Abstinence and the Virgin Birth (Which I do affirm)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And I have carefully detailed the reasons for doing so - a fact that you have been careful to ensure escapes your attention.

Your mind-set precludes accepting any academic opinion that contradicts or contravenes your preconceived beliefs.

[tabibito]

Your mind-set precludes accepting any academic opinion that contradicts or contravenes your preconceived beliefs.

You claim to know more about me than I do. Where did you obtain these supernatural-powers of yours? Other than from within the depths of your own fetid prejudice, that is.

[rogue06]

One paper as representative of a number might be. One paper cited with nothing but speculation and personal opinion is sufficient to show that the opposing argument needs to be supported. One paper in opposition to a claim is sufficient to show that an opinion is not unopposed.

C'monman!

By now you know the drill.

Anything presented will be summarily dismissed on this or that sort of grounds (some of the reasons are rather entertaining) so that her personal incredulousness can trump anything and everything.


We've all seen it before, and not just one or two times.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You claim to know more about me than I do. Where did you obtain these supernatural-powers of yours? Other than from within the depths of your own fetid prejudice, that is.

My remarks are premised on various exchanges I have had with you. Anything that goes against your own preconceived ideas you will reject regardless of the academic qualifications of the individual concerned.

However, you will readily accept a paper written by an amateur because it goes [some way] to affirming of those preconceived beliefs.

[tabibito]

My remarks are premised on various exchanges I have had with you. Anything that goes against your own preconceived ideas you will reject regardless of the academic qualifications of the individual concerned.

Those ideas are not preconceived - they are are result of going where the evidence takes me.

However, you will readily accept a paper written by an amateur because it goes [some way] to affirming of those preconceived beliefs.

For an amateur, you have a surprisingly dim view of amateurs. I have previously stated that "Professors Okurigana's" (however many they be) opinions are no better than the evidence that supports their position, and that a 14 year old's opinion is every bit as good as the evidence supporting his position. The only part of your comment that is objectionable is the "preconceived," which is based on no evidence more substantial than your decision to deny that any Christian can possibly be impartial in an evaluation of the evidence available. Unless of course, the Christian in question is an enabler for your bigotry.

[rogue06]

Those ideas are not preconceived - they are are result of going where the evidence takes me.



For an amateur, you have a surprisingly dim view of amateurs. I have previously stated that "Professors Okurigana's" (however many they be) opinions are no better than the evidence that supports their position, and that a 14 year old's opinion is every bit as good as the evidence supporting his position. The only part of your comment that is objectionable is the "preconceived," which is based on no evidence more substantial than your decision to deny that any Christian can possibly be impartial in an evaluation of the evidence available. Unless of course, the Christian in question is an enabler for your bigotry.

The flip side of her assertion would, of course, naturally be that any atheist cannot be impartial.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Those ideas are not preconceived - they are are result of going where the evidence takes me.

Spare me please!

For an amateur, you have a surprisingly dim view of amateurs.

You are very tetchy today, did you have a disturbed night's sleep?

I have previously stated that "Professors Okurigana's" (however many they be) opinions are no better than the evidence that supports their position, and that a 14 year old's opinion is every bit as good as the evidence supporting his position.

All of which depends on what constitutes "the evidence".

The only part of your comment that is objectionable is the "preconceived," which is based on no evidence more substantial than your decision to deny that any Christian can possibly be impartial in an evaluation of the evidence available. Unless of course, the Christian in question is an enabler for your bigotry.

As I noted in the past, various academics whose works I have cited hold [or held if those individuals are now dead] to religious beliefs.

However, they are able to put their religious views aside when assessing the sources.

Many [including some theologians] often find that rather more difficult.

[tabibito]

Spare me please!

You are very tetchy today, did you have a disturbed night's sleep?

Just responding in kind - your constant sniping has become an annoyance.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just responding in kind - your constant sniping has become an annoyance.

That you consider me to be "sniping" because you cannot answer my questions, or because I have pointed out your own reliance on one paper being the definitive and final word on very complex historical issues is duly noted.

[tabibito]

That you consider me to be "sniping" because you cannot answer my questions, or because I have pointed out your own reliance on one paper being the definitive and final word on very complex historical issues is duly noted.

As I said, one paper provided in contrast to your none is sufficient.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I said, one paper provided in contrast to your none is sufficient.

I gave you E Mary Smallwood a distinguished expert in her field, not an MD writing about his hobby.

You ignored her comments.

[rogue06]

I gave you E Mary Smallwood a distinguished expert in her field, not an MD writing about his hobby.

You ignored her comments.

We probably could cite multiple experts that would note that the Jews were exempt from compulsory military service, except perhaps for the time that Tiberius forcibly conscripted 4000 Jews for military service on the island of Sardinia. So nobody is suggesting otherwise.

But being exempted from being conscripted does not mean that those who wanted to couldn't enlist. It merely means that you couldn't be forced to.

[rogue06]

We probably could cite multiple experts that would note that the Jews were exempt from compulsory military service, except perhaps for the time that Tiberius forcibly conscripted 4000 Jews for military service on the island of Sardinia. So nobody is suggesting otherwise.

But being exempted from being conscripted does not mean that those who wanted to couldn't enlist. It merely means that you couldn't be forced to.

Jewish exemption from military service, and the way the romans perceived the Jews and Judaism in the late Roman republic and the early empire

Abstract

In 1914, Juster showed that there was some clear evidence for Jewish military service in the Roman Empire. Since then, especially in the first decade of the 21st century, others have followed suit and written articles which brought new evidence to light, in order to strengthen this assertion. However, through the ages, many scholars tried to claim that there were no such soldiers in the Roman army or at least, if there were, they were a negligible minority in Jewish society. They usually bring up Josephus’ writings, where he describes Jews repeatedly being granted exemption from military service in the second half of the 1st century BCE. But these exemptions never encompassed the entire Jewish population under Roman rule. Exemptions were given only to certain communities for a limited time. If there was a general exemption for all Jews, from all classes and all across the Empire, Josephus would have mentioned it in his writings. In addition, Josephus, who sat in Rome, with all the archives of the empire in his disposal, could not find even one local exemption after the year 14 BCE. So one can infer that such exemptions were not in existence after the year 14 BCE. That, by itself, is the best evidence that Jewish military service existed in the armies of the early Roman Empire. More importantly, the way the writings were phrased highlights how the Romans perceived Jews and Judaism, and their ability to see the difference between Jews as individuals, and between different streams and sects in Judaism. The exemptions raise some further assumptions. Firstly, on how the Romans conducted their affairs in the east. Secondly, about the difference between the administrative staff in the provinces and the politicians in the form of the province’s governor. Thirdly, about the Romans’ caution in not causing any precedents and countering any of the old laws. Much more can be learned from these exemptions as will be brought forward in the lecture.

[tabibito]

Jewish exemption from military service, and the way the romans perceived the Jews and Judaism in the late Roman republic and the early empire

Abstract

In 1914, Juster showed that there was some clear evidence for Jewish military service in the Roman Empire. Since then, especially in the first decade of the 21st century, others have followed suit and written articles which brought new evidence to light, in order to strengthen this assertion. However, through the ages, many scholars tried to claim that there were no such soldiers in the Roman army or at least, if there were, they were a negligible minority in Jewish society. They usually bring up Josephus’ writings, where he describes Jews repeatedly being granted exemption from military service in the second half of the 1st century BCE. But these exemptions never encompassed the entire Jewish population under Roman rule. Exemptions were given only to certain communities for a limited time. If there was a general exemption for all Jews, from all classes and all across the Empire, Josephus would have mentioned it in his writings. In addition, Josephus, who sat in Rome, with all the archives of the empire in his disposal, could not find even one local exemption after the year 14 BCE. So one can infer that such exemptions were not in existence after the year 14 BCE. That, by itself, is the best evidence that Jewish military service existed in the armies of the early Roman Empire. More importantly, the way the writings were phrased highlights how the Romans perceived Jews and Judaism, and their ability to see the difference between Jews as individuals, and between different streams and sects in Judaism. The exemptions raise some further assumptions. Firstly, on how the Romans conducted their affairs in the east. Secondly, about the difference between the administrative staff in the provinces and the politicians in the form of the province’s governor. Thirdly, about the Romans’ caution in not causing any precedents and countering any of the old laws. Much more can be learned from these exemptions as will be brought forward in the lecture.

The reddened comments are not uncommon; but our "historian" in residence doesn't seem to be aware of them.

An interesting paper by Zeichmann (PDF) makes it clear enough that centurions had a fairly prominent position in civic duties, quite commonly having a role as demi-police rather than soldiering (go figure) and independently of actual legions. Pages 90-91 most interesting ... there was a position which could be termed "district Centurion," to whom petitions were passed on for action.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jewish exemption from military service, and the way the romans perceived the Jews and Judaism in the late Roman republic and the early empire

Abstract

In 1914, Juster showed that there was some clear evidence for Jewish military service in the Roman Empire. Since then, especially in the first decade of the 21st century, others have followed suit and written articles which brought new evidence to light, in order to strengthen this assertion. However, through the ages, many scholars tried to claim that there were no such soldiers in the Roman army or at least, if there were, they were a negligible minority in Jewish society. They usually bring up Josephus’ writings, where he describes Jews repeatedly being granted exemption from military service in the second half of the 1st century BCE. But these exemptions never encompassed the entire Jewish population under Roman rule. Exemptions were given only to certain communities for a limited time. If there was a general exemption for all Jews, from all classes and all across the Empire, Josephus would have mentioned it in his writings. In addition, Josephus, who sat in Rome, with all the archives of the empire in his disposal, could not find even one local exemption after the year 14 BCE. So one can infer that such exemptions were not in existence after the year 14 BCE. That, by itself, is the best evidence that Jewish military service existed in the armies of the early Roman Empire. More importantly, the way the writings were phrased highlights how the Romans perceived Jews and Judaism, and their ability to see the difference between Jews as individuals, and between different streams and sects in Judaism. The exemptions raise some further assumptions. Firstly, on how the Romans conducted their affairs in the east. Secondly, about the difference between the administrative staff in the provinces and the politicians in the form of the province’s governor. Thirdly, about the Romans’ caution in not causing any precedents and countering any of the old laws. Much more can be learned from these exemptions as will be brought forward in the lecture.

And yet another duplicate post from another thread.