Demon Possession in 2016

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Casper_Hesp

That’s what some of them believed, but I think that it is quite evident from biblical accounts that most people were often mistaken

Please give me a list of all the times in the New Testament that Jesus or the apostles (or anyone else), said “Sorry you’re wrong, that person isn’t demonically possessed, they’re just ill”, or “That person isn’t just ill, they’re demonically possessed”. On the contrary, what we find repeatedly is that Jesus is confronted with people who have already been diagnosed by others as demonically possessed, and Jesus never once questions that diagnoses. The same goes for the apostles; in Acts 16:16 Luke reports that the girl being exploited by her masters had “a spirit of Python”, without attempting to correct this at all.

@Casper_Hesp

Remember Jesus when He came to calm the storm? He had to reassure His disciples that He was certainly not a ghost.

Well not a ghost exactly, because they didn’t believe he had died. But regardless, it doesn’t address the fact that Jesus never corrected their diagnoses of demon possession, and he didn’t correct anyone else’s either.

@Casper_Hesp

Also, as far as I understand, the Greek Pagans systematically misidentified demons and thought they were deities.

For the Greeks, daimonia were intermediate beings between humans and gods. They were not worshipped as gods, or treated as gods. They could be malicious or benign. But again, that’s neither here nor there; it doesn’t address the issue of diagnosing people who are demonically possessed, and there are no cases in the New Testament in which a pagan Greek diagnosis of demonic possession is corrected by Christ or the apostles or anyone.

@Casper_Hesp

I would say that during the time of Jesus, all people were so confused concerning the discernment of spirits that they usually didn’t know what to believe or not to believe.

But unlike many Christians today, they experienced no difficulty differentiating between people whose illness was caused by demonic oppression or possession, and those whose illness was not. And unlike many Christians today, they treated these people differently; they used special methods of treatment for the demonically oppressed which were not used for those diagnosed as sick from non-demonic causes. And none of this is ever corrected by Christ and the apostles.

@Casper_Hesp

Therefore, I maintain that the power of spiritual discernment always was, still is, and always will be needed for understanding spiritual entities.

But where is the evidence for this? It’s never mentioned in the Bible, and Christ and the apostles just accepted the diagnoses of everyone who was identified by other people as demonically possessed.

@Casper_Hesp

I never used any term like “supernatural powers”. Again, the category “supernatural” is a modern one, such a distinction wasn’t used by the biblical writers.

There’s a sense in which you’re right about the category “supernatural”, but it isn’t relevant to this discussion. The Biblical writers, just like all ancient writers, nevertheless had a conception of what we call “the supernatural” which was essentially the same as ours. Ancient writers knew that anyone raising the dead wasn’t doing so because “That’s just something humans can do”, and they didn’t think that a floating iron axe head was “natural”. They differentiated between miracles and non-miracles, between gods and humans, between divine and non-divine, between demonically possessed and non-demonically possessed. They knew that humans can’t tell the future without access to supra-human knowledge, they knew that humans couldn’t heal people without access to supra-human power, and they knew that humans couldn’t curse people without access to supra-human authority. They really did believe in “supernatural power” and magic, and they treated it as a different category to that which is “natural”.

@Casper_Hesp

We don’t need special powers of our own, but we desperately need the guidance of the Holy Spirit for accurate spiritual discernment. See 1 Corinthians 12:

Ok well this passage doesn’t say “we desperately need the guidance of the Holy Spirit for accurate spiritual discernment”.

@Casper_Hesp

Such direct guidance is possible because the Holy Spirit is a personal entity and not just an impersonal “creating power” like the Christadelphian understanding holds (to my knowledge).

Actually we believe it’s the power of God, but yes we believe it’s impersonal, just like you wouldn’t refer to your arm as a person. I don’t see how this prevents God communicating to us via the Holy Spirit.

[quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:140, topic:4581”]
And I repeat, this insistence on the methods of discernment of being “either possessed or non-possessed” is still a non-issue.[/quote]

It is very much an issue. The point I am making is that people made such a distinction, and they did so without any of the confusion we see among modern Christians. The reason they did so was because they believed the demonically possessed and the non-demonically possessed had to be dealt with differently, not in exactly the same manner.

@Casper_Hesp

In fact, like you say, in the Bible no effort is taken to explain such a distinction.

I’m not sure which part of what I wrote you’re referring to here.

@Casper_Hesp

I don’t know what you mean to say here, but I would be glad to hear what you know about this.

It wasn’t a trick question, it’s just a straight forward inquiry. Which Greek words did Paul use to identify the role of an exorcist, and the act of exorcism, and the demonically possessed? The answer is that Paul never identifies the role of an exorcist, never speaks of the role of an exorcist, never speaks of the act of exorcism, and never speaks of the demonically possessed. It’s as if he didn’t even believe in it.

So, to return to the point, the way Christians today talk about, attempt to discern, and overcome, demonic oppression and possession, bears virtually no resemblance whatsoever to what we find in the Second Temple Period and the first century Christian literature. That’s a big red flag.

[beaglelady]

@OldTimer

OK. Why would anybody say it takes very little water to drown a human? (Ya know, like pediatricians warn parents of young children, and as physicians warn people who are prone to seizures and thereby known to drown in bathtubs.) After all, people like water. Also, people like to use water-based lotions to keep their skin moist in order to keep it healthy. People will even visit beaches and build swimming pools. People clearly love water if it’s available to them! And they can swim.

Yes, by that logical examination of the relationship of humans to water, I have successfully demonstrated that humans would not drown and could not drown in some body of water—whether a permanent geographic feature or a seasonal one—even if afflicted by mania and seizures! And surely that logical analysis settles the matter.

When you said that it takes very little water to drown pigs, you didn’t specify demonized pigs.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

Students rarely use lexicons such as LSJ9 or BDAG in first-year Greek.

Ok at first I thought maybe you were just talking about seminaries, and since I’ve never been to a seminary I would have accepted that. I learned my Greek as part of a classics degree, and lexicons such as LSJ are on standard first year Greek book lists. For example, the first year Greek book list at the Royal Holloway University of London requires students to purchase the intermediate LSJ9, which they describe as “the one we use in class and in the exam”.

But with very little effort I soon found that such lexicons are also recommended or required in first year Greek courses at seminaries. For example, the Reformed Theological Seminary in Houston requires first year Greek students to use BDAG. And unsurprisingly, BDAG is also recommended in standard guidebooks for first year Greek students. Ted Hildebrandt’s “Mastering New Testament Greek: Textbook” (2003), advises first year students to purchase BDAG, and so does John Glynn’s “Commentary and Reference Survey” (2003). This agrees with what I have read in the journals.

@Eddie

And they do not even learn about notions such as “diachronic” and “synchronic” (by those names or without them).

Yeah I’m not convinced of that either sorry, some evidence would be helpful. Could you show me that first year Greek students aren’t taught that Greek changed over time and that this necessitates reading Greek words synchronically with the way they are used in chronologically proximate texts? And the genitive absolute, seriously? One of the least complicated constructions, and a personal favourite of mine in first year Greek.

[beaglelady]

I’ve been aware for many years that the Roman Catholic church has the office of exorcist. Not a surprise then, not a surprise now.

But seriously, why do you sound so much like Rich? If you aren’t Rich, why were you silent back then, simply studying conversations so you could imitate him?

[beaglelady]

So aren’t you and Rich the same person?

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

But back to demons and exorcism: since you knew, even back then, that the Roman Church maintained exorcists, then you can’t have been scoffing at Rich’s claim that they did. What then, were you scoffing at? That the Roman Church was so silly as to believe in demons and demonic possession in a scientific age?

I wasn’t scoffing. Demon possession isn’t part of any of our creeds. Nobody is required to believe in demon possession. Does your own church do exorcisms?

Aren’t you and Rich the same person?

[beaglelady]

The Bible is true, but the writers accepted an ancient science in explaining certain phenomena.

Aren’t you and Rich the same person?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

So the Bible teaches something false when it says that Jesus spoke to demons, then sent them into pigs?

So the Bible teaches something false when it says there’s a solid firmament separating the waters below from the waters above, the sun rises and sets and the earth shall not be moved?

@Eddie

What “really” happened, in your view, was that Jesus spoke to a madman, and the pigs just happened (nothing at all to do with the contents of the conversation between Jesus and the madman) to rush madly down into the water to their death?

What really happens, in your view, is that the earth orbits the sun, which only appears to move, and the firmament doesn’t exist at all?

@Eddie

So the Biblical writer paints a factually incorrect picture of what happened? He looked at the events, and then misinterpreted them?

So the Biblical writer paints a factually incorrect picture of what happened? He looked at the sky and sun and then misinterpreted them?

@Eddie

And that this story, full of misinterpretation by its own narrator, is what the Church rightly insisted upon as the divinely revealed, divinely inspired, and wholly true word of God?

“And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.”

“I add that the words ’ the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.”

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

There are those who think the intensity of Jesus’ divine presence TRIGGERED the manifestation of demonic entities… entities that rarely traverse the earthly sphere in the modern world…

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

As soon as the ad hoc arguments come out, you know people have no evidence for their claims.

[OldTimer]

@Jonathan_Burke

the earth shall not be moved?

They spoke of the ERETZ (the land beneath their feet) being—in general—something stable which could be relied upon as the foundation of buildings and life in general. That was the meaning of “the earth shall not be moved.” Obviously, it was NOT an absolute belief. After all, they were very aware of instances where the land beneath their feet DID move. Earthquakes. Land slides. Mud flows. Many of their statements about the ERETZ (i.e., the land, NOT “planet earth”) shall not be moved were philosophical expressions of the fact that humans at the time were powerless to move the ground beneath their feet.

One of the most pervasive misunderstandings of the Biblical text is misunderstanding “the earth” (the ERETZ) in the Old Testament and in the KJV English of 1611 as “planet earth” instead of land, nation, country or soil, ground. So the Bible’s statements about “the earth”—even in early modern English, long before the modern science and even the space problem shifted our primary thoughts about the word EARTH to planetary rather than more “local” perspectives—were better rendered and understood in 1611 KJV English than in today’s English.

So whenever anyone is tempted to interpret “the earth shall not be moved” as some sort of declaration of absolute motionlessness (whether of the entire planet or just the ground beneath one’s feet), remind them that the ancients were well aware of the reality of earthquakes and landslides.

Yes, the ancients got lots of things wrong. Yes, the Bible includes statements which defy modern science if interpreted “literally”. [As always, I find the word “literally” annoying because people define it in so many different ways and equivocation fallacies abound.] But “the ERETZ shall not be moved” did not mean what many modern day readers anachronistically assume it to mean. All humans, then and now, regard “the ground” as something which is a stable frame of reference which continues to support us and life in general. We are born on it and we die on it.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@OldTimer

Many of their statements about the ERETZ (i.e., the land, NOT “planet earth”) shall not be moved were philosophical expressions of the fact that humans at the time were powerless to move the ground beneath their feet.

Yes I agree with that. You and I understand that. The Catholic Church did not understand that. And this is the point, isn’t it, that the passages must be interpreted correctly, and in order to do that we need some method of verifying the interpretation. Otherwise it’s a free for all brawl, and people make hideous blunders all over the place.

@OldTimer

One of the most pervasive misunderstandings of the Biblical text is misunderstanding “the earth” (the ERETZ) in the Old Testament and in the KJV English of 1611 as “planet earth” instead of land, nation, country or soil, ground.

I agree with that as well. The fact is the ancient Hebrews had no concept of the entire planet, so eretz couldn’t have this meaning. But many people think it does have this meaning, because they’re not reading the text in its original socio-historical context. And I am arguing the same applies to the demon passages.

[OldTimer]

@Jonathan_Burke

And I am arguing the same applies to the demon passages.

Excellent. Then the ERETZ example will hopefully clarify this sub-thread.