stephan huller

And I did read Tony Burke's lengthy review of the book. That prompted my observation about the consistent reinforcement of a basic worldview on Goodacre's part. That and his participation in that awful Bible miniseries.

Jeffrey Gibson

So the picture of the book was not a direct reference to what he has also said a "million" times? You weren't intent to say that it was in that book that Mark Goodacre showed himself to be like so many other biblical scholars?

So if not that book, what is your assessment of MG's scholarship based on? What works by MG have you read?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I read The Case Against Q when it came out. I am friends with him on Facebook. I have watched him refuse to address his support for Carlson's use of low resolution photographs to justify the charge of forgery. I read his blog and have left comments there. I read Burke's review of this book and from all of these sources I have put together my assessment of his motivation.

Jeffrey Gibson

But not the book itself? You do realize don't you that this is exactly the same sort of "scholarship" that is characteristic of Pete. He bases many of his claims on what a reviewer says a given book says, rather than on the books themselves.

Thanks for proving my point.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I see so from the sources listed above I can't put together a sense of the author's worldview. Sort of like my assumption that something bad must have happened in your personal life to come to a forum to seek solace in stepping on ants.

Toto

This is not quite accurate. Pete would take a big step forward if he read intelligent, scholarly reviews of the relevant literature. Instead, he reads primary sources and lifts poorly understood phrases to fill out his own grand scheme for understanding history (i.e, Constantine evil! pagan Greeks good!!)

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. Two fallacies at once. Petitio principii in assuming that your assessment is in any way accurate and the circumstantial ad hominem in thinking that the truth of falsity of what someone says -- which is what is at issue in scholarly debates -- is to be determined by why he/she says it.

My assessment of your ability to engage in rational argument has dropped yet another notch.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

So if you don't like me and you despise everyone else why'd you come back? Looking for recommendations on good dog groomers in your area?

mountainman

The general meaning of the term "daimon" has already been outlined via references to a number of sources including the TDNT. This general meaning is generally consistent with an indwelling divine spirit and has been used by many Greek philosophers, Emperors and other writers in a manner that is certainly NOT representative by the meaning "devil" or "evil demon", as does the author of Matthew.



The entire point of the OP is to draw attention to the use of the term in Matthew (and of course via the TR to other authors of the gospels).

Whoever wrote Matt 8:31 could have selected another term to present his story about Jesus healing the people, but the term used is "daimones". If we step back and apply the abbreviated term into Matt we get:


I have acknowledged that the classical tradition uses the term whether bad or good, although in the large the term has been used to reflect something which is good and not bad.

It is precisely the Christian usage of the term, commencing from Matthew, which uses the term in a bad, negative sense, as "devil" or "evil spirit".


As you are aware, the general term frequently used throughout the NT and LXX is "daimonion" and this is used generally in the negative sense of "devils, bad spirits". When Matthew however used the root term "daimon(es)", which is not the same as the derivative "daimonion", he uses the term within the context of an indwelling "crazy mad evil devil".

This is antithetical to its classical general meaning.




The gospel authors and others report themselves to have been "filled with the Holy Spirit" and to be used as instruments by the HS to write their agenda driven propaganda.



Kurt Aland in discussing "The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries" introduces the hypothesis that we need not really worry about these problems of Anonymity and Pseudonymity because these unknown authors are "instruments of the Holy Spirit". This is the el primo horseshit.


Sorry Jeffrey, but the entire Christian Theological industry is based on this horseshit of the Holy Spirit (and its apostolic instruments) and its conclusions are agenda, not evidenced, based.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

And yet another instance of peititio principii and ad hominem ...

Nice work!

Jeffrey