Paul and the Judaizers

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The town where a person was brought up is called his hometown. The town where a person has made his residence for a number of years becomes his hometown. The place where a person lives and whose mother is a local is the person's hometown.

On their return from Egypt, the family intended to return to Israel but on learning that Judah was in Archelaus' territory turned aside to Nazareth. Perhaps you would like to venture a guess as to why they initially made their way to Judah instead of going directly to Nazareth?

You ought to write your own gospel.

[tabibito]

You ought to write your own gospel.

The gospels that have been accepted into the canon are good enough.

21 So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,
23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth.

So - and again - the original destination was Judah, and was changed to the Galilee. Why was Judah the original intended destination?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's not like there aren't any historians who hold bizarre beliefs. Like those who claim that the Roman Empire is a medieval myth.

Such as?

Or all those promoting ancient astronauts (or Atlanteans) as responsible for everything from the pyramids to Stonehenge to the Nazca Lines.

What accredited historians have made such claims?.

And then there's the Marxist notion of Historical Materialism, which has been dismissed as nothing but an unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

That is a theory for explaining human history, rather like the [now debunked] theory that arose in the eighteenth century and was developed through the nineteenth and into the mid 20th century of a pre-historic European wide worship of a single Mother Goddess.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The gospels that have been accepted into the canon are good enough.

21 So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,
23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth.

So - and again - the original destination was Judah, and was changed to the Galilee. Why was Judah the original intended destination?

Yes but you have so many "interesting insights" into all these events. Just think what additional narrative explanations you could add!

[Sparko]

I think I will snooze this thread and check back in 5 or 10 pages to see if anything has changed.

I am checking back. Nope, nothing has changed. Carry on!

[tabibito]

Yes but you have so many "interesting insights" into all these events. Just think what additional narrative explanations you could add!

Your tells are still showing.

[One Bad Pig]

I have never claimed to have any expertise in anthropology.

Sure you have.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sure you have.

I wrote

my own knowledge of anthropology that includes burial practices and beliefs in magic, including within the ancient world.

Nowhere in that remark am I claiming to be an expert. You seem unfamiliar with the concept of books and also the fact that some people have a variety of different interests about which they read.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your tells are still showing.

I should have made it clear I was being sarcastic.

[tabibito]

I should have made it clear I was being sarcastic.

I never thought otherwise.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I never thought otherwise.

Good. So your reference to "tells" may be deemed entirely irrelevant.

[rogue06]

Such as?

What accredited historians have made such claims?.

That is a theory for explaining human history, rather like the [now debunked] theory that arose in the eighteenth century and was developed through the nineteenth and into the mid 20th century of a pre-historic European wide worship of a single Mother Goddess.

If you ever have had the misfortune to watch some of the shows on the History channel on these sort of topics you'll see folks like Charles Hapgood and others on promoting them. Usually, they're folks you never heard of but that doesn't make them any the less accredited historians.

The thing is, that it isn't all that difficult to find an outlier in virtually any field including science. Interestingly, some are otherwise well-respected except for their particular theory on a specific subject. The example I usually think of is paleornithologist Alan Feduccia, one of the last hold outs against the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.

[rogue06]

Sure you have.

There are a couple of posts like that as well as the ones telling people they need to read/study anthropology (like she has).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There are a couple of posts like that as well as the ones telling people they need to read/study anthropology (like she has).

You should read more widely. I spent yesterday evening reading Anil K Seth's book Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. I still have to finish it but it is a fascinating read.

However, reading Seth and other writers on that topic will not make me an expert on Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience; although doing so will provide me with an informed opinion on those topics.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you ever have had the misfortune to watch some of the shows on the History channel on these sort of topics you'll see folks like Charles Hapgood and others on promoting them. Usually, they're folks you never heard of but that doesn't make them any the less accredited historians.

The thing is, that it isn't all that difficult to find an outlier in virtually any field including science. Interestingly, some are otherwise well-respected except for their particular theory on a specific subject. The example I usually think of is paleornithologist Alan Feduccia, one of the last hold outs against the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.

I was fortunate in my youth to be introduced to the writing of Glyn Daniel [among others]l. He edited Antiquity for some thirty years and wrote some hilarious editorial pieces commenting on the pseudo-archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s. I was therefore inured at a relatively young age.