mountainman

THE CHRISTIAN SCHEME - Pagan Roots: In the Beginning (Blavatsky)




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

Sorry but to me it is wrong for a theologian to lean on the likes of Blavatsky who was a mystic and may have correct opinion but does not really know.

That is dangerous, of course, as look-alike Plato would say, that really is deprivation of the privation that they see now magnified in seeing the seer that they cannot be or they would be looking at themselves and write without leaning on anyone.

mountainman

It is incidental to the case since the source term is not "daimon" but "daimonion".




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

So let me get this straight Jeffrey.

Does this imply that you are essentially in agreement with the OP?




The term I used concerning the change of meaning was the term subversion, and I provided a definition of it:




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Further evidence that the subversion of the notion of the Greek "daimon" was continued by the 4th and 5th century Christians is found in Augustine.

I am reposting this evidence for discussion.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

Plainly no. Jeffrey's position seems not far from mine. Your o.p. is erroneous and you haven't supported your claims. You've shown that you aren't able to.

Understand: the terms we use are frequently polysemous. δαίμων is one example. You just haven't taken that idea on board. So, when Jeffrey writes "What I have been actually saying here is that we have no evidence whatsoever that Plato (and Plotinus and other Greeks who followed him) never thought that a δαίμων was exclusively an evil spirit" he says nothing different from what he has said consistently through this thread. But there are just so many ways one can say it, when you don't listen.

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.

You need to demonstrate that it was only christians who used δαίμων to indicate something different before you can argue for your notion of subversion, but you have failed to do so, despite your assertions. You have failed to show that the christian use is particularly different from the specific uses of the term that Jeffrey has already brought to your attention.

So, after 400 posts in the thread you still haven't got past your claims in the o.p.

mountainman

I, not Jeffrey, at post #392 wrote "What I have been actually saying here is that we have no evidence whatsoever that Plato (and Plotinus and other Greeks who followed him) never thought that a δαίμων was exclusively an evil spirit"




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

If it always had the possible meaning of being an evil spirit, then Christians did not change the meaning or subvert it. We're back where we started.

Is there anything more to be said in this thread?

avi

"Rubbish".
Of course not.
Josephus' text MAY reflect "pre-Christian" usage of δαίμων, indicating an exclusively evil, sentient, anthropomorphic creature, or, alternatively, since neither spin, nor anyone else, on this forum or elsewhere on planet earth, to date, has anything like an "original" text from the quill of "josephus", one MUST consider the possibility of FRAUD, which is sometimes called "interpolation", by those who consider the "Patristic" writings of the second and third centuries, to be largely veracious. I consider the entire Christian genre to be fake, until proven otherwise. Josephus' text in particular, is ESPECIALLY dubious. I would no more trust ONE WORD attributed to that author, then I would trust USA government officials to speak truthfully about the atrocities committed by USA during the "Korean campaign".

So, there is a concrete, well defined assertion. It ought to be child's play, for a Greek linguistics expert, like spin, or Jeffrey, to either confirm, or repudiate the notion that Plato had written, or had not written, some passage elaborating with specificity the Satanic character of δαίμων, without resorting to all manner of irrelevant and extraneous name calling.

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.

DOES any forum member, whether Jeffrey or spin, or anyone else, have evidence to demonstrate that the Christians simply adopted the prevailing, conventional meaning of δαίμων, a meaning which, centuries before the arrival of Jesus, had already been specified with utter clarity, and unequivocal consistency? I argue, that mountainman's central thesis, remains correct, until proven wrong. That thesis, as I understand it, is this: The Christians changed the meaning of δαίμων, from a figure possessing the qualities of "Pneuma", (not a real life anthropomorphic creature), to one, savagely distinct, a genuine "sarka", capable of climbing vertical walls like a lizard man, and arguing with Jesus, like Satan himself--a completely, thoroughly, 100% horrible, anthropomorphic deity.

I haven't found support for Jeffrey's contention that this idiosyncratic, "Christian" definition of δαίμων had been widely acknowledged in ancient Greek literature, long before the arrival on the scene of Mark's gospel, or the writings of Tatian or Justin, if they in fact wrote in the second century, as no one knows for certain. What I observe, is that δαίμων represented, in ancient Greek literature, not an anthropomorphic, sentient, exclusively evil deity, akin to the figures portrayed in Marcion's ideas, but rather, an entity of neutral disposition, (in other words, a spirit, not flesh, of undetermined character, not intrinsically, or innately, EXCLUSIVELY evil) serving as a kind of metaphor for a parent or guardian, or guiding light, not a synonym for Satan, as represented in the Christian writings attributed to the sole extant, manuscript, copied, supposedly in fidelity, in an Italian monastery during the Inquisition, of Justin Martyr's three essays (but, from where sprang Justin's original text? Does Origen comment on Justin? How about Clement? Tertullian?).

WHY should the ancient Greeks care about Satan? Satan represents a Jewish notion. What? Plato copied not only Moses, but also Chronicles? Hey, yeah, why not, maybe Plato was circumcised?

To convince me, if no one else, that Pete errs in his thinking, all one needs to explain, is why the ancient Greeks had the slightest interest in ANYTHING Jewish. No, Plato did not copy Moses. No, Aristotle was not enchanted by proverbs authored by David or anyone else. There is a fixation, on this forum, with introducing the idea that Judaism represents some kind of ultimate philosophy, and that everything else of importance, flows from this most exalted form of human creativity. Next we will read that Jewish emigration, following the sack of Jerusalem, by the Romans, in the first century, inspired the Dao De Jing. Lao Zi, it turns out, was also, like Plato, of the circumcision. I am so lucky to belong to that elite group, myself.

Taylor's book elaborates these points. yup, Hippocrates is irrelevant to understand the Therapeutae. Did Hippocrates write about δαίμων? Did he quote Moses, or rely upon David, when he described Trephanation? Of course, we know that the Egyptians who used Trephanation long before Hippocrates, relied upon Jewish physicians to teach them, what little the Egyptians had been capable of absorbing from their Jewish masters. Fortunately, we have Taylor to rely upon, to remove the gossip of heathen like me, who assert that the Therapeutae, described by Hippocrates, had nothing to do with Judaism, just as δαίμων, in ancient times, had nothing to do with Satan, or Satanic concepts.

spin

avi's contribution here is apparently that no-one can know anything about ancient texts for fear that they have theoretically been perverted or fraudulently produced. Deep, avi, deep.

FFS, no-one except moutainman has claimed any different. Here is mm's original blunder:

What purpose would the Gospel authors have had for subverting the original Greek meaning of the term "daimon"? The Greek usage of the term "daimon" [δαίμων] in the Gospels (an evil spirit) appears to be distinctly different from how the term is used in the Greek classical tradition (a god, a goddess or an inferior deity, whether good or bad).

That δαίμων could mean an evil spirit outside christian texts has been demonstrated here several times.

This exclusivity you inject here is irrelevant to all but mountainman's initial fallacious claim. 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. 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. If that restriction reflects in anyone's mind a "subversion" then almost any language change would be considered such a subversion.

[Remaining reverie excised.]