Elijah

Rewrite: I think there is only one direction on the Way, towards the truth. You may be further ahead (fully out the cave) but it’s a choice I’m making so that I can be understood.

Judaism may have influenced Greek thought 500 years before Christ but I think it’s safe to say that Greek thought was influencing Judaism when it came back around at them with Rome. But being wrong either way doesn’t make it a superstitious belief.

Focus on that ultimate point because the Mystic Judaism only issue is lost on the audience here I think, but you may be able to get them to look at the philosophical outlook and closer to the truth. The goal should be to remove superstitious thinking anyway you can.

Elijah

Where does the text talk about the spirits and demons being supernatural and not natural? What are you basing your understanding of demons on? What text?
Right, what evidence supports your theory that they believed in the supernatural understanding of those, other than how you are interpreting them?

We don’t know how they understood spirits/memes but we know what they are in actuality. If you want to speculate on how they saw them or how incorrectly they understood them then you need to provide some sources for this speculation but until I have reason to believe the writer was a fool then I see no reason to interpret the text as one.
I’m truly sorry. Next time have some facts/evidence for your theories and maybe it will go better.

Elijah

How did the author understand the world? What are you basing this opinion of his beliefs on? What text do you think best illustrates the authors world view?
If they can be understood as rational forces in the universe like memes and general physical laws then I see no reason that face value should be supernatural, but I would really like to know how you came to that conclusion.

Amaleq13

Let the author tell you.

Read the texts without imposing your own beliefs. If the author describes a belief in supernatural powers or entities without offering any rational reinterpretation or explanation refrain from introducing your own beliefs. Likewise, if the author offers a rational reinterpretation of an apparently supernatural belief, don't impose an assumption that he really doesn't mean it.

It is based upon the authors' own words. References to supernatural powers or entities are references to supernatural powers or entities unless the authors says otherwise. References to rational thought are references to rational thought. Avoid generalizing unless the author says otherwise.

Unless the author somewhere states he is describing his "world view", there is no such summary. It must be inferred from consideration of all the evidence. And that is the opposite of taking some possible indications of platonic influence and generalizing to everything that is written.

The reason is that the author gives you no indication that this is how he meant the passage to be understood. That you can understand the passages in a particular way says nothing about how the author thought.

What conclusion? That an author's words are the best source for understanding the author's beliefs? That authors tend to say what they mean? That authors tend to inform the reader when they mean something other than what they write? These should all be self-evident. :huh:

spin

The concept of "face value" seems to be difficult for you to grasp. When a text portrays an entity that can freely pass from a human being into animals, you are presented with an entity that is ostensibly acting against nature. When a text tells the story of a man who can cause the dead to live again, you are presented with an act that is ostensibly against nature. You must deal with them instead of ignoring them. Show that your theory deals with them. You cannot just reinterpret them without support from the text. If you cannot understand that, then you have no hope of you communicating your theory.

You have an epistemological problem. I have presented evidence that appears to show that the texts are writing about events and entities outside nature. You need to show that that appearance is not what it seems. So how do you know that what they present is not what they seem to present??

By equating spirits with memes, you are assuming your conclusion.

You know nothing of the sort. But you can theorize about it.

I appreciate your sincerity.

You haven't pointed out any theories from me (unless you want to call the necessity of evidence for a theory itself a theory or that one has to deal with what the evidence appears to say). You've just displayed the fact that yours is, as far as you've portrayed it, without any evidence whatsoever, ie it's fact free. Wishing things to be doesn't make them so.

1. What makes you think that the story in Jn 11 of Jesus raising Lazarus after three days being dead shouldn't be taken as against nature and representative of the author's belief that such an unnatural event could happen?

2. When Jesus heals the man blind from birth in Jn 9 how is that act not to be seen as against nature?

3. When Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and his followers, why shouldn't that be seen as against nature?

4. When Jesus is shown as walking on water, eg Jn 6:16ff, why shouldn't that be seen as against nature?

The authors seem to believe that Jesus existed and that he moved around Galilee and then Judea. What makes you think that the authors did not believe that the events they portrayed, such as the four I've just mentioned, were to be taken as they were presented, ie unnatural? The stories themselves appear to present unnatural acts.

They are evidence which you need to deal with, if you want to show that your theory is productive. As you have presented it so far it only rests on itself (for it assumes its conclusion) and seems to be unrelated to the era you wish to talk about.

You seem unwilling to interact with ancient texts that appear to disagree with your theory.


spin

Elijah

If face value means the status quo’s opinion without support, then yes it is difficult for me. The text can be read as a meme passing just as easily as a supernatural entity. Wanting to interpret it as a supernatural daemon is one thing but being unable to interpret it rationally is another.

Superpowers and supernatural thinking are not the same thing.
Again if you read the text as they are in relation to reality you would see them as memes it’s only because you understand spirits in a supernatural bias are you having difficulties. Appearances are as they seem it’s you interpreting beyond the appearances into supernatural nonsense.
By equating spirits with supernatural entities you are doing the same.
If the story is factual they are describing memes because as I said that’s all they can be because supernatural daemons don’t exist, that’s how I know.
NP
Your theory of a supernatural basis is just a theory. Did you have some evidence that proves he understood what he was saying supernaturally instead of rationally?
He surely believes in what we consider unnatural events but we are talking about supernatural thinking. Jesus says this illness doesn’t lead to death and he was sleeping so he knew something about what was going on. It’s not like they had the medical ability to properly identify when someone was dead or comatose, maybe from a max fast he was attempting like Jesus in the desert. The jews believed in the resurrection of the dead so of course they are going to be looking for examples of it even if the person isn’t exactly dead.

Just faith healing. Nothing out of the ordinary.

A hallucination from fasting and prayer (altering breath) and some sleep deprivation.
They had a mind over matter theory where they could move the sea so walking on it isn’t much of an issue. If he did walk on water it wasn’t against nature or with magic but just part of an untapped human ability.

What we consider unnatural acts and supernatural thinking are different.
I’ll respond to what you think disproves it but a rational interpretation doesn’t need to be proven in my mind but justified why I shouldn’t read it that way . I’ve presented my position and am looking to examine the facts behind the other side’s supernatural bias.
No I’m unwilling to just read it as supernatural mumbo jumbo without some evidence that I should.

A few questions back at you if you don’t mind?

1. What text from the period would you consider comparable to the world view of the writer that I can look at?

2. What text best illustrates the nature of daemons/spirits you imagine the writer is speaking about?

3. Why isn’t your assumption that the writer was a supernatural thinker just a straw man if it can be interpreted rationally(by most)?

4. Do you think the whole world had the supernatural outlook that you assume of the writer or was there rational schools of thought out there?

5. Why is supernatural the assumed outlook of ancient man?

Amaleq13

As I'm sure you know, it means to take the words as being used according to their definitions unless otherwise indicated by the author. When the author tells us that a man was daimonizomai, the "face value" is that he is telling us that the man was under the power of a demon. When the author tells us that this man had the unclean spirit cast out of him and into some nearby pigs, the "face value" is that this exactly what we are to understand happened unless the author tells us otherwise.

Again, the ease with which you can impose your understanding of reality has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding how the author understood reality. Why pretend that it does?

There is no "wanting" involved in relying on the author for one's understanding of what the author believed and one's ability or inability to interpret the text rationally continues to be irrelevant to understanding how the author understood reality.

Reading the text in relation to your understanding of reality says nothing about how the author understood reality.

The appearance of one story is of Jesus casting devils out of man and into some pigs. Only your interpretation goes beyond that appearance and without any justification from the author.

What you know about reality is irrelevant to understanding what the author knew about reality.

The notion that a man blind from birth could be healed by belief is certainly out of the ordinary. To think so is hardly rational.

The author offers you no reason to reinterpret his story about an unclean spirit possessing a man as though he shared your understanding of reality.

If your desire to have your position challenged is genuine, why did you ignore my answers to your questions?

Elijah

Amaleq13, we're just repeating ourselves over and over. I don't have the proof you are looking for and you haven't shown me proof of your understanding being correct. I can't prove it should be read from a rational perspective I can only say that it can be. Your speculation on the authors beliefs are just that speculation.

show_no_mercy

It seems as though Elijah is arguing that Gnosticism was the "true" Christianity and Trinitarian Christianity is the wacky belief in the supernatural Christianity. Gnosticism does seem to be more influenced by Plato and Greek philosophy more so than Constantinian Christianity.

Or not.

spin

"[F]ace value" means taking what is said in the text for what it literally indicates before doing anything else, so stop the bullshitting.

"[C]an be read" is irrelevant until you deal with why the ostensible meaning needs to be looked beyond.

Rubbish. You must first ignore the literal indications of the text and say that they must not reflect the content of the text.

I don't want to interpret it any way. I merely pointed out what certain biblical texts seem to indicate and I ask you to show why those indications don't reflect the text.

I merely mention that texts indicate events and entities that are not natural. You can play semantics with others.

I wish you would stop talking no nonsense. When are you going to deal with what texts say rather than what you want them to say?

You aren't talking to me. As I said, the events and entities I pointed to don't ostensibly fit into nature.

The notion of memes is a twentieth century notion. Your persistent reference to them doesn't mean that the notion is made valid through your constant repetition. Validity must be shown, not assumed.

My theory? Stop bullshitting. I point to indications in the text that do not ostensibly fit into nature. I'm asking you to say why they shouldn't be taken as perceived to be outside nature by the people who wrote them.

This is a false dichotomy. A person can talk about things not perceived as natural -- such as entities that can enter and control people or gods or healing of blindness or resurrection --, while being rational.

What do you mean by your expression "supernatural thinking" in this case? I don't use this expression and have avoided it in our communication.

You mean that the person was not really and truly dead, even though after three days the tomb began to smell putrid?

Oh, so now you're appealing to a misdiagnosis of death. Where does the writer indicate this misdiagnosis???

See last comment.

Oh, that's classic. :rolling:

Placebo effect cure for blindness.

You need to watch House a bit.

More bullshitting. You thoughts here don't come from the text. They are how you want it to have been perceived.

Evidence?? None. :banghead:


If events and entities act outside nature it requires thinking to accept such.

Sorry, you've said nothing. Have you looked at an ancient text yet?

You can read it any way your heart desires, but devils and demons, gods and angels on face value are not part of nature and the belief systems that involve them require their acceptance.

We were looking at new testament texts, but you can find many things outside nature in Genesis, or Rgveda, or Enuma Elish, etc.

I don't know of treatises on demons or spirits, but they are present in various texts. Read Jubilees for example for both angels and malevolent entities.

Redefining content is not interpreting text rationally. It's willfully ignoring what the text literally says.

I have as I've said avoided the use of the term "supernatural" because it seems anachronistic, but everything about what your communication in this thread seems anachronistic to me. I'll take your persistent use of "supernatural" with reference to possible ancient thought as believing in the intervention of non-natural entities and/or performing unnatural acts.

Suetonius seems to have believed that looking at the entrails of animals can tell us about the future. Others that the movement of planets can tell the future. Others that planets were moved by angels. Others that evil entities exist. Others that the world was created by a god. Others that shamans could speak to the dead. When Celsus attacked christians, it was from a position of belief that christians were atheists, ie he wasn't. The evidence suggests that the vastest majority of ancient people believed in systems that you would label "supernatural".

From the available evidence it would seem ancient people believed that angels and demons, gods and devils existed, if that answers your question. The existence of temples and sacrifices are further evidence of the sort of thinking you want to belittle as mumbo-jumbo.

In a period before science existed, explanations were generated to explain the world and the generators didn't have the tools to say scientifically meaningful things about the world. People on this forum often ridicule Genesis because light existed before the sun and moon and stars. It was perfectly logical, but based on no science. "[M]umbo-jumbo", as you delightfully want to call this thought, was a necessary part of the process of understanding the world.


spin