andrewcriddle

I'm not sure that, in any usual meaning of supernatural, Gnosticism was non-supernatural. But then I'm confused by the way supernatural is being used in this thread.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

Literally doesn’t mean read under supernatural light. I’ll stop the “bullshit” when you realize you’re not reading the text literally or unbiased but are instead committing a huge straw man fallacy in regards to beliefs of the writer which you have presented no evidence of.
The text “can be read” under a superstition light and is in no way the “ostensible meaning” unless you have a superstitious understanding of not the world but of what you believe someone you’ve never meet nor ever will does.
Again supernatural nonsense is not literal if rational is right there at face value.
Well to be fair you’re right you’re not interpreting it you’re just recycling someone/everyone else’s supernatural interpretation that you trust to be right without checking the facts behind the interpretation.
It’s not semantics; it’s you understanding what we are talking about in this conversation so I don’t have to keep repeating myself.


Nonsense? You have a bias so bad you can’t even see what I’m looking at or why I’m looking at it this way. Like I said it’s one thing to not think we should read it rationally it’s a whole other to not be able to. Those are some serious blinders you have up.
Supernatural events isn’t what we are talking about though is it?
The notion of memes are twentieth century but they were there back then you realize that right? The reality now is the reality then.
It’s yours even if you borrowed it. We are not talking about supernatural events in the past but about the world outlook of those writing the NT and whether it comes from those with a superstitious supernatural background or a rational metaphysical one.
So I’ll take that as no evidence.


Good time to actually get caught up on what the post is about I guess. Believing in daemons as goblins, god as a guy in the sky and heaven as a place in the clouds where angels play the harp. The superstitious religious thinking of the uneducated religious types is what I’m referring to when I say supernatural thinking. I also tried to define it as taking artistic representation of non material/spiritual things literally.
Crap? But technically they were worried about the smell and I don’t think it mentions there being an actual one. Do you really believe that Jesus rose the dead or rose from it?


Reality indicates it. That’s all that could have happened unless you believe in magic.

See last response.
Again… the only thing that could have happened.


More profanity. They come from reality. A hallucination is all that it could have been if anything is factual. Unless, do you believe in ghosts?
Evidence that they believed that or we could do that?
You need to be able to separate the two to have the conversation as it is intended without moving the goal posts.
Why be so condescending? You are the one who is unable to grasp the concept on hand here today. I see how you see the text why are you unable to see it how I do?
From a platonic philosophical point of view spirits and gods are just part of the natural world representing natural forces not supernatural entities.
I would like you to just give me the text that you think best expresses the world view of the writer on hand. How he sees the universe.
You don’t know of treaties on demons but you assume they mean daemons like on cartoons?
It’s not literal if it’s assuming the writer was an idiot without evidence (because you assume everyone was) it’s a straw man.
You really should try to make sure you understand the conversation before you just jump in and start rambling on hoping to get caught up midstream.
Nice cherry picking. What do you think about the platonic schools of philosophy? Natural philosophy or superstitious religion?
Wouldn’t the attack on Christians being atheist indicate they didn’t follow supernatural thought?
From the philosophical platonic point of view angels and gods are just part of the natural universe and not understood from a supernatural point of view but from an idealist’s. The question this post is tackling is whether we should read the NT under the light of the philosophy of the time or the superstitions.
Their understanding of the material world was way off, we know that but they had a very sophisticated understanding of the spiritual side that is lost on most of today’s audience. The philosophers of the time used reason to argue their positions and there is no reason to believe in supernatural superstitions if there is no evidence. The spiritual side of the universe came from the philosophers being so skeptical that they eventually became skeptical of their own senses and focused on what they couldn’t see but what was the source of the sights.

The mumbo jumbo as I do like to call it was a common component of an uneducated person who misunderstood the religious people of the time and thought they were speaking of daemons as little supernatural entities instead of natural forces in the universe. It’s still a common problem to this day, but the rational people then and now have always used reason/experience to establish their beliefs. Those rational people established philosophies with non material components of the universe that the uneducated person had a hard time grasping so they imagined in their head little animals for daemons and people in the sky as gods but in reality the philosopher was just trying to rationally explain the nature of reality. A common problem even today.

Elijah

I wouldn’t argue against that statement but to be exact I wouldn’t say Gnosticism is the “true” religion but that the early Christian’s writings need to be read as being influenced by the same platonic dualist world view ideology.

Thanks for trying to bring a little clarity to the conversation though.

Elijah

Yea that's all my fault... sorry. If I would have known the conversation would of gone off like this I would of tried to frame it better and try to establish some better terminology. Being a dummy with a limited vocabulary sure does suck some of the time.

The superstitious nonsense that is associated with religion is what I'm trying to refer to. The idea that ancient man saw the world with anthropomorphic intelligent beings pulling the strings of the world.

Do you think that the early Christians had any chance of a world view like the gnostics or do you consider them superstitious/supernatural thinkers?

andrewcriddle

The early Christians were monotheists. They believed in one supreme God. This meant that they rejected the crude pagan idea of a number of independent supernatural beings meddling at whim in the natural world. However they did believe in the miraculous intervention of the supreme God into the natural world and particularly in the life of Christ. Since, however, they believed that the supreme God who was revealed by Christ was also the creator of the natural world, they (mostly) rejected the idea of miraculous interventions totally unrelated to God's normal activity in the natural world.

This is a supernatural world view though not IMO an intrinsically superstitious one. However some of the views held by some early Christians appear to be superstitious by any standards.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

The one absolute god in Plato’s sense or just one Genie in the sky type of monotheism?

I’m not sure about the intervention by god stuff on the early Christians. What are you referring to in particular?
They believed in telekinesis/faith but you don’t have to have a supernatural world view for that. I’m sure there is a skeptic out there trying to move a pencil across the desk without every even thinking about magic but merely mind over matter stuff. Some of the views, by some sure but was it superstitious thought driving the movement or philosophical/political?

spin

Your apparently erroneous position seems due to the fact that it is fact free. You don't have any facts. You want to believe that you know what ancient texts indicate without reading them.

Can you please define the following words -- which must be contentious between us --, based on the texts where they appear and usage of the time so that you can defend your apparently fact free position:

pneuma anywhere found in the new testament.

Qeus (Q=theta) anywhere found in the new testament.

daimwn anywhere found in the new testament.

"Satan", "the devil", "angel" anywhere found in the new testament.

If your definitions agree with the commonly understood ones, then there is a face value case that contradicts your theory. If you can show that face value doesn't really reflect the content of the text, please indicate using ancient evidence how you come to your conclusion. If your definitions disagree, then how did you come to those definitions?

You are sure making this heavy going. I'm not trying to make an in-depth reading. I'm pointing you to indications of gods, demons, angels, and all those other non-natural entities that you refuse to contemplate for the literal content of the terms. Now that literal content, ie regarding beings not of the natural order, may be a wrong impression, but you still have the task of showing this rather than simply assuming that you can understand what ancient people thought without reading them.

This just means that you are unwilling to use language meaningfully. When words have ostensible references that are not natural, you want to say that those words are being perceived in erroneous ways. Take it up with the writers who use the terms. Show them where they are wrong.

Demonstrate this claim. Use Mk 5:1-20, taking the events and the unclean spirit at face value. Show us why the text should not be taken literally.

Rubbish. I try to point you to texts that seem to deal with events that are not from natural causes and you shut your eyes as tightly as you can and repeat your beliefs.

The only apparent reason you keep repeating yourself is that you cannot communicate your ideas in any better or clearer terms. And of course you won't deal with the ancient texts to show that you might have ssome reason for your beliefs.

Trying to find a kettle to call black.

Try to see the events I mentioned in the context of who reports them and what that implies as to the beliefs of the writers, huh? Why do you think

FROM ANCIENT SOURCES

the writers don't take the ideas on face value?

I was noting your keenness for cute modern terminology and lack of interest in ancient thought.

More rubbish. Read the texts. They talk of entities and acts that are normally understood as not natural.. I've been asking you to show what one shouldn't read those texts for what they appear to say.

You can take it for whatever your fantasy likes. Your question contained false ideas, so you can't expect it to be meaningfully answered.

You have already indicated your position and I quoted it earlier. Your word games I have tried to avoid, aiming at the basic methodological problem. You talk without evidence. You try to make up for this flaw by ignoring the apparent meanings of any source texts and projecting your assumptions onto them. This makes you relatively safe from understanding anything said in them. It also makes your communications rather lacking in any conveyable content. I also like your use of "educated/uneducated people". What criteria do you use to distinguish them in ancient texts?

The text says there was a stench. The text says that people knew he was dead. Deal with it and stop squirming.

We are dealing with text, not reality. There may have been some reality behind the text, but you cannot assume it. You have to deal with what the texts say. Why can't you?

I like the assumptions here. You assume that you know better than what the text indicates. You seem to assume that the texts are dealing with real events.

You are projecting your notion of reality onto ancient writers. Why do you do that? You seem not to know anything about the ones we are dealing with.

That they had a mind-over matter theory.

Ie let you be anachronistic.

Condescending? Why don't you read the texts for what they say and show how literal interpretations aren't correct?

If you want to talk to yourself why are you here? Accusing people of inability to grasp the concept on hand is merely you trying to be condescending.

And the demiourgos??

Why don't you ask for his autograph as well?

Deal with the language that a writer uses and don't ask for what should be plain to you as unattainable things.

That language refers to beings that aren't of the natural world.

What do you mean by "demons" and how is it different from entities such as Mastema, Semiyaza, or Azazel?

Insulting sources that don't agree with your theory is not a methodology likely to yield meaningful results.

Read the sources for what they say and deal with them.

More rot. I refuse to play your linguistic games, so all you can say is this sort of vacuousness.

An attempt to ignore evidence.

Which of the schools can you cite that doesn't accept the notion of an


If you read the sources, it means that christians didn't show respect for the Roman dieties.

When you say "idealist", please supply some ancient sources to support your claim.

The "uneducated person" made up a very high percentage of the population. Who was there to educate them? They didn't have high schools. The curricula available for the few were ad hoc at best. Literacy was rather low, perhaps less than 5% in Palestine, according to analyses I've read. The educated man, at least from the literature available was just as liable to some of the non-natural beliefs of the uneducated.

Keep shaping your material. Keep talking about mumbo-jumbo without reading what ancient people said or reading their actual words to mean something else.


spin

Amaleq13

No, I answered your questions and you failed to respond. This suggests you are incapable of responding and establishes that your repeated complaints that no one has explained how they conclude from a text that an author held supernatural beliefs is disingenuous at the least.

You not only lack evidence or scholarship to support your position, you've offered no defense against the logical fallacies you appear to be utilizing in reaching your conclusion.

I offered you a logical basis to determine the beliefs of an author. You chose to ignore it rather than address it. Again, this suggests your claim to being interested in challenges to your position is not genuine.

Do you understand that "it can be" says nothing about whether it should be?

Do you understand that what I offered was a logical basis for determining how a text should be understood?

The advantage of my approach to the text is that it is based on logic and refrains from imposing one's personal preferences upon it. Yours is logically flawed in several ways (e.g. question begging, over-generalization) and, therefore, inherently unreliable.

Your position is logically flawed and without any basis in scholarship. Mine is logically sound (to the point of being painfully obvious) and a fundamental tenet of sound scholarship.

There is no question, from a rational viewpoint, as to which is more likely to obtain the correct conclusion. I've wasted too much time giving you the benefit of doubt. You've got nothing but a stubborn and ironically irrational faith. I see no evidence that you are genuinely interested in learning. :wave:

andrewcriddle

Early Christians believed that God created the heavens the earth and everything else. ie that God transcends the sky just as much as he transcends the earth.
They varied as to how far they expressed this in a Platonic way.
For example the miracles of Christ.

Origen went as far as any Early Christian in avoiding crude supernaturalism. However he insists in Contra Celsus that Jesus raised the dead as a matter of real literal historical fact.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

That’s the same claim I’m making on your position.

Spirit… metaphysically speaking.
God… metaphysically speaking.
Daemon… metaphysically speaking.
Satan gets attributed to a few things like demiurge and the source error. Angel is usually used like demon or spirit but productive or good.
My definitions are coming from a metaphysical perspective. I would think that it shouldn’t be hard for you understand that these concepts had natural counterparts in the natural philosophies of the time.

No, you’re not making an in-depth reading you are just recycling the majorities opinion without checking their facts. I’m pointing out to you at the time there were schools of those who understood them not as non natural but non material entities. The pathetic fallacy you assume they are committing on the entities is really your fallacy. I base my understanding on what the ancient man thought by reality because that has been consistent throughout time. I can’t guess what he believed or assume he was superstitious until I see proof especially if I know the terms they are using also come from natural schools of philosophy of the time.

No I’m just unwilling to let you decide how words were used then without proving it. I’m not taking it up with the writers… I don’t think the writers used the wrong words I think you don’t understand the school of thought the words come from and are assuming it to be a supernatural school.


Why should literal be supernatural entities when a meme or psychological problem explains it?
I’m not repeating my beliefs I’m asking for the evidence you are basing yours off of, besides this is what everyone thinks that they thought.
Lack of clarity falls on my shoulders yes. Did you provide the ancient texts I asked for?
This is just a fact finding mission for me, to see what facts your opinion of the ancient writers is actually based on. I’m fully ready for someone to come in here and show me the supernatural position out there should be considered the norm of early Christian thought, but you seem fully unable to think this thru reasonably in the context of reality. It’s like you are actually unable to see my point of view.
You tell me what it implies, I’m not going to speculate on how incorrectly the writer understood the events/world unless I have actual evidence.
Might want to actually take the time to prove that ancient thought is as you say it was.
You not reading the texts for what they appear to say but what you assume the writer meant under a supernatural light.
False idea or not you guys should be able to prove your position way way way better then you have. If that position was as sound as you assume it is this conversation wouldn’t be on page 14 with me still asking for text that show this supernatural world view of the early Christians and you guys going you can just interpret it as supernatural because we all know (without proving it) they were all a bunch of idiots who believed in anything.
What is apparent to you isn’t apparent to me so prove your understanding is correct. Because mine is based in reality and yours is still unknown to me.
Educated is rational and reasonable uneducated just believes the common mans opinions without evaluating them. I prefer children and adults but when you tell someone they have a child’s understanding of religion they don’t seem to take it the right way.
Is there another account you are referencing?
You’re not dealing with the text you are dancing around with a strawman. The texts are supposed to be historical or historical fiction so reality should be the guide you use to understand the scripture. Imagining a cartoon based on the imagined misconceptions of the writer is a surefire way to misinterpret text IMO.
Yes the assumption is that the bible should be considered historic in this conversation. If the bible is just considered fiction then it isn’t evidence of a supernatural world view at all.
Why are you projecting a made up reality onto the ancient writers? Why do you do that? I don’t know anything about the writers so I have to use reality as a guide until I get information that proves otherwise, but you seem to be completely sure in their beliefs. Maybe you were alive then.
That’s what Jesus was preaching’ a mustard seeds worth of faith could move a mountain and if you believed you would be healed.
No to prevent you from moving the goal post and prevent me from repeating myself over and over again.
Why don’t you read what the texts say from my point of view so we can have an actual conversation if it’s correct instead of this babble.
What about it? Gets associated with a lot of different aspects of the universe from concepts like the Logos to Satan pretending to be god in the OT.
See I ask for specific evidence and get zippo.

Are you unaware that these terms have natural counterparts in natural philosophy?
I mean part of the dominion between god and man since god doesn’t mingle with man as Plato may say. They are part of the constant side of the universe that the changing material side is a reflection of. Sometime the demons make up the whole spirit realm sometimes they are another divide from getting from the one god to the multitude of particulars in the world. Particular daemons (named) represented particular functions or memes from love to the voice in your head to greed. You have to determine their function from the context of the text cause it’s all over the map.
You’re the one insulting him, assuming he had a ridiculous understanding of the world.
I am reading them for what they say. It’s you reading them under a supernatural assumption that you have yet to prove is founded.
Or a logic fallacy.
I consider all the philosophical schools rational natural schools of thought. If it’s not rational then it’s not philosophical in my mind. There is a discussion that the Neo platonic schools fused the supernatural pagan ideas with the natural philosopher ideas but I don’t think that has been supported very well yet.
What does that have to do with anything? They didn’t say they were worshiping a false god but no god.
You mean like platonic idealism? You really need me to go find a source for that?
The philosophers were educated. Basing your understanding of their beliefs off the uneducated of today’s beliefs is a baseless assumption without proof.
Keep ignoring that those terms can be understood from a rational philosophical understanding.