Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k_smith123

Plato does not provide the slightest indication that he views demons as evil in a literal sense, which seems to suggest that the association between demons and evil was a later development. If Plato’s definition had any merit in the ancient world, then Christ’s casting out of demons would seem to be related to some form of censorship (provided we are willing to accept the Gospels as allegory).

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say in your post, but in ancient Hellenistic thinking daemons were thought to be intermediate spirits between the gods and humans. The gods lived above the orbit of the moon, and the daemons lived in the air around us in the sub-lunar realm, i.e. from the earth to the moon. They could be good (usually the spirits of dead heroes) or bad (evil spirits).

In Jewish and Christian theology, daemons were generally thought to be evil spirits, though IIRC Philo allowed that some may be good (guardian spirits for particular people). Early Christians like Tertullian claimed that the gods that the Romans worshipped were in fact just spirits that lived in the air or around statues.

Vorkosigan · 12-31-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Parking outside the box gets your car clamped and towed away, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

:rolling: :rolling: :notworthy

k_smith123 · 01-02-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Parking outside the box gets your car clamped and towed away, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Oops, I'm sorry, I thought this was a free-thought forum.

k_smith123 · 01-02-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say in your post, but in ancient Hellenistic thinking daemons were thought to be intermediate spirits between the gods and humans. The gods lived above the orbit of the moon, and the daemons lived in the air around us in the sub-lunar realm, i.e. from the earth to the moon. They could be good (usually the spirits of dead heroes) or bad (evil spirits).

In Jewish and Christian theology, daemons were generally thought to be evil spirits, though IIRC Philo allowed that some may be good (guardian spirits for particular people). Early Christians like Tertullian claimed that the gods that the Romans worshipped were in fact just spirits that lived in the air or around statues.

Yes, metaphors generally carry more than one meaning. That's what makes them metaphors.

Roger Pearse · 01-02-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Parking outside the box gets your car clamped and towed away, however.

:rolling: :rolling: :notworthy

Glad someone appreciated the humour! One can always find a smile just by reading, not what people mean, but what they actually say.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon · 01-02-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k_smith123

Yes, metaphors generally carry more than one meaning. That's what makes them metaphors.

Daemons were regarded as metaphors in Middle Platonism? Any sources for this?

jgibson000 · 01-02-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Daemons were regarded as metaphors in Middle Platonism? Any sources for this?

Yes, I'dlike to see some evidence for this as well, especially in the light of what is said in TDNT regarding how ancient philosophers regarded "demons".

Quote:

Philosophy incorporated these intermediaries into its system and world view by ascribing pavqh to demons and by giving at least to evil demons a location close to the earth. The doctrine that demons are ejmpaqei`" is old, going back at least as far as Empedocles. According to Plato it was worked out by Xenocrates, and was shared by Chrysippus as well as Posidonius, and by Plutarch as well as Apuleius and the Neo-Platonists. Similarly, we already find the idea of their location in the air in the Epinomis. This is greatly expanded in connexion with the pavqh doctrine, and is then incorporated by the Neo-Platonists into a great system of intermediaries which become the more imperfect and wicked the closer they approximate to earth. Thus the demons become spatial, and their place in the great ladder from God to man and spirit to matter is that of beings which are superior to man but still imperfect. Their imperfection does not affect their relative divinity. Their wickedness is not simply that of an implacably and causelessly evil will; it is due to their link with matter, and may thus be regarded as an impulsion by cravings which are only too familiar to man, whether in the form of envy, or a self-seeking desire for honour, or the thirst for blood and the odour of sacrifice. Although this view of the pavqh and location of demons corresponds to the impulse of Greek thinking, it is simply a reflection of the popular view of spirits. In animistic belief spirits are radically incalculable, and their operations are conceived after the analogy of men and their passions; they are easily provoked to wrath and envy.

So, Kim, please provide us with some instances in Middle Platonists texts that show that "DAIMONION" was used by Middle Platonists to signify something other than a divine power, an inferior divinity, or an evil spirit.

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan · 01-05-2006, 03:49 PM

Over at JM Rod Green writes:

For what it's worth, I'd add two additional anomalies against the
genuineness of the Tacitus witness. First, Tacitus notes only that the
events regarding Christ's death occurred under the governorship of Pilate,
without even taking the time to suggest to his audience who Pilate was
or in what province of the giant empire that he governed. This was
written 100 years after the fact, and it would seem normal that once Tacitus
mentioned Pilate, he would also provide a geographical context, but he
does not. A second interesting anomaly is that Tacitus here refers to
the imperial reign of Tiberius (Tiberio imperitante). The rulers of Rome
at this time were still considered leaders of a republic, and were
referred to as Principes, not Imperitantes. I believe you will discover
that Tacitus does not make such an error in any other passages.

Ben C Smith · 01-05-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Over at JM Rod Green writes:

For what it's worth, I'd add two additional anomalies against the
genuineness of the Tacitus witness. First, Tacitus notes only that the
events regarding Christ's death occurred under the governorship of Pilate,
without even taking the time to suggest to his audience who Pilate was
or in what province of the giant empire that he governed. This was
written 100 years after the fact, and it would seem normal that once Tacitus
mentioned Pilate, he would also provide a geographical context, but he
does not.

Two points:

1. In the context of the Tacitean statement itself it is rather clear that Pilate was over the province of Judea.
2. We are missing years 29-31 of the Annals, so I do not think we can be absolutely certain that Tacitus did not mention Pilate except in 15.44.

Quote:

A second interesting anomaly is that Tacitus here refers to
the imperial reign of Tiberius (Tiberio imperitante). The rulers of Rome
at this time were still considered leaders of a republic, and were
referred to as Principes, not Imperitantes. I believe you will discover
that Tacitus does not make such an error in any other passages.

Tacitus apparently makes the same error in Annals 3.24:

D. Silanus, in nepti Augusti adulter, quamquam non ultra foret saevitum quam ut amicitia Caesaris prohiberetur, exilium sibi demonstrari intellexit, nec nisi Tiberio imperitante deprecari senatum ac principem ausus est M. Silani fratris potentia, qui per insignem nobilitatem et eloquentiam praecellebat.

Decimus Silanus, the paramour of the granddaughter of Augustus, though the only severity he experienced was exclusion from the friendship of Caesar, saw clearly that it meant exile; and it was not till the emperorship of Tiberius that he ventured to appeal to the senate and to the prince, in reliance on the influence of his brother Marcus Silanus, who was conspicuous both for his distinguished rank and eloquence.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is JM?

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-05-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Pardon my ignorance, but what is JM?

Oh, wait. Does that stand for Jesus Mysteries?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2006, 03:49 PM	#68
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Over at JM Rod Green writes: For what it's worth, I'd add two additional anomalies against the genuineness of the Tacitus witness. First, Tacitus notes only that the events regarding Christ's death occurred under the governorship of Pilate, without even taking the time to suggest to his audience who Pilate was or in what province of the giant empire that he governed. This was written 100 years after the fact, and it would seem normal that once Tacitus mentioned Pilate, he would also provide a geographical context, but he does not. A second interesting anomaly is that Tacitus here refers to the imperial reign of Tiberius (Tiberio imperitante). The rulers of Rome at this time were still considered leaders of a republic, and were referred to as Principes, not Imperitantes. I believe you will discover that Tacitus does not make such an error in any other passages.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.