Jeffrey Gibson

You know, don't you, that I could accuse you of the same "crime" in the sense that you have tendered a decidedly and exclusively "Christian Biblical Scholarship" source in an attempt to poison the well of what the ancient Greeks thought and expressed about their concept of the "daimon".

Accuse away. How a tu quoque changes what you've done is beyond me.

In any case, I was unaware that in citing the texts of Philostratus, let alone all the non Christian texts I cited, using the TLG, I was poosining any wells.

And as I've noted it, LSJ is a work of Christian scholarship.


I wonder if you've actually read the definitions of the two words given in LSJ? They words are not presented there as distinct concepts.

Jeffrey

mountainman

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.

An employment which to Plotinus (and other Greeks) was entirely natural and valid.

The OP suggests that the Christian authors however wished to disengage this employment, and to treat the "daimon" as an exclusively "evil spirit" for the sake of their own propaganda which, to all appearances, was to have the entire spiritual landscape subservient to the "Holy Spirit" of the Canonical Jesus.



Well what is it? Can you cite an example where Plotinus in his Enneads uses the term δαίμων in the negative sense of an "evil spirit"?


I am happy to create a ledger with two sides. We are after all dealing with a multitude of individual authors who may have formed differing opinions on the nature and "neutrality" or otherwise, of the δαίμων.


You must understand that the actual chronology of "after Christianity" is highly uncertain. On the one hand "after Christianity" may be defined as early as after the gospels were authored - many people expect this to have been in the 1st (or for some, 2nd) century. On the other hand "after Christianity" may be defined as late as after the formation of the official state version of the religion, and after the closure of the new testament canon, often presumed to be later in the 4th century.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

I’m going to have one more go at this, and then I’ll leave this thread, since it has become clear to me that you have no real interest in discovering whether or not your claims are true or in arguing against evidence contrary to your claim in any way other than fallaciously, and that you are incapable of seeing not only that you have no case (even when you keep changing it) but how you have yourself undermined it. Further replies to your agenda driven postings are a waste of time.


Leaving aside the matter that no one disputes this, I note with interest that this is not what you claimed in the OP. Your claim in the OP was that Christians used the term with a meaning it had not previously possessed – a claim that is absolutely false as you yourself, perhaps unintentionally, which you are admitting now. So besides prevaricating about, misrepresenting, what you've "been saying here, you are now (and not for the first time) changing your tune about what was initially under discussion.




I note too, leaving aside the question of the validity of your explanation (a claim you have asserted but not demonstrated in any way) of why it was that Christians came to use δαίμων with only one sense , that your claim that Christians did use δαίμων with only one sense is wholly unsustainable. It is simply not the case, as Toto has pointed out to you citing Acts, and as you yourself would know if you really wished to be well informed about Christian usage of the term and consulted sources I recommended to you , namely Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon and Owen's E.C. E. Owen's, Δαίμων and Cognate Words: JTS Vol 31 (1932) 133-53 (even assuming that you could read and understand and not misrepresent what's there), that Christians used the term δαίμων with only one meaning.

Moreover, even if the [4th century CE] Gospel authors did use the term in the way you say they did (i.e. with no other sense that “evil spirit”), it’s not because they didn’t think the term had any other meaning, let alone that they were intent to demonize pagan religion or make a war against pagan beliefs. It’s because, as the usage in Philostratus and other writers show, it is the meaning that the word should and must have in the types of stories in which the word is used – stories that are intent to show and prove (as the exorcism stories in the VA are intent to show and prove) that the central character in them is a great healer who overcomes what he, the author of those stories, and almost all in the Classical and Hellenistic world thought was the cause of sicknesses and misfortunes and plagues.

That you ignore this shows that you are not intent to assess the evidence you point to in any sober and balanced way. Rather you have skewed it so as to make your claim unfalsifiable – a fact that is inexplicable given another claim of yours that Jesus is based on Apollonius of Tyanna and is being claimed by Christians to be a healer, not only of the same type as Apollonius was, but superior to him.

I’ve pointed out over and over again that when it comes to your claims and your "arguments" about Greek terms and their meanings and how they were used, you not only don't know what you are talking about, but you misrepresent what is the case in these matters. I've also pointed out that your linguistic analyses are as uninformed and mistaken as the conclusions you base on them are question begging and agenda driven.

Thanks for providing more evidence that this is the case.

I leave this thread with several questions

Apart from Robert Tulip, who also filters linguistic evidence through an apriori and makes it fit with what he already believes, and a few others who , being Greekless, and the axe grinders who cannot approach it without bias, does anyone else here believe that Pete has made his case about Christians “subverting” the word δαίμων . And if not, why have you not found his case convincing?

Jeffrey

Robert Tulip

Jeffrey, you appear to be incapable of understanding some fairly basic arguments in this thread, and are entirely guilty of what you accuse others of here. What part of “distinctly” don’t you understand? The OP said “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).” It really is blindingly obvious, unless you have an agenda, that a search on the Gospels pulls up uses of daimon which are all evil, without adjectives. Just as Zoroastrians and Hindus had opposite moral meanings of deva and ashura, Christians took the Zoroastrian religious method to demonise the greek Daimon. Their purpose was to justify a new mythic narrative in which conventional religions were all condemned as false and evil. This is well known. Jeffrey, do you remember the bit where Mountainman explained to you that a text about an “apple” is only known to be about a good or bad apple if it has an adjective calling it that? And how you complained that Mountainman was treating you like you didn’t understand basic grammar? The same method may be required here. You say Mountainman has not demonstrated this claim. May I suggest you acquaint yourself with Christianity, you know, a rather big religion? Your statement reads to me as a piece of extraordinary blindness. Of course Christians demonised daimon for propaganda reasons. That is what the Gospels are about, and why the Christians condemned and destroyed pagan religion.What a desperate comment! As discussed by Toto at #375 in Acts 17:18 the use of daimon about Jesus is attributed to Greek philosophers, and says nothing about Christian use of the term. Christians were as aware of pagan use of demon as Zoroasters were aware of Hindu use of deva. But they disagreed with it. Take care about pots and kettles in glass houses here Jeff. This is duh country. Do you sincerely believe that Christians were not intent to demonize pagan religion or make a war against pagan beliefs? How then is a sensible conversation possible? Spoon-feeding time again. The Gospels (evidence) use demon without adjectives to mean an evil being. This has led to our modern concept of demon as an evil being. Today, we regard ‘good demon’ as a contradiction because we have assumed the Gospel meaning in our language. Speaking again of pots, kettles, glass houses and stones. Jesus Christ once said Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? The linguistic analysis of the Gospel to support the claim of the opening post in this thread is supremely simple and obvious. The Gospels treat demon as universally evil, demonising the Greek term. There is no need for any agenda to see this simple fact.No I do not. I simply read the text in front of me and look for its plain meaning. The Gospels treat daimon as evil. The earlier Greeks do not. No filter required, except a concordance. Jeffrey has a filter, but I can’t work out what it is since his arguments here make no sense.

mountainman

There is absolutely no reason that you need to post that much incomprehensible Greek text WITHOUT ANY ENGLISH TRANSLATION to make your point about the usage of a single Greek word or phrase. In this thread I (and several other posters) have been required to have a real interest in manually finding public domain English translations so that a common understanding of the EVIDENCE that your are adducing may be obtained.

I have repeatedly asked you to furnish English translations of your citation of contrary evidence on the fair and reasonable basis that 99.99% of people in this forum and on the planet we call Earth are not fluent in reading ancient Greek. But you have not provided the English translations for discussion and examination even though it is impossible for you to be unaware that 99.99% of members here (and elsewhere) cannot assess this evidence in its Greek form.

At this stage of the investigation one fact remains.

If Matthew wrote about how Jesus cast the "daimon" out of the man and into the swine in the 1st century, then he appears to be the first Greek author to subvert the classical tradition of the "daimon" that stretched between Plato and Plotinus.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

FFS! So at last you admit this.

You appear to have been disputing this claim until this point.


What circularity is this? The claim is that the Greeks never thought that a δαίμων was exclusively an evil spirit. This way of thinking appears to be have been subverted by Matthew, leading the way of Christian thought in which a δαίμων was exclusively an evil spirit.

It is also quite clear that Matthew (and the other gospel authors) had an agenda which was to propagandize the advent of the "Holy Spirit". This clearly defined agenda also explains their need to subvert the classical Greek understanding of the "daimon" - the individual human spirit.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

In Taylor's translation of THE EPISTLE OF PORPHYRY TO THE EGYPTIAN ANEBO, the student of Plotinus, Porphyry, mentions the concept of the Greek "daimon" twenty-nine times. In a number of instances Porphyry writes that the "daimon" can be good or bad.

The letter commences:


For interested parties there is also available the reply to Porphyry from the Egyptian priest:

Theurgia or The Egyptian Mysteries By Iamblichus
Reply of Abammon, the Teacher to The Letter of Porphyry to Anebo
together with Solutions of the Questions Therein Contained

Translated from the Greek by ALEXANDER WILDER, M.D. F.A.S.


As a contrast to the Greek conception of the "daimon" and the use of that term in Taylor's translation of Porphyry, we may turn and see what the Christian Augustine uninformatively and mistakenly writes about this very letter in NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine



If a general reader were to read both texts above, and compare Porphyry's letter with Augustine's Christian treatment of the same letter, it may well become immediately apparent that Augustine is indulging in Christian propaganda.

Moreover it is clear that Augustine's Christian propaganda involves the subversion of Porphyry's Greek "daimon".

Hence the OP.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Eusebius gloats over the destruction of the "demon" of Asclepius "whom thousands regarded with reverence as the possessor of saving and healing power".

In the 4th century, the subversion of the Greek concept included temple destruction by the Emperor's military machine.

This fascist regime was making room for the very very Christian Holy Spirit.

Step 1: Eliminate the major Greek competition - destroy its major architecture.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The God Within: The Normative Self in Epictetus - Henry Dyson.
History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 2009), pp. 235-253; Published by: University of Illinois Press

This article provides a brief summary of use of the Greek "daimon" in antiquity as follows:



As can be clearly seen in this summary, contrary to the earlier claims of Jeffrey Gibson,
the categories 1,2,3,4 and 6 all refer to daimons which are not "evil spirits".


From the footnotes to category (5) in which the daimon is classified as as "evil spirits or demons" (in the modern sense)
provide the earliest sources as Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 CE), Epictetus (55–135 CE) and Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 CE).

The citation of Matthew 8:31 is conspicuous by its absence.


In reading the complete article it may be seen that the ancient Greeks employed
the concept of the "daimon" as an integral part of their system of philosophy.

The introduction of its use as an "evil spirit" did not appear to happen until the early 2nd century.

Would anyone like to try and explain this pattern of evidence?



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

Would it help for you to understand, or at least try to understand that Catholics are not Christian? and that Eusebius ended the devil worshipers called Christian when he put the Catholic Church in order?

Yes, these are those who introduced evil to their life as born-again-on-fire-for-the-Lord-self-proclaimed-Christians as we see again in America today, who have been splitting and dividing by cooking up salvation recipes of their own ever since the great Reformation set them free. And do you not see?

And do you not see the divisive force that our friend Eusebius brought to a dead stop, and not for himself but so that the civilization would rise into glory . . . and so finally also for you while you keep hammering away at him as burned out Christian yourself now set to destroy 'the good' so that evil will prevail until the very end?

And did you know that the HS is not Christian but Catholic? and we have the Loretta Litany on that to prove this true?

And that 'the angel of the Lord' is 'the angel of light' that Christians run away with and will worship until they die, but will die nonetheless? And do we not call him (sic) Lucifer because of that?

And did you know that Catholics are known as the Church Militant inside Christendom where they also know the Church Suffering as purgatorians and have the Church Triumphant for those who 'ran the race' and collectively are the [eternal] Saints in Heaven?

We would just call these Christians who found their destiny in life for whom the Trinity has collapsed and they are an Integral part of it, now as solitary individuals presenting the fruit of faith.

This should tell you that for Catholics "Providence" is not and empty fate but a manner of faith that is internally directed with that specific destiny in mind, that for you here now seems just opposite to that.

To Henry Dyson's typology I would say that he is right, but likely does not understand that after the Son made his presence known the gods all moved to Rome now operating under the collective umbrella of Mary who they crowned as queen of heaven and of earth, wherefore then all roads do lead to Rome.

And lets not forget here that Rome is just a name to protect and shield the truth on which they stand.

And yes, reason still is the enemy to overcome, and just backwards they will go.