Demon possession was EXTREMELY common in Matt. and Mark

[Ian Ferrin]

(Jesus) had all the "training" he needed to discern evil spirits, cast them out and to also heal physical brain illness, all at the same time.

I 100% agree with this. Are you agreeing that the 'demon possessed' of Matt. and Mark are, by and large, the same folks as the psychotically mentally ill of today?

 

[NBB]

They certainly have spiritual problems. I believe the psychotically mentally ill of today are the 'demon possessed' of the Bible. You seem to saying Matthew and Mark were wrong in their characterizations?

No no, by spiritual problems its just a way of saying problems with evil sprits. Yes, even people who don't seem mentally ill can have problems.

 

[Ian Ferrin]

They certainly have spiritual problems. I believe the psychotically mentally ill of today are the 'demon possessed' of the Bible. You seem to saying Matthew and Mark were wrong in their characterizations?

No no, by spiritual problems its just a way of saying problems with evil sprits. Yes, even people who don't seem mentally ill can have problems.

You seem to be avoiding the language of the Bible? Specifically the term 'demon possession'?

So you're saying you agree with Matt. and Mark that Jesus very frequently cast demons out of folks?

 

[NBB]

You seem to be avoiding the language of the Bible? Specifically the term 'demon possession'?

So you're saying you agree with Matt. and Mark that Jesus very frequently cast demons out of folks?

i don't know what you understood i said, but, yes Jesus casted out demons all the time and this exists today too.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Do you believe the psychotically mentally ill of today are the 'demon possessed' of the Bible?

No, they aren't.

Those unclean spirits all "passed out of the land", just as Zechariah 13:2 prophesied would take place during the same time frame when Judah and Jerusalem were experiencing a siege. This entire Zechariah chapter 12-14:15 prophecy for all the "In that day" predictions related to the siege period of AD 66-70 Jerusalem is long past.

Jesus predicted in Matthew 12:43-45 a time for His own wicked generation when the devils that He and His disciples had been casting out of Israel's citizens would all return, each with seven devils more wicked than they themselves were. And it would happen to that wicked generation in its "last state", making it even worse than it had ever been during its "first state" when Christ was among them.

And Revelation 18:2 said that all the unclean spirits would be imprisoned together inside the city of Jerusalem, which was called "Babylon the great". When possessed individuals were imprisoned in the city of Jerusalem during the siege, this also imprisoned the unclean spirits who were intent on possessing them.

Isaiah 24:21-23 also predicted this same time frame when all the evil angelic host of the high ones would be punished by being imprisoned together along with the "kings of the earth". After many days, all of these would be gone, since Isaiah said they would be "found wanting". The "kings of the earth" (tes ges) was the specific title for the high priests of the land of Israel, according to scripture (not to be confused with "the kings of the whole world" (oikoumenes holes). Since there are no longer any high priest kings of the earth around and haven't been any operating since AD 70, that means God got rid of both them and the entire Satanic realm all at the same time they were imprisoned together.

Satan that "Dragon" and the "Serpent" was going to be slain by God, as predicted by Isaiah 27:1. And the time when that was fulfilled was mentioned in Romans 16:20 (written around AD 60). Paul promised that "the God of peace shall crush Stan under your feet SHORTLY." Ezekiel 28:18-19 also predicted the death of Satan as the "anointed cherub" who had been in Eden. God would bring fire out of that creature that would reduce him to ashes upon the earth. "And never shalt thou exist anymore", God foretold of Satan.

Demon possession is not just "rare"; it has actually been non-existent since AD 70 when God destroyed the Satanic realm entirely. What evil exists today is what emerges from out of the hearts of men. The blame for any illness or disease can be laid at the feet of Adam's one act of disobedience, since "in Adam all die".

 

[Ian Ferrin]

i don't know what you understood i said, but, yes Jesus casted out demons all the time and this exists today too.

You're correct that I didn't understand what you were saying. Thanks very much for clarifying!

 

[Ian Ferrin]

Demon possession is not just "rare"; it has actually been non-existent since AD 70 when God destroyed the Satanic realm entirely.

Thanks much for the very thoughtful response. I disagree with the above. Your argument can be disagreed with strongly both on a modern experiential level AND on the basis of scripture.

Nevertheless, the question I'd ask you is, even if they're not currently possessed, do you believe the psychotically mentally ill of today WERE the 'demon possessed' of the Bible? And if not, how did Jesus encounter the 'demon possessed' in virtually every village he entered?

Surely they had Schizophrenic and other non-functional psychotic folk in Jesus' time? Is there any evidence the ~0030 AD people made a distinction between the truly demon possessed and the psychotically mentally ill?

Peace, Ian

 

[3 Resurrections]

Thanks much for the very thoughtful response. I disagree with the above. Your argument can be disagreed with strongly both on a modern experiential level AND on the basis of scripture.

Nevertheless, the question I'd ask you is, even if they're not currently possessed, do you believe the psychotically mentally ill of today WERE the 'demon possessed' of the Bible? And if not, how did Jesus encounter the 'demon possessed' in virtually every village he entered?

Surely they had Schizophrenic and other non-functional psychotic folk in Jesus' time? Is there any evidence the ~0030 AD people made a distinction between the truly demon possessed and the psychotically mentally ill?

Almost every person I encounter with these texts on the AD 70 destruction of the entire Satanic realm disagrees with them, so you are comfortably aligned with the majority opinion, Ian. The majority does not necessarily make it so, however. And I have by no means exhausted scripture's references to the eradication of Satan's forces and when that would take place. The verses are there. Most just don't know what to do with them, or they would rather retain the idea that Satan is still around so that their sin can be blamed on him instead of their own heart issues.

As for relying on "modern experience" to prove that the demonic and Satanic is still actively in existence, that is perhaps due more to its promulgation by the institutional Church who has used the fear of the evil spiritual realm to its very great personal as well as financial advantage. Fear is a great motivator for forming public opinion on a topic. Can we say "the Salem witch trials"? The movie industry has also used the belief in a still-existing Satanic realm to its financial advantage. However, I don't think those such as Linda Blair etc. should determine our doctrinal positions on this theme.

If you are wanting to determine if people's psychotic issues were ever induced by the demonic, I would have to say no. I think the demonic formerly used to collaborate with and take advantage of already-existing psychotic conditions that a person suffered from, but I don't think they caused them to begin with. Some comments above I believe have already mentioned the separation of the mentally insane and also those with demonic possession as being different ailments. Matthew 4:24 divides them as such. "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, AND those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them."

 

[ViaCrucis]

God and Jesus can communicate with multiple persons at the same time. Do you have any evidence Satan and demons can't do the same thing?

That's a false comparison. God is God. The devil is a mere creature.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned. I don't think that the examples we have in the Gospels presents us with demon possession being normative. That our Lord Jesus Christ drove out demons during His earthly ministry doesn't mean that demon possession is common.

That's why traditionally churches, especially as we've learned to recognize the reality of mental illness and psychological issues, have made a concerted effort to only perform exorcism when we can rule out naturalistic causes. And, yes, actual demon possession is rare.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ian Ferrin]

I believe have already mentioned the separation of the mentally insane and also those with demonic possession as being different ailments. Matthew 4:24 divides them as such. "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, AND those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Thanks again for the very thoughtful response 3 Resurrections. I don't really know about your main 70AD argument. Do you have references from others who believe as you do? A book perhaps?

Re. your use of 'lunatick', most translations seem to translate that word as 'epileptic'. This would seem to negate your argument that the Bible makes a distinction between the insane and the possessed. As I mentioned in my original post, this is the only verse where Jesus 'heals' the demon possessed. In all other verses about possession, he casts the demons out. And again, Matt and Mark consistently separate the 'sick' and the 'demon possessed'.

Peace, Ian

 

[Ian Ferrin]

That our Lord Jesus Christ drove out demons during His earthly ministry doesn't mean that demon possession is common.

Thanks so much for your response. I think your thinking is the predominant thinking across mainstream and many conservative churches. I think it's certainly the almost exclusive belief in Christian psychology and probably most seminaries. However, I've never heard anything approaching a convincing argument. It seems to be a belief based on a belief and based primarily on modern mental health science. It seems to put science ahead of the Bible? And it seems to largely ignore the powerful Biblical language of Jesus, over and over again, casting out demons in most all the villages he entered.

If you make a slight tweak to your statement you get: "That our Lord Jesus Christ drove out demons during His earthly ministry doesn't mean that demon possession was common." Would you still agree with your statement phrased this way?

I believe demon possession was extremely common in Jesus' time. I believe he encountered the the possessed in virtually every village as I argue in my original post. Would you disagree with this on an historical basis? Are you arguing that most folks described a 'demon possessed', were not really demon possessed? This really seems to be your argument?

And I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone else: Do you believe the psychotically mentally ill of today are, essentially, the same people described as 'demon possessed' by Matthew and Mark?

Thanks again, Peace, Ian

 

[Ian Ferrin]

That's why traditionally churches, especially as we've learned to recognize the reality of mental illness and psychological issues, have made a concerted effort to only perform exorcism when we can rule out naturalistic causes. And, yes, actual demon possession is rare.

To me, this is the main fallacy of 'Christian' psychology. The belief, and yes, it's nothing but a belief, is that if a psychotic person improves with meds, that that proves they aren't demon possessed. But it proves nothing. It's just a belief. Where are the studies? Where are the clinical trials? Answer, there aren't any. It's a belief, pure and simple. And IMO, the Church has fallen for it.

I'm not arguing that the mentally ill should go off their meds. Far from it. I think meds drastically improve the lives of the mentally ill. And I'm not arguing that the brains of Schizophrenics aren't abnormal. But to say that if a psychotic person improves with meds means that there's no underlying demonic activity, is is pure supposition based on belief. IMO. And there's NO Biblical justification for that belief. There IS science that proves that psychosis can be treated with meds. But there is NO science that proves that a clear thinking psychotic person is still not demon possessed.

I'm not arguing we should try to exorcise treated psychotic persons. I don't believe that. I don't fully understand what's really going on between the drugs and the spiritual realm. Honestly, I don't understand at all what's really going on between the drugs and the spiritual realm! Does Christian psychology? But I think it's pretty clear that the 'demon possessed' of the Bible were largely the Schizophrenics and other psychotic folk of today. I think the Church has abdicated authority over the mind to mostly secular psychiatry/psychology. And I think a recognition of what was really happening in Jesus' ministry might allow the Church to really examine the issue more truthfully.

Jesus cast out demons in every village he entered. Demon possession was common. I think Christian psychology needs a better apologetic to reconcile the divide between what they unscientifically believe and what the Bible says!

 

[ViaCrucis]

To me, this is the main fallacy of 'Christian' psychology. The belief, and yes, it's nothing but a belief, is that if a psychotic person improves with meds, that that proves they aren't demon possessed. But it proves nothing. It's just a belief. Where are the studies? Where are the clinical trials? Answer, there aren't any. It's a belief, pure and simple. And IMO, the Church has fallen for it.

I'm not arguing that the mentally ill should go off their meds. Far from it. I think meds drastically improve the lives of the mentally ill. And I'm not arguing that the brains of Schizophrenics aren't abnormal. But to say that if a psychotic person improves with meds means that there's no underlying demonic activity, is is pure supposition based on belief. IMO. And there's NO Biblical justification for that belief. There IS science that proves that psychosis can be treated with meds. But there is NO science that proves that a clear thinking psychotic person is still not demon possessed.

I'm not arguing we should try to exorcise treated psychotic persons. I don't believe that. I don't fully understand what's really going on between the drugs and the spiritual realm. Honestly, I don't understand at all what's really going on between the drugs and the spiritual realm! Does Christian psychology? But I think it's pretty clear that the 'demon possessed' of the Bible were largely the Schizophrenics and other psychotic folk of today. I think the Church has abdicated authority over the mind to mostly secular psychiatry/psychology. And I think a recognition of what was really happening in Jesus' ministry might allow the Church to really examine the issue more truthfully.

Jesus cast out demons in every village he entered. Demon possession was common. I think Christian psychology needs a better apologetic to reconcile the divide between what they unscientifically believe and what the Bible says!

If I get a bacterial infection and I am prescribed antibiotics, and the antibiotics treat the malady, then it's pretty safe to say that the infection isn't caused by anything demonic.

It's no different when the malady is related to the brain as it would any other part of the body.

So I'm going to stand by what I said already.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ian Ferrin]

If I get a bacterial infection and I am prescribed antibiotics, and the antibiotics treat the malady, then it's pretty safe to say that the infection isn't caused by anything demonic.

It's no different when the malady is related to the brain as it would any other part of the body.

I'm actually surprised you responded at all. Your viewpoint is the prevailing view.

Nevertheless, IMO it's also a statement of faith. IMO it's a theory or hypothesis at best and wishful thinking at worst. Has ANY true research been done on the Christian side? The theory that a treated psychotic person can't also still be possessed has no basis in real evidence. A presupposition of this theory is that a treated psychotic person can't also be demon possessed. That's another belief that has to be taken by faith. Again, where's the evidence? And the infection analogy, I don't think applies here. If a psychotic person goes off their meds, they revert to psychosis.

Thanks for participating. The percent of psychotic folks refractory to meds is extraordinarily small. If the very common occurrence of demon possession in Matt and Mark, weren't the psychotic folk of today, who were they?

Thanks again,

Ian

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm actually surprised you responded at all. Your viewpoint is the prevailing view.

Nevertheless, IMO it's also a statement of faith. IMO it's a theory or hypothesis at best and wishful thinking at worst. Has ANY true research been done on the Christian side? The theory that a treated psychotic person can't also still be possessed has no basis in real evidence. A presupposition of this theory is that a treated psychotic person can't also be demon possessed. That's another belief that has to be taken by faith. Again, where's the evidence? And the infection analogy, I don't think applies here. If a psychotic person goes off their meds, they revert to psychosis.

Thanks for participating. The percent of psychotic folks refractory to meds is extraordinarily small. If the very common occurrence of demon possession in Matt and Mark, weren't the psychotic folk of today, who were they?

Thanks again,

Ian

Research implies a scientific study. If we are talking about the supernatural (aka demons) then we are no longer talking about science. All scientific research involves the naturalistic side of things, that's the very essence of science, methodological naturalism. Once we talk about something beyond the scope of the purely natural, it is no longer science--but instead metaphysical philosophy or theology.

What we do have, however, is two thousand years of Christian experience and tradition. That's the closest one can get to research, the shared and collective witness and experience of the Christian Church. Which, again, brings us back to the same points I've already made.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ian Ferrin]

What we do have, however, is two thousand years of Christian experience and tradition. That's the closest one can get to research, the shared and collective witness and experience of the Christian Church.

Are you saying a Christian, say 100 years ago, would have believed as you do about the separation of psychosis and demon possession?

And again, the percent of psychotic folks refractory to meds is extraordinarily small. If the very common occurrence of demon possession in Matt and Mark, weren't the psychotic folk of today, who were they?

Peace, Ian

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you saying a Christian, say 100 years ago, would have believed as you do about the separation of psychosis and demon possession?

And again, the percent of psychotic folks refractory to meds is extraordinarily small. If the very common occurrence of demon possession in Matt and Mark, weren't the psychotic folk of today, who were they?

Peace, Ian

No, I think our knowledge of medicine has improved since 100 years ago, and certainly has improved since 2000 or 1000 years ago.

That knowledge has been part of the Church's experience.

Five hundred years ago we all thought that the sun orbited around the earth, then people like Copernicus and Galileo showed us otherwise. Now, as Christians, we have no trouble accepting the findings of Copernicus and Galileo into our understanding of the natural world. In the time of St. Augustine it was considered far-fetched to conceive that there were people who lived on the opposite side of the globe, as the equator was considered to be an impassible zone and thus nobody could live beyond it. We attributed disease to the theory of the four humors until relatively modern times, then we discovered germ theory.

We incorporate our knowledge of the natural world into our understanding of the world, while holding firm to the teaching and faith we have received from the beginning. That's how Christianity has always done things.

But, yes, a hundred years ago psychosis probably wouldn't have been viewed as demonic possession, we have been aware of mental disorders for quite some time, though our understanding about them has drastically improved over the past century.

So, again, I will affirm the points which I've already stated. Exorcism is only applicable for demon possession, and demon possession is a rare and specific thing that is fundamentally not physiological.

If you want to argue that demons may exploit us in our weaknesses, including mental and/or bodily maladies, then I wouldn't disagree. But that's not demon possession. The devil is a liar and a scoundrel, and of course he tries to exploit our weaknesses, our struggles, our fears, our anxieties. He exploited Eve in the Garden by undermining her trust in God's promises.

But that's a very different thing than possession, a demon literally taking possession within a human being. That is exceedingly rare, and good churches make every effort when dealing with claims of possession to rule out other possible causes. Because if someone is suffering and struggling with mental illness and we start acting as though it is demon possession, that is only going to wreak further harm upon the person's injured mind--that is only going to cause harm and additional trauma. It's not just bad practice, it's literally dangerous.

The Church is called by her Lord to minister to the physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs of people. Frivolous exorcism is not ministry, but harm.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ian Ferrin]

Frivolous exorcism is not ministry, but harm.

I don't know how you possibly construed that I'm advocating for exorcism of clear thinking mentally ill persons. I'm not. And I've said that at least a couple of times. I don't know what's going on in the spiritual realm when a psychotic person thinks more clearly on meds. I absolutely reject that that is proof the person isn't or wasn't initially demon possessed. But I would NEVER encourage anyone to go off their meds or to seek seek exorcism. And I'm pretty sure most most Catholic exorcists would council the same. I'm pretty sure most Catholic exorcists are not very interested in folk functioning on meds?

My MAIN question is about the biblical narrative. You seem to have avoided answering my questions about it?

The biblical narrative is that Jesus cast out demons in almost every village he entered. The demon possessed were basically as common as the sick. That's the narrative in Matt. and Mark. And then Jesus taught his disciples to do the same and sent them out with a mandate to heal the sick and cast out demons.

Since you believe demon possession is extraordinarily rare, I think your only plausible explanation would be that, in most cases, Jesus and his disciples weren't really casting out demons but healing the mentally ill? Maybe in a case like legion, he actually cast out demons, but mostly, Jesus and the disciples were healing the mentally ill? Is this what you believe?

If not, is there another plausible explanation that fits the Biblical narrative?

Peace, Ian

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't know how you possibly construed that I'm advocating for exorcism of clear thinking mentally ill persons. I'm not. And I've said that at least a couple of times. I don't know what's going on in the spiritual realm when a psychotic person thinks more clearly on meds. I absolutely reject that that is proof the person isn't or wasn't initially demon possessed. But I would NEVER encourage anyone to go off their meds or to seek seek exorcism. And I'm pretty sure most most Catholic exorcists would council the same. I'm pretty sure most Catholic exorcists are not very interested in folk functioning on meds?

My MAIN question is about the biblical narrative. You seem to have avoided answering my questions about it?

The biblical narrative is that Jesus cast out demons in almost every village he entered. The demon possessed were basically as common as the sick. That's the narrative in Matt. and Mark. And then Jesus taught his disciples to do the same and sent them out with a mandate to heal the sick and cast out demons.

Since you believe demon possession is extraordinarily rare, I think your only plausible explanation would be that, in most cases, Jesus and his disciples weren't really casting out demons but healing the mentally ill? Maybe in a case like legion, he actually cast out demons, but mostly, Jesus and the disciples were healing the mentally ill? Is this what you believe?

If not, is there another plausible explanation that fits the Biblical narrative?

Peace, Ian

I'm a bit confused then.

Exorcism--delivering people from the demonic--is how the Church ministers to those suffering with demonic possession.

If a person is demon possessed, then the Church's ministerial response to that is exorcism.

So I don't understand how you can say on the one hand a person could be demon possessed but not be in need of exorcism. If someone doesn't need exorcism, then they aren't demonically possessed.

Am I missing something?

-CryptoLutheran