GakuseiDon

Yep. I pretty much agree. But why do you say "aer"? Are you distinguishing between "air" and "aer"? I know that they considered "air" to be a spiritual substance, but AFAICS, they really DID mean the air. So I am curious over your choice here.

Well, yes - the air. At least in Middle Platonists' time. Especially given that there was no separate sphere between the earth and the moon, as you say below. What was between the earth and the moon? Only the air.

Yep. "The ladder of Jacob" is a case in point. So far so good...

Well, actually he does, TedH. In the Address to the Greeks:

Such are the demons... For the creeping things on the earth, and those that swim in the waters, and the quadrupeds on the mountains, with which they lived when expelled from heaven

So they lived in the air and on earth.

TedH, based on this, wouldn't you say that it is possible that Tatian believed that demons crucified Christ on earth?

"Astronomically, yes. Theosophically, or ontologically no." That sounds like double-talk to me, I'm afraid. How did Middle Platonists differentiate between these? Can you provide examples from a text highlighting the differences?

AoI has the demon Beliar coming to earth and persecuting the saints. Tatian's demons lived on the earth as well as in the air. Satan entered Judas before he betrayed Christ in the gospels. So I suggest that perhaps you don't have quite *every* reason.

Now, I'll go back to your earlier email, as promised:
Yep, I agree here. This is what I've been saying all along.

This is where we need to be careful. Daemons had bodies, to be sure, and as you say elsewhere the bodies consisted of air, fire or some unknown substance. However, Second Century apologists go out of their way to say that they DIDN'T have "flesh" bodies. Some quotes from Tatian:

These beings (demons) do not indeed die easily, for they do not partake of flesh...
The perfect God is without flesh; but man is flesh...
But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air...

Can you show me your clear example from Plutarch, please? (And please don't just cut and paste from some other link. Please make sure that the context actually matches before doing so. If you just paste that terrible quote from Carrier again without explaining the relevence and the CONTEXT, I'll be pretty annoyed).

Since Tyler doesn't believe there is a separate sphere between the earth and the moon, and since you say that "[t]here being no body between the earth an the moon, the ancients would have had no reason to believe there was another sphere between these two bodies", I think I will award Tyler the point here.

OK. Though I personally think it is reasonable for Tyler to ask for examples of your usage.

jgibson000

You mean that case which shows that those who had been advocating a different theory about the crust of the earth were not in the end close minded, or so commited to their own views that they were scared to admit when confronted with compeliing evidence to the contrary they were wrong?

You mean the case where Wegener did not argue his claim

by ignoring data to the contrary, cooking the data he appealed to, and misquoting those he was arguing against? or

by abandoning the very method of inquiry that his opponents used to sort out fact from nonsense, let alone calling it inadequate and outmoted, or a bad appraoch to data because it was not thinking outside of the the box? or

by claiming that those with whom he argued were so predisposed to accept data in a particular way that they could never grasp what he was talking about, let alone ever see it as true? or (and most importantly),

by insisting that when assessing his claims, his opponents should adopt a criterion for good evidence and assessing the truth of a claim other than that which their training in their field, and the history of science, showed them was valid?

Is it that case that you want me to speak about?

OK. I will -- if you tell me about Woo-suk Hwang and why it is that his claims to have achieved two world firsts by cloning a human embryo and a dog are - as even he admits -- bogus and should be regarded as rubbish.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

I know it is sixteen hundred years later, but is Martin Luther of assistance in trying to tie down a cosmology of demons?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part5.html

We are talking about people who had no conceptions like modern conceptions - was their idea of flesh really similar to ours? There seems to be a belief that flesh is related to clay and dust - the earth of the four elements. Spirits and air are related still in English - breath of God and spirit of God.

It is obvious to everyone if you stop breathing you die - therefore the spirit literally leaves your body when you breathe your last.

So is the incarnation and the concept of eternal life and the Holy Spirit actually about a concept of breathing forever, of reuniting the earth - the flesh - with the breath, the air or the spirit. Where would the other elements, fire and water fit? Baptism, hell, the purifying fire?

Xianity as a new way to unite the four elements, through a bit of magical sacrifice involving the blood of the lamb?

EarlDoherty

I have posted a response to Jeffrey's last post against me, in a new thread:

What is Happening on IIDB? [Split (by me) from "Doherty, Gibson..."]

Earl Doherty

Toto

The moderators are considering several issues regarding this thread.

Please curb your rhetoric.

Thank you.

Ted Hoffman

Which part of the air? Could you please provide a specific location in the air where these demons lived please.

EarlDoherty

As suggested by certain moderators, I am somewhat editing my last post and reposting it here rather than on a separate thread.

This is a reply to Jeffrey Gibson’s post in response to my previous one, but it is addressed to the participants and viewers of this thread in general.

As a general observation, it has surely not escaped everyone’s attention that Jeffrey’s posts, especially those against me, are consistently of a nasty and venomous tone. In particular, let’s consider some of the things Jeffrey said in his last post:

In other words, he is calling me, along with many others, a fool and a charlatan. That’s pretty obvious.

In other words, Jesus mythicists, including myself, are dishonest and liars. We “cook� evidence, meaning we falsify, distort (deliberately of course), lie.

Furthermore, he has labeled my whole post an “ad hominem� exercise, because I raise (in a very unhostile tone, I might point out) broader issues about progress in the history of ideas and their acceptance, and the resistance which established scholarship often puts up. So now issues like these cannot even be raised—especially on a forum like this, and especially in a field of study like this—without being labeled ‘ad hominem’? Then he comes up with the most extreme example of a crackpot he can think of who put forward a truly insane theory about the interior of the earth, and who happened to appeal to the Ptolemy-Copernicus issue, and associates me with him. That isn’t ‘ad hominem’? I’m not being labeled a crackpot and insane as well?

All this isn’t disreputable argumentation? (Of course, it’s not ‘argumentation’ at all, simply name-calling and a smokescreen.)

None of this seems to have bothered anyone else on the forum, for from what I can see, no one but TedH has put up the slightest murmur all along to any of Jeffrey’s hatemongering and misrepresentation. This is an even greater wonder, in that many people on this board are familiar with the Jesus myth case (not just as presented by me), and know that Jeffrey’s comments are completely unjustified and unfounded. I (and others) have put forward a huge amount of evidence in support of the case; it has been commented on many times in many threads on this board. But no one lets out a peep at this kind of nonsense perpetrated by Jeffrey. (We’re not talking about ‘proof’ here, we’re talking about evidence and valid argument, all of which for Jeffrey is “cooked�. We might also note that he threw in a similar insult against Richard Carrier, who isn't here to defend himself.)

He also asks for evidence that anyone else, in any surviving record, could have thought of demons as operating in the heavens. Of course, I’ve put forward one very dramatic piece of evidence, namely certain parts of the Ascension of Isaiah. Does that satisfy Jeffrey or any of the others hostile to the Jesus myth theory? Of course not. Their maneuverings to get around such evidence are truly spectacular. We have a whole slew of mythical savior gods undergoing death in non-historical spiritual settings, but of course none of that matters a whit. We have Paul consistently portraying his Christ as a “transcendent deity� (a phrase courtesy of mainstream scholar Herman Ridderbos), and all the Pauline references (including pseudo-Paul) to the demons and Christ’s activities in regard to them. We have the whole world of Middle Platonic philosophy, mythical elements in the gnostic writings, and on and on.

None of it matters, of course; it’s not even acknowledged. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect them to accept that kind of evidence, or to accept the mythicist interpretations of them, but the point is, in the face of the fact that mythicists have presented a very thorough case covering all parts of the paradigm, that we argue from evidence, and we argue the validity of our interpretations, Jeffrey simply ignores it all, indulging in sweeping accusations that we are all fools and charlatans, that we cook evidence, that we are generally as mad as Gardner—and no one objects! And when we dare to suggest that their resistance is motivated by some kind of bias, we are the ones who are criticized! For Jeffrey to accuse us of being the “creationists� here, who will not let anything falsify our claims, is laughable, and yet no one calls him on it.

Now, if Jeffrey wanted to indulge his rants and misrepresentations on some biblical study board coming out of mainstream scholarship (or maybe some Bible College), that would be one thing. But this is the INFIDELS forum. Honest argument is another matter. I don’t expect to be given any preference, any favors in that regard. I can hold my own, and I’ve shown that. But when someone comes on who is as hostile as Jeffrey is, who consistently engages in distortion and insult, it’s unconscionable to let him get away with it without any protest. And I’m protesting.

I ran into the same situation several years ago on the early JesusMysteries list with Ed Tyler, who was a moderator at the time. He consistently distorted my views and expressed blatant hostility and ridicule—and that was on a board dedicated to discussing the Jesus myth theory, a list I had been invited to form along with the list owner! Eventually, he was removed, but I shouldn’t have had to mount the campaign of protest I did.

I can imagine Jeffrey sitting reading this and chuckling, thinking, boy, I’m really getting to this guy. Well, he’s right. I take a lot of crap from a lot of people, but I stand up for myself. All I expect is that on a board like this, others will stand up too. My last post, delivered moderately and professionally, was what this board is supposed to be all about, at least as I have always understood it. But apparently, almost everyone agrees with Jeffrey that it was a piece of insanity, a fool’s product, simply an ad hominem rant.

With all due respect, I think this Board needs to reexamine itself.

Clivedurdle

We have to - they are not the same things, as fire, water and earth as understood by the ancients are not the same things that we understand now. They believed in demons and archons and gods, Luther sixteen hundred years later believed the same rubbish! Demons are commonly referred to in the gospels, even allegedly by Jesus!

We might translate the words, but our modern words are very possibly not the same words - flesh - was believed to come from earth, one of the four elements, so would someone kindly point out how "come in the flesh" has any possible meaning in the twenty first century except that of an example of mythical religious thinking?

Myth upon myth upon myth, where even the words are meaningless!

What is this pretending that the NT is written by rational post enlightenment Anglicans?

Toto

As I said, the moderators are discussing this thread. In addition, I have emailed Richard Carrier, who may show up to defend his integrity.

I think that the vitriol in Jeffrey Gibson's posts has been so blatant that it has impaired his credibility among the regulars here, and I think that some people have just been watching to see how far he will go before he crashes and burns. One should not assume that silence equals approval.

jgibson000

Is it? Or has it been made by you to seem so by selective quoting what it was I actually said and leaving of the conditional and all that followed. (see below).

Does anyone else here see what Earl thinks is obvious?

Is that what I actually said? And even if it is, is it not demonstrable that Jesus Mythers have -- whether intentionally or not -- distorted and misrepresented (through selective quotation and misreadings of sources) the evidence they appeal to to make thei rcase?

Actually, what I said was that you have provided us with examples of the use of the circumslantial ad hominem in your post. I did not say that your "whole post was an ad hominem exercise".

Is this what I did? When did I say that any issue, let alone issues about "the progress of ideas and their resistenace to them" couldn't be raised? So far as I can see, all did was to state that a particular explanation of this resistance was fallacious. Does anyone else here besides Earl see what I did as a declaraion that the issue itself should not be raised? Does anyone else here see that Earl has misrepresented what I actually did?

Actually (see below) I associated the tenor and tone and substance of a particular complaint of yours with that one made by Gardner.

Not if the question what the tenor, tone and substance of your particular complaint was like is what's under discussion, it isn't. And especially not - at least to me -- if the comparison between the tenor tone and substance of your complaint and that of Gardner's is apt.

I wonder if that's because, given what I actually have said on all these matters, most people here not only do not see me as engaging in "hatemongering and misrepresentation", but find your chage unjustified?

Actually, as the record shows, this is not what I asked you to grive evidence for, especially since (as you seemed to have failedd to note) I admitted in the very message you are referring to (and elsewhere as well) that ancients sometimes thought of those whom they called ARCONTOS as heavenly powers. I asked, instead, for evidence that showed that when the ancients, including NT authors, used ARCONTOS as a referent to these powers in action, they ever though that this action was carried out absent human agency. To say that I did othewise, is to distort and misrepresent what I said.

If you are asking whether the evidence you put forth (notably "certain parts of" the Ascension of Isaiah, but not others) satisfies me that the ancients used ARCONTOS for heavenly powers, the answer is yes. But if you are asking if the Ascension of Isaiah satisfies me with respect to the question I've been asking, and which is the real issue here, of whether there were indeed ancients who thought that these powers carried out what they wished to do apart from human agency, and/or especially if AoFI can be appealed to as giving evidence for saying that something like a crucifixion, let alone Jesus' crucifixion, was thought of as taking place without human agents and in a non earthly realm, then the answer is not only no, but that it it is absolutely and unquestionably correct to say deny this, since it would be a raping of the very evidence you appeal to if one said otherwise.

For the Ascenion of Isaiah not only specifically notes that "the name the Elect One [i.e. Jesus] had not been made known, nor was knowable to any "of the heavens", prior to his incarnation, and that Jesus would be made in human form before ano one of them streched forth his a hand to carry out their evil intentions against him to " crucify Him on a tree, and ... slay Him". It also specifically states that the one they cruicified was born of the virgin Mary on earth, that the crucifixion took place on earth, and that it was specifically carried out through human agents:

It was, says AofI, only after after escaping "all the heavens and all the princes (ARCONTES) and all the gods of this world" descending into the world, and being born to Mary (11: 14, 16)" that Jesus was crucified, And more importantly, that the means by which this crucifixion was accomplished was that "the adversary ... roused the children of Israel against Him, who "not knowing who He was", delivered Him to the king, who crucified Him" (11:19).

Well, in light of the above, I think it's safe to say that "we're" not the ones who enage in such maneuverings.

Um, why should they, when

(1) so far as I can see, I'm not the one who is ignoring anything?

(2) what I said on the matter of fools was that one qualifies as a fool and/or a charlatan if one believes or expects that these scholars such as Burton -- or for that matter any one -- should accept not only a wholly unevidenced -- but an evidence contradicted - claim about how a Greek word was understood by Greeks, or that these scholars, unlike what I've seen of Mythicists, would not change their minds if good (or any) lexical evidence, rather than mere assertion (which is all your claim is), for another understanding were laid before them?

(3) what I did when adducing Gadner was to note the amount of resemblance between the tenor and tone and substance of a specific compliant you made about mainstream scholars and that of the lament often uttered by Marshall B. Gardner?

(4) with respect to Carrier, Ted/Jacob, and, and as it seems to be apparent in your selective use of the Ascension of Isaiah, and your respresentations of what Burton and Barrett said, you do "cook" your evidence?

Protest away. I fully support yourright to do so. But I'd be grateful that when you do so, you wouldn't engage, as it seems clear to me you have done above, in the very things you are charging me with doing.

Jeffrey