FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-2013, 10:33 AM   #421
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

oh i see. you were just on the verge of getting through to him. i should have waited until the 800th post before throwing in the towel. again my apologies
stephan huller is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 10:34 AM   #422
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi
(but, from where sprang Justin's original text? Does Origen comment on Justin? How about Clement? Tertullian?).
Shall I rephrase my earlier question, then? Which patristic author (excluding "Irenaeus", another phantom) cites the work of Justin?
Tertullian was apparently acquainted with Justin, and uses material found in Justin in his Adversus Valentinianos and also relates that Justin was a philosopher, a martyr, ( a 'martyr', ie already dead when Tertullian wrote) and the earliest antagonist of heretics.

Clement was dead long before the time of Justin's writings, so no, Clement would not have known of, or made any mention Justin in his writings.

Many ancient writings that are mentioned in various ancient sources no longer exist. There are literally hundreds of early Greek and Roman writers of whose books there are no remaining texts.
That we do not have many texts from the earliest of church writers is not surprising, and is not any indication that these individuals did not exist. No more than for any other ancient writer or text of note that no longer exists.

The early church had the gospel's, and spreading 'the Gospel of 'Jesus' Christ was their focus.
What men like Justin were writing down about the contemporary church only became of any significant import at a latter date, when men wished to claim authority over the church and needed a 'church history' to support their claims.

First question last
Quote:
from where sprang Justin's original text?
According to the account given, from Justin's encounter with the Christian religion, and his familiarity with the OT, the 'Memoirs of The Apostles' and John's Revelations.

This is ALL that is documented. Any allegations that Justin's writings are latter forgeries are nothing more than speculation.
No solid evidence or argument supporting this allegation has ever been produced.
There are no early writings from any source that dispute either Justin's existence or his writings.
When closely examined, the argument will be found to fail on many fronts.

Given that Christian texts have been recovered that are dated to the early 2nd century, as well as the Dura Europos house church, outside of the promotion of some personal theory or agenda, there is very little reason to doubt that Justin was an authentic 2nd century writer, the more so, when his works when examined, discredit many of the claims of the latter church.
They would not have forged those texts, as they are an adverse witness to 3rd and 4th century Orthodox doctrinal claims.





.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 10:47 AM   #423
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
oh i see. you were just on the verge of getting through to him. i should have waited until the 800th post before throwing in the towel. again my apologies
You should have acted like an adult.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 10:48 AM   #424
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
I'd be interested in knowing where in Greek literature δαίμων represents a positive force, of great potential beneficence. In what texts can this notion be found?
The lineage of Platonists (and Stoics) through to Porphyry seem to have used the notion of δαίμων as an integral concept in their metaphysical / philosophical system.

Moreover I have above presented evidence (see post #405) as yet not discussed that Augustine openly subverts the meaning of δαίμων as used in a letter from Porphyry to Iamblichus. This instance of subversion seems quite clear and is representative of the claim made in the OP.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 10:55 AM   #425
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
it doesn't. i apologize for distracting from the serious business of pretending Pete gives a fuck about any of this
I do give a fuck about this business. If you have nothing to say about the OP please refrain from posting in this thread.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 11:07 AM   #426
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Either Plato's texts demonstrate, uniformly, and with great consistency, the central concept of δαίμων as representing an EXCLUSIVELY evil, sentient, anthropomorphic deity, or they do not.
This exclusivity you inject here is irrelevant to all but mountainman's initial fallacious claim.

This exclusivity is integral to understanding the OP.


Quote:
The claim that the gospel use of δαίμων (=an evil spirit) "appears to be distinctly different", is just plain wrong. First, the gospels tend to use the diminutive δαιμονιον.
Irrelevant. The OP is focussed on δαίμων


Quote:
Second, the later christian usage in fact represents one meaning of the term. So the christian usage may represent a restriction of usage, but certainly one that existed prior to christianity.
Before Christianity the term δαίμων did not exclusively mean "evil spirit", and was in fact used by the Platonic and Stoic philosophers as an integral part of their metaphysical / philosophical system.


Quote:
If that restriction reflects in anyone's mind a "subversion" then almost any language change would be considered such a subversion.

We are not dealing with any language change here, but rather the change of the usage of language found in the holy writ of the NT which was used to convert and rule the pagan Roman empire.

The entire point is that language use changes introduced in such a momentous HOLY FUCKING WRIT are going to be obviously extremely influential in the political context of the epoch.

Any pagan Platonist or Stoic asking the Christian Bishops what harm there would be in contemplating the nature of the "guardian spirit" would be told in no uncertain terms that such a concept was EVIL EVIL EVIL. We can see that Epiphanius classifies the Platonists and Stoics as heretics.

Earlier I cited references to the notion of a universal individual "daimon" and it seems to me that this pagan concept is essentially the forerunner to the Christian concept of the "Holy Spirit".





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 05:11 PM   #427
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
You might wish to note not only how "relatives" of Satan, like Mastema and Belial/Beliar are depicted in the DSS and the Pseudepigrapha, but that in the NT the Satan is also depicted as he is in Job as a servant of God. He is hardly, or even typically, purely evil, let alone an independent agent.

I suggest you have a look at the discussion of Satan not only in George Caird's Principalities and Powers but in Walter Wink's Naming the Powers and in Henry Ansgar Kelly's Satan: A Biography ( via: Amazon UK ) Your view of who and what Satan is in early Christianity is woefully un informed.

You are also somewhat ignorant of the usage of δαίμων in the Patristic witness. Have a look at Lampe where you'll find your claim falsified.

I'd be interested in knowing where in Greek literature δαίμων represents a positive force, of great potential beneficence. In what texts can this notion be found?

And BTW, the OP speaks nothing of Satan, nor does the (4th century) Christian text (Matthew) that Pete appeals to as evidence of his claim.
Thank you Jeffrey, a well written, informative, educational rejoinder, much appreciated.

I am impressed.

If I have failed to address your questions, it ought not be assumed that the reason for absence of reply, is based on disinterest in the subject matter, or that I deem Dr. Gibson's comments irrelevant.

Au contraire, this was a lucid, challenging, outstanding response, worthy of your lofty stature on the forum. Thank you. I will be working on a reply, though, It may take some time, to investigate the answers. I do not dispute your suggestion that I am ill informed.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion, still, that, mountainman is to be congratulated for introducing a worthy topic for discussion. I remain convinced, albeit without quotes to offer, (faith is a marvelous tonic!) that in ancient times, δαίμων was NOT associated EXCLUSIVELY with evil as we associate the word today. Your request for a quote is not unworthy, but I am insufficiently adept, and cannot offer, at this point in time, the evidence you rightfully request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Tertullian was apparently acquainted with Justin, and uses material found in Justin in his Adversus Valentinianos and also relates that Justin was a philosopher, a martyr, ( a 'martyr', ie already dead when Tertullian wrote) and the earliest antagonist of heretics.

Clement was dead long before the time of Justin's writings, so no, Clement would not have known of, or made any mention Justin in his writings.
Thank you very much, for these comments, Shesh, always appreciated.

My fault for not specifying Clement of Alexandria. You were thinking of Clement of Rome, about whom I know nothing, and I suspect, neither does anyone else.

Origen, it seems to me, ought to be the key, here. he was the Sheshbazzar of his era. He taught himself, (I imagine, maybe not true) Hebrew, not unlike you, right?

His Hexapla is a great resource, even today, as it was in the time of Jerome.

Did Origen quote Philo of Alexandria? Did Justin Martyr cite Philo? Both of these scholars knew the torah, intimately. They could quote individual passages. They could integrate the "memoirs of the apostles", or the gospels as they were known by the time of Origen, but, did they know of Philo? How did Philo treat the concept of δαίμων. Did Matthew derive his hostility to δαίμων, based exclusively on reading the Torah, or was he influenced in any way by Philo?

Somewhere along the line, δαίμων changed. Jeffrey and spin argue that this change preceded the rise of Christianity. OK, that's fine. But, then, WHEN?

and HOW, and WHY?

Why should a pagan Greek care a whit about δαίμων, if they were defined as exclusively evil, anthropomorphic, sentient beings?
avi is offline  
Old 05-11-2013, 05:30 PM   #428
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Plenty of questions. Have fun finding the answers.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-13-2013, 04:50 AM   #429
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
I remain convinced, albeit without quotes to offer, (faith is a marvelous tonic!) that in ancient times, δαίμων was NOT associated EXCLUSIVELY with evil as we associate the word today.

I think most people could agree with this. There does not appear to be any agreement on the cause of the change in meaning. For example we have seen that according to the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

Quote:
The word and concept 'demon' underwent fundamental change in antiquity caused by the rise of dualism in the essentially monistic cultures of tthe Near East.

I don't buy this explanation.

It seems likely to me that the Christians promoted the "Holy Spirit" and demoted the "Guardian Spirit".



Quote:
Why should a pagan Greek care a whit about δαίμων, if they were defined as exclusively evil, anthropomorphic, sentient beings?


εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:20 PM   #430
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post

Josephus is a writer who knows a wide range of usage for the term, yet, in a passage I've already pointed out to you (AJ 8.45 [8.2.5], see post #21), Josephus uses δαίμων specifically in the sense of "demon" you want to have originated with christians:
And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return.
His usage here is no different from later christians, yet it cannot be said to be derived from christians, so it must reflect a pre-christian usage of the word.
I have had another look at the Josephus instance. I was wondwering who it was that Josephus describes as the avatar against the "demons". Josephus is referring to Solomon. The expanded citation:

Now the sagacity and wisdom which God had bestowed on Solomon was so great, that he exceeded the ancients; insomuch that he was no way inferior to the Egyptians, who are said to have been beyond all men in understanding; nay, indeed, it is evident that their sagacity was very much inferior to that of the king's. He also excelled and distinguished himself in wisdom above those who were most eminent among the Hebrews at that time for shrewdness; those I mean were Ethan, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol. He also composed books of odes and songs a thousand and five, of parables and similitudes three thousand; for he spake a parable upon every sort of tree, from the hyssop to the cedar; and in like manner also about beasts, about all sorts of living creatures, whether upon the earth, or in the seas, or in the air; for he was not unacquainted with any of their natures, nor omitted inquiries about them, but described them all like a philosopher, and demonstrated his exquisite knowledge of their several properties.

God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, (4) which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers.
I find the bolded statement very interesting.
And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day.
This sounds like Josephus is describing the talismans of Apollonius of Tyana

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKI

In Late Antiquity talismans made by Apollonius appeared in several cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, as if they were sent from heaven. They were magical figures and columns erected in public places, meant to protect the cities from afflictions. The great popularity of these talismans was a challenge to the Christians. Some Byzantine authors condemned them as sorcery and the work of demons, others admitted that such magic was beneficial; none of them claimed that it didn’t work.

Does anyone else find this coincidental?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.