tosca1 said:
I don't think you can make Luke as an example since you're simply making an assumption of what he'd LIKELY have thought based on nothing at all.
Not based on nothing. We know a fair bit about medical theory at the time (actually, we probably know more about that than anything else due to the relatively large number of medical treatises to have survived from the period). Presumably, Luke's understanding of medicine was commensurate with the medical understanding of his colleagues.
tosca1 said:
Furthermore, and most importantly, your assumption also puts Luke in a conflict with the Gospel.
It doesn't seem so to me. One only gets this result by applying modern categories, and there are obvious independent reasons not to do so.
tosca1 said:
It is most UNLIKELY that Luke will attribute the effectiveness of his medicines to something like humor
Not humor--humors. The theory of humors was apparently invented, or at least first written down, by Hippocrates. The humors are sort-of like energy flows in the body which are both instantiated in bodily fluids but also in psychological states. Most people today would consider them supernatural, but they were thought to be entirely natural at the time.
tosca1 said:
Basing my assumption to the fact that Luke preaches the Gospel given by Jesus Christ, Luke would've attributed the healing of a person (and thus that includes the effectiveness of his medicines), entirely to God's will and grace!
No doubt--but the two aren't mutually exclusive. If a patient was healed under Luke's care, I agree he probably attributed it to God. But this doesn't mean God didn't accomplish the healing by brining the humors back into balance.
tosca1 said:
They're not similar at all. It shouldn't be confusing.
Really? Can you name some property which sharply distinguishes them? That is, can you name some property which all supernatural things have, and all natural things lack (or vice versa)?
tosca1 said:
The person may believe that demons exists, but I don't think the person believes the demon is not supernatural.
Daimons (not demons, which were a medieval discovery) were part of the natural order. Again, that book
Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds amply demonstrates this point, as does another by Morton Smith titled
Jesus the Magician.
tosca1 said:
It's because the demons are believed to be supernatural - that's the reason why some people call on them.
Why do people usually invoke demons? To have something that can't be gained naturally.
Two points:
1. Again, people who actually engage in occult practices often don't think spirits--even demons--are supernatural. Not every occultist takes this view, but a substantial number do. I can gain, say, a particular rare work of art or book or some such thing naturally. And if I evoke a spirit to obtain it, it'll appear to come naturally. I'll see it on a website for sale or something, where for the previous year daily searches yielded nothing. I'll also happen to have just enough of a financial windfall (unexpected bonus from work, gift from a rich relative, etc.) to purchase the item. All those things can happen from natural causes, and (say I) if the spirit had anything to do with it, it was also entirely natural.
2. This also doesn't mean that people have always believed spirits to be supernatural. The weight of the evidence is that people living in the millieux in which the Bible was written didn't make a distinction between natural and supernatural.
