearlyabout the origin DSS texts, the DSS people, the Essenes, and K.
> >> would also pose the probability of Yeshuines who can be called in
> >> semantic use of the term, "proto-Christians."
> No connection with Christians, 'proto' or otherwise, has been
> and you may NOT assume it.
We've covered this ground
> I repeat, why not just switch to a more accurate designation and stop
> to paint them as 'Christians' by inference, innuendo and assumption?
I am not bothered by the term "proto-Christians" any more than I
wouldcharacterize Judea and the Galilee of the 2nd temple period as
<Gr> PRWTOJ "The first in a succession." Y'shua and his Talmudaya were
the first in a succession that brachiated stemmatically in several
inside Judaism and exported to the Gentiles. As I said, I prefer my own
of Yeshuine Judaism but have no problem maintaing continuity of the term
"proto-Christians" with Dale's original question.
Your offense at the term...which I heartily understand and
on religious concerns rather than the historical.