I have already clearly explained this. Please carefully review what I have written.
I have already pointed out that demon possession in the NT reflects an ancient understanding of mental illness. And that Jesus did heal these people from the diseases that actually afflicted them.
I would expand the list of diseases attributed to demon possession to autism, epilepsy and the like. In other cultures those who suffered from these disorders were subjected to even worse abuse–holes were drilled into their skulls to let the evil spirits out. Not good.
OK, I think productive conversation has ceased on this thread. I’ll give everyone 24 hours to make any closing statement, and then the mods will close it.
I believe that 1 Samuel 28 is really the spirit of Samuel speaking to Saul; however, the witch of Endor did not bring him back to the world; on the contrary, God allowed him to come back to speak one last prophesy to the King. The witch was a fake and had no powers to bring forth a spirit. Are there demons who imitate the spirits of the dead? I must agree with you; however, 1 Samuel 28 is different from such an event. The text even refers to the spirit as the prophet Samuel.
That is up to you. I do not believe in it because Satan, according to my belief, was bound when Jesus was nailed to the cross. The millennium represents the whole church age; therefore, Satan and his demons are limited in their abilities to affect our world. I believe witches were always fake and necromancy only brought forth demons pretending to be loved ones; however, since our Lord’s first coming, they are limited in their actions. I suppose that reveals that I am an amillennialist in my eschatology. I do hope this is a satisfactory answer. Oh, I must believe that 1 Samuel 28 was actually the spirit of Samuel since the Bible addresses him as such. Did the witch of Endor bring him back? No, God sent him back. That is why the so-called witch was afraid. Oh, if such things as evil spirits are still around, I do not want to meet them. Remember, there is more to reality than we see.
But I wasn’t talking about a Christian clergyman or layman with training in exorcism. I was referring specifically to a medical practitioner.
That doesn’t address the reason why I raised them, which was the appeal to eyewitness testimony. Plenty of things exist which “aren’t mentioned in the Bible and aren’t part of the deposit of historical Christian belief”, like turnips and people called Neville.
No it doesn’t. You’ve already said yourself that a medical examination by a medical practitioner should be conducted first, and that only after that has failed to identify a natural cause for the issue, should demonic possession be considered.
I’m not saying there should be. But you’ve already said primacy should be given to examination for a natural cause.
You’ve forgotten the context in which I wrote of proof. I said that “From a medical perspective a diagnostic possibility can only include that which has been empirically proven to exist”. I did not say that we can’t believe in demons unless we have empirical proof of their existence. I’d be happy to believe in demons if we had as much evidence for their existence as we do for God’s, even if it didn’t amount to proof.
Thank you, so you agree with me. This is refreshing, because previously you took the opposite stand. When I wrote"The very approach you describe is the complete opposite of what we find in the New Testament" you replied “Speak for yourself; don’t universalize with an unqualified “we.””. But now you acknowledge that you in fact agree with me. So the “we” certainly includes you.
The fact is that modern Christians such as yourself profess a belief in demons to which you claim the New Testament is witness, but in actual fact the New Testament does not provide any witness to the belief or practices of your demonology. To you, medical science is the first recourse when addressing claims of demonic possession; to them, it was barely even considered. To you, genuine demonic possession is the very last explanation which should be considered when addressing claims of demonic possession; by them, it was given top priority.
You’re begging the question by assuming demons exist, and by assuming that the New Testament writers taught about them.
Like helioicentrism? Like the age of the earth? Like Noah’s flood being local? Like belief in witches and witchcraft? Like the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Like the necessity of an ordained priesthood? Unfortunately, accepting “what the vast majority of great Christian theologians (Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant) and the vast majority of Christian clergyman and lay people have always thought that they meant” has historically led to many embarrassing blunders. Instead we should base our beliefs on actual evidence.
The fact is that no “creative re-reading” is required. If a YEC told you that “you have only two logical options; you must either concede that Genesis 1 teaches something that is false, or you must engage in a “creative” re-reading of the chapter and demonstrate that it never really taught what the vast majority of Christian clergyman and lay people have always thought that they meant, and you must demonstrate it with reference to the Hebrew text”, I doubt you would take them seriously.
You speak of your proficiency in language, and have repeatedly cited your academic qualifications and experience, but I have never once seen you actually exercise any of this knowledge. You haven’t exegeted a single passage, and you haven’t addressed any of the scholarly arguments I have quoted.
If you’re not going to read what I write, then there’s no point in me writing it. In this thread I have repeatedly made my own arguments, identified the specific hermeneutical and exegetical principles I am following, and shown how my case is supported by similar or even identical arguments in the scholarly literature, but you have not addressed any of those arguments (see here and here for examples). I have linked to articles of mine which discuss the relevant Greek words in considerable detail, and which discuss in depth the Second Temple Period background. You have never addressed that material either, and you have actually refused to read it.
The very fact that even totally mainstream demon believers like Graham Twelftree (who has written extensively on the subject over decades), acknowledges that “Some of the cases of demon-possession in the Gospels can be ‘demythologized’, at least to some extent”, and “in the case of Mark 9:14-26 it may well be that we should recognize the signs of epilepsy and recategorize it accordingly”, so that “Mark 9 is probably a good example of ‘pre-scientific’ man attributing to demon possession a malady whose physical mechanism we have since learnt to identify and largely control” (while still saying “such demythologizing should not go so far as to eliminate the spiritual dimension from that, or indeed from any, illness”), should give you pause for thought.
So also should the fact that non-belief in demons and demonic possession has a historical witness in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, proving this is not a new modern idea, or simply the product of “scientism” or “rationalism” or “philosophical naturalism” or “methodological naturalism” or “liberalism”. So also should the fact that some scholars have argued (in mainstream literature), that Paul himself demythologized and repudiated belief in satan and demons.
I have demonstrated the scholarly recognition that the vast majority of references to demons are confined to the Synoptics and Acts, and the recognition that both Paul and earliest Christian texts outside the Bible (the Apostolic Fathers), show an almost complete lack of reference to demons and exorcism, and no mention at all even of Jesus’ experiences with demons. I have based arguments on this evidence, and drawn exegetical conclusions which you have never addressed.
Meanwhile you have never once made an exegetical case for belief in demons, or your understanding of how the New Testament demonological terminology should be understood. You have certainly never presented “brief, freshly written examples of your scholarly exegesis of the demon stories, with reference to the Greek and the literary characteristics of the stories as we have them”.
It is well recognized in scholarship (even among demon-believers), that the earliest Christian texts do not speak of demonic possession or exorcism at all, and do not even show any knowledge of Jesus casting out demons; it is recognized that demonic possession and exorcism are absent from Paul’s letters and the other epistles, and that none of these texts encourage belief in demons. It is also recognized that the Synoptics and Acts (written later), are unique among New Testament texts, in their treatment of the topic. It is also recognized that references to demons and demonic possession virtually vanishes from Christian literature by the end of the first century and is absent from almost all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
This is not what we would expect from a community which believed strongly in demons, demonic possession, and exorcism. This is evidence which must be accounted for.
Hi Casper, similarly I can say—I finally got back to your post.
If we’re talking about literal beings that exist in another dimension (a spirit realm), I don’t agree—in my experience this realm does not exist, nor do the spirit beings who supposedly inhabit it. On the other hand, if we’re talking about beings (constructs of the subconscious mind) that appear in our dreams and trance states, then we are talking about something completely different. From what I have learned the dreamscape or the trance state and, the beings and objects we encounter there are part of the same phenomenon—the place (the astral plane) and, the beings and objects we encounter there are made up of mind-stuff. Call it what you will—heaven, the spirit realm, the astral plane—it is a place that exists only in the mind. And yes, things that exist in the mind have being and can influence our psychological and physical wellbeing. Therefore, if someone consciously or subconsciously creates negative constructs in the mind (such as demons, vampires, werewolves, etc.) and believes that these entities really exist and can really harm them, their psychological and physical wellbeing can be negatively influenced and impacted. I would refer to this phenomenon as a self-induced spell (a self-induced complex).
Of course, an individual can be placed under a guilt spell by a second party who wishes harm on the person in question (if the person in question is susceptible to this form of attack). I would refer to this form of attack as a personally-induced spell (a personally-induced complex). The attack is usually in the form of retribution for having been insulted in some way. The offending person who is skilled at these psychological ploys is usually aware of who is susceptible to these forms of attacks. It would only be natural to think that this sort of person spends lots of time concocting these dark sentences to later impose upon their prey. Of course, there is the question of defending oneself from a personal attack—this must be taken into consideration. But my finger here is pointing at the bully (the sociopath/psychopath) who preys on the vulnerable—the small, the weak, the meek, the humble, the poor, the different, etc… Many children who have been preyed upon by the bully’s attacks suffer for the rest of their lives because of these personally-induced complexes—still others commit suicide as the loss of dignity becomes unbearable.
A curse is a similar form of psychological attack where someone is warned of dire consequences if some form of respect is not adhered to—I.e. desecrating a burial site, blasphemy against the sacred, the taking of life (murder), etc…
Physiological psychology is a subdivision of behavioral neuroscience (biological psychology) that studies the neural mechanisms of perception and behavior through direct manipulation of the brains of nonhuman animal subjects in controlled experiments.[1] This field of psychology takes an empirical and practical approach when studying the brain and human behavior. Most scientists in this field believe that the mind is a phenomenon that stems from the nervous system. By studying and gaining knowledge about the mechanisms of the nervous system, physiological psychologists can uncover many truths about human behavior.[2] Unlike other subdivisions within biological psychology, the main focus of physiological psychological research is the development of theories that describe brain-behavior relationships.
Physiological psychology studies many topics relating to the body’s response to a behavior or activity in an organism. It concerns the brain cells, structures, components, and chemical interactions that are involved in order to produce actions.[3] Psychologists in this field usually focus their attention to topics such as sleep, emotion, ingestion, senses, reproductive behavior, learning/memory, communication, psychopharmacology, and neurological disorders. The basis for these studies all surround themselves around the notion of how the nervous system intertwines with other systems in the body to create a specific behavior.[2] Physiological psychology - Wikipedia
I agree with you here but will just point out that for the sociopath/psychopath where there is usually no medical means to treat, prayer for spiritual support for individuals who have gone too far with the law is a lost cause (these are a class among sociopath/psychopath who cannot forgive themselves for the transgressions they have committed—therefore they cannot forgive nor can they show remorse (this means they cannot be taught to do so).
Was that an error, or a slip—that spiritual forces extend way (way!) beyond the [thought realm]. If it was a slip then you agree that demons exist [only in the mind], although, through causation can influence physical health. If we stop believing in them [sure] it makes them non-existent within our minds. On the other hand, others who do believe in demons continue to experience their existence and by effect their influence. Therefore, demonic influence comes from others in the world—for the most part the sociopath/psychopath or other individuals they have preyed upon.
Agreed.
Well… yes, they exist anyway, but only in the minds of others because we know they are only a construct of their minds. Being aware of this and the ploys of the sociopath/psychopath is what actually helps in the battle.
Wouldn’t the ostrich policy actually be ignoring the evidence of what the facts are? Satan is content with those who ignore the facts—these are the ones in his pocket, the ones who are deceived. This is the approach that will not help the good guys. And whether you are in Satan’s pocket is not a safe place to avoid the heat of the battle—Satan uses his disciples as pawns to sacrifice.
Although God has transcendent being and is eternal He interpenetrates all aspects of physical reality. The present universe is but one physical reality with its own allotted time (13.8 billion years). I’m an evolutionary creationist therefore I believe God evolves in time since He takes on different forms at different times. I wrote this a little while back in the comments boards.
The cosmological constants of the present universe assumed their values during the birth of this particular universe. During the birth of this particular universe its specific parameters were embraced and could not have assumed any of countless other values because they were determined by the particular attributes of the birth of this universe. Therefore random chance cannot be a factor in this universe, or any other, since each successive universe begins with its own particular values and deterministically adopts the cosmological constants for that particular universe. The precession of universes in a cyclical multiverse scenario has its own cosmological constants which gives each successive universe its own particular values in perpetual motion—the multiverse is a perpetual motion machine. Fine Tuning and Teleology - #4 by Wayne
For me, this is who God [Elohim] is—an eternal perpetual motion machine. God [Yahuwah] is the evolved outgrowth of the universe through cosmic and biological evolution—the personal higher-self who exists within every man and every woman and of whose image we strive to fill.
At first, I thought you agreed that demons exist only in the mind but have influence on the physical plane because you said they extend beyond the thought realm. Usually, when something extends from somewhere, it begins there. So I thought you meant to say that the existence of demons begin in the mind—as I do. However, I see that that is not the case.
I don’t believe there are spiritual entities beyond the human being, and that those also have an influence on us—except if by beyond you mean that they exist in other human beings and thus can have influence upon us (as I explained above in discussing the sociopath/psychopath).
If you would you hear the confessions of any criminal who committed the most heinous crimes you would come to understand that the crimes the criminal commits are carefully thought out [premeditated] before they are carried out. Unless of course, they are committed in a state of insanity—this is usually dependant on self-defense. There is no place for demons (actual spirit beings) any criminal will confess there is no demon who persuades them to commit the crimes they commit. Criminal judges, criminal prosecutors, and criminal defense attorneys would set you straight on the matter… pronto!
We are unique, being both natural and spiritual and we are the crown of God’s Creation. It is therefore to be expected that the cosmic battle for Creation is enacted largely through us: we are the battleground itself. God and Satan are in a constant dispute over us, humans with free will.
I would say that we are mental and physical beings because the universe’s architecture is energy and matter. But, all life has this same composition in different degrees (the mental part of different organisms is expressed in numerous different ways). It’s definitely true though, we humans are the Crown Jewel of God’s Creation. And yes, we are the conscious outgrowth of the universe and therefore the forces of nature are concentrated in and amongst us. Humankind is that battlefield. But doesn’t that tell you something? That since we are the warring factions for God on the one side and for Satan on the other that God’s throne and Satan’s throne are here on earth. And of course, that the spirit realm is here amongst us as well—it is the place where we can travel to the past to bring back knowledge, where we have dreams and visions for the future, and where we live in the present to enact our desires and will for mankind.
Again, I believe spiritual/mental influences in Creation are all caused by humans—unless we bring other life organisms into the picture, or the forces of nature itself, and how these influences affect our spiritual/mental wellbeing. I also believe there is no bigger picture in nature than life forms struggling for scarce resources to survive and flourish.
> Can demons engage in sexual activity with humans? As bizarre as it sounds, those who minister to people in occult bondage say it’s more common than you think.
If by “considered” you mean “regarded as a possible explanatory hypothesis but not the most likely”, that’s exactly what I’ve already said your position is (by “considered” you obviously don’t mean “regarded as the most likely explanatory hypothesis”). You have said “My approach would be the moderate, measured approach of the Roman Church”, and your description of that approach is “The Roman Church, when investigating a possible case of demonic activity, seeks input from physicians, psychologists, and other science-trained people. It does not come to the conclusion of demonic activity lightly, or even frequently”.
The bottom line is that when you say “demonic possession should not be concluded without first giving naturalistic hypotheses a chance to account for the bizarre behavior”, you’re putting science first and letting theology pick up the scraps afterwards.
Well you said “It follows that if demons do not and never did exist, that the New Testament writers are guilty of error and of a false teaching about religious matters”. Since you do not believe the New Testament writers are guilty of error and of a false teaching about religious matters (and have instead inferred that beaglelady and I do), you obviously believe demons do exist.
Well that’s your interpretation.
You’re not addressing what I wrote. I said this.
If a YEC told you that “you have only two logical options; you must either concede that Genesis 1 teaches something that is false, or you must engage in a “creative” re-reading of the chapter and demonstrate that it never really taught what the vast majority of Christian clergyman and lay people have always thought that they meant, and you must demonstrate it with reference to the Hebrew text”, I doubt you would take them seriously.
In other words, would you say “You’re right, I am engaging in a creative re-reading of the passage in order to demonstrate that it never really taught what the vast majority of Christian clergyman and lay people have always thought that they mean”? Or would you say “No, I’m not indulging in a creative re-reading of the passage, I am using my knowledge of Hebrew to demonstrate what the passage actually means”.
So what? The point remains regardless of how incidental they are. The point is that countless Christians throughout centuries, from the least to the greatest, the most ignorant to the most learned, read these passages in a very specific way, and quite obviously read them totally wrong. So we can’t just go along blithely with whatever the most number of Christians believed historically. You certainly don’t when it comes to the age of the earth.
No, Twelftree never says any such thing. He is in an uncomfortable position once he acknowledges that this passage should be demythologized, because he has to explain why other passages should not, but he is totally dedicated to the inerrancy of the text. Have you even read his work at all? He appeals to demythologization precisely in order to avoid charging the text with errancy. He believes the reader is supposed to demythologize the text.
Which means you must first demonstrate that they believed and affirmed in writing that demons exist. You can’t beg the question and start from the position that they believed and affirmed in writing that demons exist, saying “That is what follows, given the conditions stated”, and then charge beaglelady and I with believing the writers were in error. You don’t get to start from “given the conditions stated”, you have to present evidence that those conditions apply.
The fact that I haven’t presented a detailed case here is irrelevant. I have presented a summary case, explaining my hermeneutic and exegetical principles. I have also linked you to a more detailed case elsewhere. So I’ve made a case and you haven’t. And I find this again and again in your discussions with pretty much everyone (and I see this has been noted by more than one person); when it comes to the actual exegesis, you never actually address the text. You never make an exegetical case, despite all your original language knowledge, theological training, reading of the scholarly literature, and publications. You don’t even cite your published work. It’s most puzzling.
Of course. In order to do that, we must enter the socio-historical and lexicographical world of the gospel writers. And to do that, we need the tools at least (if not the commentary), of modern scholarship. That’s why I have spent so much time on the Second Temple Period background.
This does not address what I wrote. I certainly did not even imply that Paul’s letters are unreliable.
Again you represent me as implying that the Synoptics are less reliable, when I never said any such thing and when I have affirmed repeatedly my belief in their reliability. Notably, you have avoided addressing the argument I did make (which is also made in mainstream scholarship).
But I have, because what the earliest Christian community believed has relevance to our understanding of the New Testament. I have explained this repeatedly, and quoted scholarship explaining why this is so. Here it is yet again.
It is well recognized in scholarship (even among demon-believers), that the earliest Christian texts do not speak of demonic possession or exorcism at all, and do not even show any knowledge of Jesus casting out demons; it is recognized that demonic possession and exorcism are absent from Paul’s letters and the other epistles, and that none of these texts encourage belief in demons. It is also recognized that the Synoptics and Acts (written later), are unique among New Testament texts, in their treatment of the topic. It is also recognized that references to demons and demonic possession virtually vanishes from Christian literature by the end of the first century and is absent from almost all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
This is not what we would expect from a community which believed strongly in demons, demonic possession, and exorcism. This is evidence which must be accounted for.
Note the part in bold. This is a well recognized conundrum in scholarship. Twelftree wrote an entire book on the subject.
Again you represent me as believing something I don’t believe, and ignoring the fact that I have denied this repeatedly. I do not believe they affirmed the existence of demons at all, certainly not wrongly.
I must agree with you that the rape idea about the devil is really absurd. If Satan is bound, then he cannot do such things. That article sounds like something from the old TV series Dark Shadows with Jonathan Frid.
