Casper… you have it all wrong! Con-men choose to impersonate dead people (not demons)—swindlers adept at persuasion, especially at dishonest or self-serving persuasion. The experience of “ghosts” are tricks, deceitful manipulations of matter. You can most certainly arrive at the motive for such deceptions by the medium or psychic, right—wealth! What do you think the motive for these deceptions is by those who are high up in the hierarchy of religious affairs? No different—wealth, control, power, and exploitation. The warning from Leviticus is to not be suckered in by their deceptions.
Which ironically is exactly the charge leveled at Biologos and other Christians who accept evolution.
Since ancient people were confident doing so, why aren’t modern Christians?
It’s irrational to attribute infirmity to a cause which has never been demonstrated to actually cause infirmity. This is even more the case once it is acknowledged that there is no reliable method of differentiating between people afflicted by the alleged cause, and people unafflicted by the alleged cause. Introducing a fictional cause of infirmity has obvious dangers for people who are suffering from infirmity resulting from a completely different cause.
Fortunately the vast majority of Christians who profess a belief in demons, don’t actually act as if they believe in demonic possession and affliction. They don’t usually tell deaf and mute people that their infirmities are caused by demons, and they don’t usually misdiagnose conditions such as epilepsy and depression as the product of demonic possession. They profess a belief in demons, but for the most part they just act as if demons don’t exist.
1 Like
The kind of literature you find in mainstream professional peer reviewed sources such as these.
- Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
- Journal for the Study of the New Testament
- Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
- Svensk exegetisk årsbok
- Novum Testamentum
- Themelios
- Bibliotheca Sacra
The kind of literature you find published by the university presses (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Sheffield, etc), and the high end academic publishers such as Brill, Peeters, Mohr Siebeck, Walter de Gruyter, Peter Lang, and others.
Why? I don’t need that to make my point. My point is not about belief within mainline Christian denominations, it’s about what’s written in the mainstream scholarly literature.
I didn’t ignore them. I just responded to those for which evidence was provided. I asked a couple of questions and made a few points to which you didn’t respond.
Of course it’s ironic in a way; what’s also ironic is that I knew this and you didn’t. The purpose of quoting from Wallace was to quote from a well respected scholarly who believes fully in the personality of the Holy Spirit (and I quoted him in a way which made it totally clear that this was his belief), but who acknowledges that the grammatical argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit is spurious. This was a matter of quoting a credible source. In case you’re interested, Wallace has also written on the subject of whether or not the New Testament identifies Jesus as God, and acknowledges that most of the verses typically appealed to do not actually say that at all.
“The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.”, Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (New York : Peter Lang, 2009), 27.
This is the same argument made by the Catholics, the JWs, the Mormons, and everyone else who recognizes that a position they are advancing represents discontinuity with Scripture. Or to put it more directly, when they want us to believe something which they know isn’t actually in the Bible. Anyone claiming that some kind of new revelation has been received, bears the burden of evidence that such new revelation is authentic, and that’s a very heavy burden indeed. Of course everyone doing this says “I’m totally not making this up, it’s just Progressive Revelation”.
And what’s amazing is that this Progressive Revelation is always incredibly important stuff which you need to know to be a real Christian, yet somehow Christ and the apostles just didn’t make it all that clear and it wasn’t understood properly until centuries later. You’d think if it was really mission critical, Christ and the apostles would have put a bit of effort into letting us know.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I draw on mainstream scholarship for information which helps me understand the text. Sometimes the mainstream scholarship presents arguments against what I believe, sometimes it presents arguments in favour of what I believe. When it presents arguments in favour of what I believe, I consider that to be support for what I believe. What would you call it?
You’ve omitted an important point which Bellarmine made; the writer of Ecclesiastes was divinely inspired. So how is it possible that he could have believed and taught, under divine inspiration, something which was wrong? Do you think God actually believed what He inspired the writer of Ecclesiates to write? You’re just pushing the problem back one step to God. I don’t believe Jesus and the apostles said things that they didn’t actually believe and knew were false. I don’t believe they were liars. What I do believe is that what they have been said has been profoundly misunderstood.
Again, to use your words, “I don’t see any explanation for the fact that Solomon effectively strengthened the belief in such a naive and harmful superstition and even used it to gain credence”. It doesn’t matter that he actually believed it, the fact is he was inspired by God, and God clearly authorized him to “effectively strengthen the belief in such a naive and harmful superstition”, to borrow your words.
[quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:195, topic:4581”]
(2) The eyewitness accounts testify of direct interaction with demons. You did not present any exegetical principle that allows one to distort the Scriptures to such an extent that all direct encounters with demonic entities were imaginary or figurative.[/quote]
Could we please leave out disparaging terminology such as “distort the Scriptures”? It’s the kind of unnecessary polemic habitually aimed at Biologos and its writers, when they make the case that evolution is compatible with Genesis 1.
In fact I did give you an exegetical principle with which to understand the demon passages. I cited the exegetical example of reconciling heliocentrism with the Bible, and I also made the point that in order to understand the demonological language of the New Testament it is necessary to understand the Second Temple Period socio-historical context. I also told you this.
Of course I don’t believe Jesus and the Apostles effectively strengthened the belief in such a naive and harmful superstition and even used it to gain credence. The evidence is to the contrary; demonic possession and exorcism are absent from Paul’s letters and he never encouraged anyone to believe in them. It is no surprise 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.
Those facts merit careful reflection.
On the contrary, I firmly believe he did.
Correct.
I’m familiar with the passage. It’s a great example of how to correct an illogical argument. But there’s nothing there to indicate Jesus believed in demons. I could say exactly the same, despite not believing in demons.
What Jesus said there, he said to his disciples. He did not say it to us.
I understand what you’re saying, it’s just not relevant to what I believe. i don’t believe anyone is indwelled by an impersonal power, nor do I believe anyone is filled completely with an impersonal power as a basement can be filled with water. Again, you’re talking about the Holy Spirit as if I beleive it’s totally separate from God and is just some random “stuff” floating around the place. These concepts to which you’re referring just aren’t relevant to what I believe, nor do they describe the Holy Spirit and its activity as it was understood in Second Temple Period Judaism.
What I also understand you to be saying is that being completely filled by person A means you are actually completely filled by person B.
Yes I understand that very well, thanks. To me it’s like saying “I don’t think that communication from one person to another person would take place through impersonal vibrations transmitted through the impersonal air, detected by an impersonal eardrum; if a person wants to talk to another person, it makes no sense to say they just made some kind of impersonal vibrations, they have to actually fill the other person from inside”. So we can say with confidence that the mouth, vocal chords, and eardrum have absolutely no role in human communication. Because if we did, it would just be impersonal things doing impersonal things, making impersonal noises about things.
Please understand that what I’m interested in is how the Holy Spirit was understood by Christ and the apostles. This means looking at how the Holy Spirit was understood in Second Temple Period Judaism, not looking at how it’s understood by twenty first century Western evangelicals.
That was a completely unwarranted response to what I wrote. I have made it totally clear that the view I am presenting is not unique to me. Nor have I argued that I am the only one who knows exactly how the Bible should be interpreted. I’ll say it again.
-
‘Underlying the view that early Christians ascribed disease wholly or largely to demons is the assumption that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s exorcisms reflect contemporary Jewish views of demonology. The evidence, however, does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries.’, Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45
-
‘The Gospels do not record either Jesus’s explanation of the phenomenon of demonic possession or that of the Evangelists themselves. But although in individual instances some similarities existed between Jesus’s methods and those used by Jewish exorcists, in general, the divergences are much more significant.’, Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45
-
‘In spite of the frequency with which exorcisms appear in Mark, there are several indications that neither Jesus nor the Evangelists believed that disease was ordinarily caused by demons.’, Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45-46
-
‘To say that no physical impairment is attributed in the Gospels to a demon flies in the face of the evidence. But one can say that the three instances cited constitute a relatively small number and that they do not suggest that either Jesus or the Evangelists held in general to a demonic etiology of disease.’, Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 46
-
‘In most reported instances of illness, however, Jesus is said physically to have healed the sick person rather than to have expelled demons (as in the case of the paralytic in John 5:2–9).’, Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 46
-
‘The attribution of infirmity to the Devil or demons is primarily confined to three New Testament documents: Matthew and Luke-Acts. Neither James nor John give any hint that the Devil or demons have a role to play in the infliction of infirmity.’, John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 301
-
‘However, it is interesting that in Acts, while the lines continue to be occasionally blurred in summary statements, there is not a single concrete example of an illness being directly attributed to demonic activity.’, John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 302
-
‘To describe the particular outworkings of that evil power he Paul uses a variety of conceptualities, and it remains unclear whether he [Paul] conceives of serried ranks of evil beings (fallen angels, demonic spirits) or simply of a single focus of hostility to God of cosmic proportions (that is, not reducible to psychological or sociological neuroses) with many particular manifestations in the lives of individuals and societies.’, Dunn & Twelftree, ‘Demon-Possession and Exorcism in The New Testament’, Churchman (94.219), 1980.
And again, according to Högskolan, there is ‘some disagreement as to how real the devil was for John’,[1] with some commentators believing the devil in John is ‘a literary personification of sin rather than as an independently acting being.’[2] Thomas notes John never uses satan and demons as an etiology of illness, and ‘shows no real interest in the topic’;[3] he also says ‘Neither James nor John give any hint that the Devil or demons have a role to play in the infliction of infirmity’.[4]
Caird says ‘it is a matter of some delicacy to determine how far the New Testament writers took their language literally’,[5] and proposes satan may have been a personification to some in the early church (including Paul), rather than a person.[6] Wahlen notes that in Luke ‘illness is never described as the result of demonic activity’,[7] and Ferngren concludes ‘The evidence, however, does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries’.[8]
This is the opposite of me claiming I am the only one who knows how to interpret Scripture correctly. And I’ll also repeat another point I made previously. What I see is Christians claiming to believe in demons, but being unable to tell the difference between people who are demonically possessed and people who are not demonically possessed, and treating people who are demonically possessed in the same way they treat people who are not demonically possessed. This makes the entire doctrine a complete waste of time. If you believe in it, then start acting like it.
[1] Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” Sven. Exegetisk Aarsb. 74 (2009): 54.
[2] Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World” , 58.
[3] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought (A&C Black, 1998), 162.
[4] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, 301.
[5] G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110.
[6] G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology , 110.
[7] Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 173.
[8] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45.
1 Like
Let’s get one thing straight: I have never denied the existence of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) or or angels or Satan. I agree that there are evil forces at work in the world. All I said was that I don’t believe in demon possession. And because I don’t believe in demon possession, I will never be bothered by them.
The rector of my old church told the story of meeting a woman in Africa who became a Christian from a lifetime of paganism. He asked her what the best part of her new life was. She replied that she didn’t have to be afraid anymore. In her culture, people lived their lives in fear of demons, witchcraft, spirits, and whatever.
Please read The Boy who Harnessed the Wind by William Kamkwamba, an amazing young African man. He gives a good description of what it’s like to grow up in a pervasive atmosphere of witchcraft and magic. That might sound charming to outsiders, but for people who have to deal with it every day it’s a different matter.
2 Likes
We should have learned something from the European witch hunt craze.
Because simply believing in demon possession can do great harm to people. In poor countries with no access to mental health services, the mentally ill are chained up in “prayer camps” because mental illness is seen as a spiritual problem.
Report Decries Treatment of Mentally Ill in Ghana
I do believe in prayer, but it’s not a substitute for medical care. If a person is acutely ill, seek immediate medical attention. Don’t delay treatment by trying to pray away demons.
It is not the belief that is doing the harm though, it is what people have chosen to do and not do motivated by the belief. You could make the same argument that belief that God answers prayer can do great harm to people. Or belief that divorce is bad can do great harm to people. Or the belief that children require parental discipline can do great harm to people. Many, many Christian beliefs, if they are authoritatively and ignorantly misapplied to certain situations can do great harm to people. It doesn’t follow that we should therefore fight against the belief…
Of course. Same goes for fever or cancer or depression or whatever. But do you not believe there are any cases in the world where people exhibit physical symptoms for which no physical cause can be found? With my friend in the mountains, her family had already spent all their life savings pursuing medical treatments and consulting doctors in the city for two years with no results. Prayer was a last-ditch effort they didn’t even believe would work.
1 Like
Huh? Because Jesus and the apostles did YEC apologetics somewhere in Scripture and there are so many personal testimonies of people not evolving… What does this even mean?
Diagnosing people via YouTube is stupid, for one thing.
No, because so many people believe the Bible teaches YEC explicitly, and they believe the personal witnesses of people like Christ denies evolution explicitly. For example, Jesus said “in the beginning He made them, man and woman”. There you have it, evolution totally demolished by the personal testimony of Christ himself.
And I’ll put it another way. See this?
Those are the same arguments aimed at Christians who don’t believe in a supernatural satan and demons.
Well yeah, but no one needs to actually do that. The simple fact is that if demonic affliction or possession was responsible for any infirmities, it would be detectable. Likewise, if any of these Christian “faith healers” were genuine (instead of being deluded or dishonest), the evidence would be indisputable.
Correct. I was quoting Fenrgren in a manner which identified clearly the difference between his position and mine. This is called intellectual honesty.
That is hardly surprising, since as confessional scholars they are committed to belief in satan and demons as part of their theology. So what?
And you will note just how different his account is to the accounts in the gospels.
Belief in demons in Second Temple Period Judaism is non-controversial. This contributes nothing to the discussion.
And who argues that Jesus was a fake magician whose beliefs and teachings were grounded in Semitic paganism. You’re welcome to hold that position if it suits you, but it has nothing to do with the Jesus of reality.
Again, this is non-controversial. I own Russell’s book, and if you had read my articles on these subjects (to which I linked), you would have seen me both citing and criticizing it.
No I am not representing mainstream scholarship on the subject of demons in the New Testament in a one-sided way. If I had said “This is what mainstream scholarship says on the subject of demons in the New Testament” and then only cited scholarship in agreement with, or convenient to, my position, you would have grounds for objection. But I did not do this.
As I stated explicitly, I stated that the position for which I am arguing can be found in the mainstream scholarly literature, and I cited that literature to prove my statement is true. I did not represent it as the only view of mainstream scholarly literature, or even as the dominant view.
How about those European witch hunts?
If I liked your post it was a mistake.
1 Like
Are we talking about simply prayer for a physical affliction here or exorcism? If God answered your prayer, that wouldn’t automatically mean that demonic activity had been involved.
Of course there are baffling mysteries and illnesses in the natural world. But scientists don’t give up when they don’t have answers. Instead, they work even harder. Otherwise, where would we be if they just gave up and looked to demons? I mean, just look at Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia. If a person didn’t know better, he could easily attribute the symptoms to demon possession. Why else would a formerly kind person suddenly start swearing and physically attacking caregivers, or become paranoid and start to imagine all kinds of crazy things? Scientists have developed a few medications but they have a long way to go. Thankfully, they will keep working on this and other problems.
Demon-of-the-gaps explanations are no more useful than God-of-the-gaps ones.
2 Likes
Maybe so, in some cases. The most benign form of demon belief is to ignore demons and behave as if they don’t actually exist. And, of course, to seek medical treatment for people suffering from epilepsy, depression, schizophrenia, etc. In this age, we can choose whether or we want to live in a demon-haunted world.
1 Like
Yes indeed, we’ll have to visit Holy Trinity Unitarian Church.
Prayer, be it prayer against demons or physical ailments or whatever, doesn’t equate with “giving up” on other methods. It may become a much more agonized or sincere prayer when other methods are failing to work, but as far as expended effort goes, this is not at all a zero-sum process. To treat it as such is to make the same fallacy of caricature that so many anti-theists make as they deride prayer as a dangerous distraction from “real” solutions. They are locked into this mental rut of two approaches being in competition with each other and one can labor (often in vain) to free them from that mental rut.
2 Likes