Wow – Heiser rips this book yet it has a glowing review on the Logos site he worked with/for!
My respect for Walton dropped a few notches when he asserted that there’s nothing about material creation in Genesis 1, but this is bizarre. John ought to stick with his area of expertise, which is early Genesis, and stop trying to bring in bucks by writing books on popular topics.
Halfway through and thinking this is definitely worth listening to, if for no other reason than to listen to Dr. Heiser go through passage after passage about demonic powers and spiritual warfare!
But they could, as evidenced by the Gospels – plenty of healings were recorded as just that, healings. Might they have been wrong sometimes? Sure. But to say they couldn’t tell the difference goes too far.
Nothing odd about that; He was being as merciful as possible in the situation.
How about when what we’re dealing with isn’t natural in the first place?
What diagnostic tool do you recommend for detecting demons? or is your assertion that we are superior because we know so much more?
No ghosts involved.
Well, those offspring could, and were.
I have no idea, nor any interest in the question since the answer would be meaningless anyway.
No – only elohim were on the council, which is not the same thing. Any being belonging to the spiritual realm is an elohim, including the spirits of dead prophets.
Seriously? Even if you ignore the Anakim/Rephaim situation, God needed to build a nation with a Law, covenants, a Temple, etc.
Interesting question. But there are experiences in modern times that are said to be demonic that can’t be dismissed so easily. Also there’s that atheist psychiatrist I’ve mentioned before who said some cases can only be explained by demonic activity.
From what Heiser had to say about Walton’s book, I’d say that would be where they would have to land in order to be consistent.
I can only hope I would have the faith of Abraham to do what is right.
A full understanding of the issue requires looking at all the evidence, not the one account with the highest chance of being creatively embellished.
Maybe when scripture AnD Jesus teach otherwise? I find methodological naturalism useful but it’s only one tool. I am not an atheist.
It is in Mark as well. Keep in mind a full blown judgment on the temple is a judgment on Israel and its leaders. This was God’s home on earth and the center of Jewish worship. The temple was magnificent and a marvel of the ancient world. For the temple to be destroyed is about the nation of Israel. It is anachronistic to think otherwise.
the cursing of the fig tree is found as the bread in a Marcan sandwich (a literary device that shows up ~9 or so times). Here is a link to a thread on this. The temple incident with Jesus (sometimes called a “cleansing” but I think prophetic judgment) is the meat inside the bread of the literary device. When Mark sandwiches material it usually means the internal material is a key to unlocking its meaning or it moves us to deeper insight. The temple was too big and too busy at the time to be “cleansed.” People in one part would have had no idea what was even happening in another it would have been so packed and noisy at the time. It’s probably more about the Gentile court being used for selling livestock. This was a necessary practice as people made long journeys and the offerings had to be unblemished and they needed currency changers because they came from all over the world. It was this way for centuries. There was no pristine original Jesus could hark back to. It would get millions of visitors at Passover and Jesus had to know he would never make a dent in this. Best I can tell, Jesus wanted this done in a different location and flipped tables as a sign of prophetic judgment.
The fig tree withers from its roots at Jesus’s command. The temple will also be totally destroyed (not one stone).
The widow is an example of unbridled charity but this is as much a condemnation of the Jewish leaders and the temple as well. The OT says widows should be looked after but instead she if giving everything she has to the Temple. The irony would not be lost on Mark. She is a victim of exploitation and a failure of the leadership to take care of widows as the OT commands. Just before the scene Jesus talks of the leaders devouring widow’s houses.
Jesus probably isn’t referring to just any mountain but the actual Temple Mount when he says with faith you can throw this into the sea. That’s where they were.
the parable of the tenants is quite clear. The vineyard owner is God, the Son is Jesus etc
12 Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went away. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. 5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others
God, the owner of the vineyard, destroys the vineyard and gives the vineyard away. A strong case can be made that the temple is now inside believers in Mark and again, a judgment on the temple is a judgment on Israel.
Keep in mind all this material is lumped together along with Jesus being challenged repeatedly by people in the temple in a gospel largely written for Greek speaking Gentiles unfamiliar with Aramaic phrases and Jewish customs Mark must explain. That is a lot of Temple related material clustered together for that seemingly non-Jewish audience.
God’s judgment on the temple/Israel is in Mark as well. Luke just comes out and says it directly.
It’s not that I refuse to see them. It’s that you ignore what is written, don’t address details and pontificate on high.
You can argue people would say “Jesus, my son is possessed by a demon and Jesus would heal the individual.” You can claim people thought Jesus was healing demons when in fact he was just curing physical ailments.
But you repeatedly fail to read. The gospel of Mark clearly and unequivocally distinguished between physical healings and spirit possessions/ exorcisms. Clearly people at the time knew not all sickness was the result of a demon. Yes there seems to be a belief that sin leads to bad things but people at the time also had access to the book of Job. Do you think they were all dumb and misunderstood everything? If only they could aspire to your wisdom.
The details of scripture show Jesus having conversations with demons, who know his name, hometown and identity. He silences them and even distinguishes between types privately with his disciples. These are the problem. The details of scripture disagree and you always ignore them while just spitting out whatever random interpretation suits your fancy.
If you want to say those details in the Gospels were made up, just say so. That can end the discussion. But if Jesus is having fake conversations with demons, I’m calling deception. What would it even mean for some demons (just a physical disorder) to come out by prayer and others not?
This has little to do with anything for me. And it’s been a while but you can tell me where is it denied that sin leads to sickness? Logically speaking, that not all sin leads to sickness does not imply that sin does not in some cases lead to sickness. You are using an account of a story with a wager between God and the devil where a man’s family is slaughtered (don’t worry, he is given even more property at the end) to argue sin never results in possession or physical problems? I think you are putting too much weight on one story.
His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
I have often wondered about the meaning of the disciples question. How can the man’s sin lead to his blindness when he was born that way? At any rate, Jesus’s answer does not rule out that sin can lead to physical ailment. You are just not thinking logically or using proper reasoning. All physical ailments and mental problems are not the result of sin. I am not sure on what grounds you can go further than this. But I’m all eyes.
In some cases, bad things happen for our benefit and the glory of God. That’s per Jesus. The man was born blind not because of some random chance of evolutionary biology, but so that the works of God could be made manifest through him.
Just because that is your belief does not make your belief any more authentic or less personal than mine.
I am a Christian. I am also a Spirit filled Christian. I trust you understand the significance of such a statement? Perhaps one of us has committed the ultimate unforgivable sin?
I would be careful what judgements you make public If I were you.
Thank you for the redirection. I started listening to Storms’ book and appreciated it immensely from page 1. He mentions Powlison early on and agrees with him, but they are still worlds apart.
Not merciful at all, fouling a body of water with dead pigs.
You mean conditions like epilepsy, which was once called the “divine disease” by ancient Greeks? Attributing things to demonic possession is a science-stopper, just like Intelligent Design.
Not true. I listened a scholarly, non-fundamentalist online lecture on the Divine Council. (Other groups in the area had similar Divine Councils.) See Psalm 82. Every nation was thought to have its own god, responsible for protecting the people of that land. When they gods failed to do so, the God of Israel demoted them, taking away their divinity. Elohim means God, anyway.
(You can see theological development in the Bible.)
But why does any of that require a Canaanite slaughter?
No, it wouldn’t be meaningless. In this day and age we know a lot about genetics. It’s why we can sequence genomes, trace migrations of people, determine paternity of a child, etc. So what is your explanation for the sexual compatibility between divine beings and humans? And why would divine beings have sex organs? What use did they serve before these beings discovered human women?
Do you believe in incubi–demons said to impregnate human females?
Excellent! You really need to discuss this with other people.
You think Jesus doesn’t want us to search for a natural cause for behavior that we can’t explain? Epilepsy was once called the “sacred disease,” because it was thought to be of divine origin. If scientists didn’t seek a natural explanation they would never have found one.
You are the one who brought up this story to illustrate the violence of Jesus.
I think Jesus wants us to love God and love our neighbor as ourself. I’m not sure how interested he is in the naturalism axe you are grinding. Like I said, methodological naturalism is very useful but it’s not the be all, end all of knowledge.
Do you think we should seek natural causes for what prompted the disciples to think Jesus rose from the dead? I think necromancers stole the body of a Holy man to siphon its powers. Started the whole thing. It’s a natural explanation. Must be better than Jesus actually riding from the dead in your mind.
And a host more, including the big one, God’s judgment on the temple and Israel. This was a minor example. They were just pigs. This account is also only 1 of many exorcism stories in the gospels as well.
You think Jesus doesn’t want us to search for a natural cause for behavior that we can’t explain? Epilepsy was once called the “sacred disease,” because it was thought to be of divine origin. If scientists don’t seek a natural explanation they won’t find one. Turning to demonic explanations is a science-stopper, as is Intelligent Design.
Do you have an exorcist at your church?
No, because science doesn’t have the tools to examine the supernatural.
That’s really insulting and against forum rules. But not surprising at all.
Nonsense. Only for the uninformed. No one gets a proper Roman Catholic exorcist, willy-nilly, without an approved vetting of “the Possessed”, last I heard.
The driving out of evil spirits from persons or places with authority derived from Christ. The NT records exorcisms performed by Jesus, e.g., Mk 5:1-13, and by the apostles, e.g., Acts 16:18. The BOS does not provide a rite of exorcism, but it gives these guidelines: “Those who find themselves in need of such a ministry should make the fact known to the bishop, through their parish priest, in order that the bishop may determine whether exorcism is needed, who is to perform the rite, and what prayers or other formularies are to be used.” Liturgies of the Episcopal Church retain elements of exorcism. Following an ancient tradition, several prayers of the catechumenate call for release from the powers of evil. More commonly, spiritual cleansing and deliverance is the practice of those who pray, “Deliver us from evil.”
“Must be epilepsy” is a brain-stopper.
Multicultural “Abrahami Faiths” all have someone who engages in exorcism:
Neither does history. Bye bye basis for Christian faith. Or maybe science can examine physical disease but does not have the tools for possession?
So you think the history of the natural world (science) must only adhere to naturalism but the history of humans—who are just a link in a long, natural, evolutionary chain shouldn’t appeal only to naturalism? God can intervene (or there can be supernatural forces) in human history but not natural history before humans? This is a schizophrenic view of reality.
No, I said I can’t hand-wave dismiss the OT violence because Jesus, my Lord and Savior, clearly describes God as doing such things on occasion—as the gospels portray Him. Not sinning, not being punished by God is the state of affairs I am comfortable with. But if Jesus says God can punish a sinful people (and that inevitable means collateral damage), who am I to disagree. I could also retort with: “You seem comfortable disregarding what Jesus says.” We are back to square one.
So is believing a man rose from the dead over a half dozen other explanations that don’t require a supernatural miracle. As a Christian I believe in an ordered, rational and comprehensible world. But I also believe in the supernatural.
My current church is evangelical and as I’m guessing you already know—yet you still oddly ask the question anyways—they will tell you Christians can’t be possessed.
The RCC does have exorcists. They consider possession rare now but it clearly does happen in their experience.
What are you talking about? It’s a reductio ad absurdum argument. Show me how it’s false. You are the one who dismisses ID and wants us to seek natural causes everywhere. Well, if you can make an exception at the Resurrection, some of us can make exceptions when scripture has Jesus having conversations with demons he exorcises.
