Sickness and disease. Does N.T. teach possession part 3

[Bob corrigan]

I understand that most people don't have the time to study biblical topics for themselves. They trust and rely on what they are being taught. Many have study bibles, but very few take the time even to use a study bible properly. Studying Scripture requires much reading, reading on many different topics. People who do not have an academic mindset (Not a criticism, just stating a fact) have no interest in researching anything; they find it boring and it does not satisfy any intellectual itch.

I mentioned in the first part of this study that the biggest problem with what churchgoers believe about "demons" and "demon possession" is due to the English versions, how they are worded, how they read, and what people are taught. I will address this later. But I want people to understand that what is being taught now does not have any roots in Scripture or the history of the Jewish people up until they began to be influenced by other cultures.
The idea of "demons," "possession," "that demons are fallen angels," "that demons/evil spirits can cause sickness, disease or death," "Satan or demons tempt people or cause people to sin," and "that Satan can put thoughts into your head or have conversations with people" did not originate with the Jewish people, was not believed by the Jewish people or is taught in Scripture.

There is a history behind what people believe today. The belief that there are "evil demons" who oppose God and work against mankind as the agents of Satan is not even found in antiquity, paganism or the Old Testament. I'm not responsible for the "pastors" who refuse to study anything related to Scripture. But they have a duty to study, either refuse to do so, don't believe it to be essential, or don't know how. There are tons of research available to read. Many people have studied this subject and have published books, articles, and Theses. I would prefer not to bog anyone down with reading, but I want to give you a tiny sample of what is available.

Alfred Edersheim, in his book, the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, a very well-respected historian, a Jewish man.

Evil Spirits (in the Old Testament), Shedim, Ruchin, Rucoth, Linin (Lilith). "Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Persian elements of superstition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes, hobgoblins, elves, and spirits of our fairy tales. They are cunning and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous, but they can scarcely be described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind and useful; and may at times, be rendered innocuous (harmless) and even made serviceable.

Here is an excerpt from a thesis published by Hailey Marie Fuller at UNLV, in May 2013, titled "From Daimon to Demon: The Evolution of the Demon from Antiquity to Early Christianity.
"One of the fascinating entities of religious thought is the demon, which is still pervasive in both religious and popular culture today...The question at hand in this thesis is whether or not the demon was always considered to be synonymous with evil...This thesis traces the EVOLUTION (Caps mine) that the daimon takes to eventually become the demon we know today. At the same time, it postulates that the most important change to take place occurred with Augustine of Hippo's The City of God, which ultimately gives the demon the negative characteristics that it still has today...The evolution that culminated in the demon we know today occurred over a great deal of time, and had its swiftest change with the emergence of early monotheistic religion, especially Christianity...the daimon had both positive and negative influence...is that of the daimon who is "attached to a particular individual, usually from birth, and determines, wholly or in part, his individual destiny...It is reminiscent of the Christian idea of the "guardian angel"...as the daimon would eventually split into good and evil, angel and demon with the rise of monotheistic religion...Through the archaic, classical, and Hellenistic periods of the ancient world. And through the early periods of Christianity, the literature and writing show deep transformations...From there, it moves into looking at examples of the daimon in ancient Greece and Rome and how the entity shifted over time.

This Thesis is 84 pages long and well worth reading.

From Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Demon- At first the Supreme, then a god, and later, to spirits believed to be between gods and men; a kind of messenger who became tutelary (guardian, protector) deities of men and cities; AND FINALLY, THE NOTION OF EVIL DEMONS, THE LATEST FORM. Some believed they were the spirits of evil men after death. It was used to denote fortune, chance, and fate.

Demoniacs. Men subject to the power of demons, and who are deaf, dumb, blind, epileptic, frenzied, hypochondriac, imbecile, and suffer ills of both body and mind...Some supposed that the demoniacs were madmen under the influence of melancholia or mania, in neither case using reason. There are accounts of some who were maniacs and lunatics. Some also ascribe every form of disease, bodily or mental, to demons.

From The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible;
In considering the question of demonology in the Bible, it must be borne in mind at the outset that the modern definition of a demon as a devil, or malign spirit, is the result only of a long development. As used by ancient writers, the word often means something far different; while on the other hand, many of the figures of ancient belief that are today blanketed by this general designation actually bore quite distinctive names and were of quite a different character.
In the original sense, a demon may be defined broadly as an anonymous god-i.e., as a PERSONIFICATION of one or another of those vaguer, less identifiable powers or influences that were believed to operate alongside the major deities and to condition particular circumstances and experiences. In Homer, demon and god are virtually interchangeable. Such demons can be beneficent as well as harmful...the Babylonians and Assyrians speak similarly of both good and evil "spirits."

From Wikipedia:
A demon is a malevolent supernatural entity. Historically, belief in demons or stories about demons occurs in religion, occultism, fiction, literature, mythology, and folklore...Large portions of Jewish demonology, a key influence on Christianity and Islam, originated from a later form of Zoroastrianism and was later transferred to Judaism during the Persian era.

These are just five sources; there are hundreds more. I've read many of them.

Let me give you a summary. While most of the pagan religions had their daimons, good and bad, none of them had the concept of what people today consider a "demon," an evil "fallen angel," who is the minion of a single, dominant, personal devil, God's main adversary, who has an evil kingdom and wreaks havoc on people. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a description of the angels who rebelled as "fallen angels." To the pagans, a spirit was either good or bad, a spirit never switched sides. To the pagans, daimons were either gods themselves, messengers of the gods, or the spirits of ancestors. There is no ancient pagan literature about some great battle in the heavens where the losers were cast out, along with their leader.
We can look to Augustine of Hippo for the creation of our concept of "demons." He made up "demons." He took the pagan concept of daimons, supernatural beings, made them completely evil and said they were fallen, angels. Until Augustine came along, there was no such thing as a Christian "demon." None of the Church fathers before Augustine wrote anything about "demons."
The idea that "demons" could "possess" people arose from the pagan Greeks and Roman beliefs in oracles. According to the pagan belief, certain young virgin women would be chosen, who would then become intoxicated by either alcohol, drugs or inhaling vapors. Then, the spirit of a god would possess these women. The "spirit of the god" would then "speak" through the young women and foretell the future. We have one example of this in Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us...When we look up the word divination, it is the Greek word Puthon (should read Python). In Greek mythology, Python was a giant serpent living at the earth's center. Are we supposed to believe that a mythological creature who lived at the center of the earth sent its "spirit" to possess a human girl and enabled her to tell fortunes? I understand that the pagans believed this, but is it true? If you have seen the movie 300, there is a scene with an "oracle."

Before I started to study, I used to believe in "demons." I saw the Exorcist when I was 13. I went to the movies and saw the Omen and Hellraiser.I watched the Amityville Horror and Christine. I read fiction that used demons in the plot. Why did I believe in demons? Because that is what priests and pastors taught me! I didn't know any better! Who was I to question a priest or pastor? Why would I have thought that I was being lied to?

Now, I venture into an area that most are unaware of or will even believe possible. How many times has some English version been held up and proclaimed to be the authentic word of God? It doesn't matter which version; it just has to have Holy Bible printed on the cover, which is good enough! I just heard another "pastor," when asked about the best Bible version to use, loudly proclaim, "The one you can read." SIGH!
Look, the word "Bible" is not found in Scripture. No one in Scripture ever used the word. It comes from the Greek word, biblia, a collection of books. It is not a sacred word. If you have any experience, you well know that not only are there many different bible versions, no two are similar. Some have more verses than others. The different versions used different words and different syntax. And some bibles contain books that others don't. One could put together a new "bible" but choose to leave out, say, Exodus and Acts. And guess what? The book would still be called a bible. Beyond that, if you haven't put in any time in an honest attempt to determine which version you should use, how do you determine which version you should use? Sorry, it is not sufficient to go by what your favorite pastor says. It is important to remember that any English version is a translation of Hebrew and Greek texts. A translation! No English version of the original Scripture is accurate! So NO, it cannot be said that any English translation is the "accurate, authentic, and inspired" word of God! I need to emphasize this! What you hold and like to read is not the original text!

However, there are two more significant problems beyond what I mentioned. Many of you will not believe what I am about to tell you. The two things I discovered caught me totally off guard. I never anticipated them and was shocked, disappointed, disappointed, and angered by my discoveries. I knew when I began to study that there were problems with many of the verses in English translations. But what I discovered was completely unexpected.
God made it clear that His word was not to be added to or taken away, Deut 4:2, 12:32, Pro 30:6, and Rev 22:18-19. This is self-explanatory. But the longer I studied, I discovered that verses had been added!!! Added by the translators. There are quite a few. For instance, Jesus never said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," For the son of man is come to save that which was lost," or "make disciples." The woman caught in adultery was added. I'm not going to try and explain this or prove it here.
But, there is another problem. And I will follow up in the next post.

 

[Der Alte]

I understand that most people don't have the time to study biblical topics for themselves. They trust and rely on what they are being taught. Many have study bibles, but very few take the time even to use a study bible properly. Studying Scripture requires much reading, reading on many different topics. People who do not have an academic mindset (Not a criticism, just stating a fact) have no interest in researching anything; they find it boring and it does not satisfy any intellectual itch.

I mentioned in the first part of this study that the biggest problem with what churchgoers believe about "demons" and "demon possession" is due to the English versions, how they are worded, how they read, and what people are taught. I will address this later. But I want people to understand that what is being taught now does not have any roots in Scripture or the history of the Jewish people up until they began to be influenced by other cultures.
The idea of "demons," "possession," "that demons are fallen angels," "that demons/evil spirits can cause sickness, disease or death," "Satan or demons tempt people or cause people to sin," and "that Satan can put thoughts into your head or have conversations with people" did not originate with the Jewish people, was not believed by the Jewish people or is taught in Scripture.

There is a history behind what people believe today. The belief that there are "evil demons" who oppose God and work against mankind as the agents of Satan is not even found in antiquity, paganism or the Old Testament. I'm not responsible for the "pastors" who refuse to study anything related to Scripture. But they have a duty to study, either refuse to do so, don't believe it to be essential, or don't know how. There are tons of research available to read. Many people have studied this subject and have published books, articles, and Theses. I would prefer not to bog anyone down with reading, but I want to give you a tiny sample of what is available.

Alfred Edersheim, in his book, the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, a very well-respected historian, a Jewish man.

Evil Spirits (in the Old Testament), Shedim, Ruchin, Rucoth, Linin (Lilith). "Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Persian elements of superstition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes, hobgoblins, elves, and spirits of our fairy tales. They are cunning and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous, but they can scarcely be described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind and useful; and may at times, be rendered innocuous (harmless) and even made serviceable.

Here is an excerpt from a thesis published by Hailey Marie Fuller at UNLV, in May 2013, titled "From Daimon to Demon: The Evolution of the Demon from Antiquity to Early Christianity.
"One of the fascinating entities of religious thought is the demon, which is still pervasive in both religious and popular culture today...The question at hand in this thesis is whether or not the demon was always considered to be synonymous with evil...This thesis traces the EVOLUTION (Caps mine) that the daimon takes to eventually become the demon we know today. At the same time, it postulates that the most important change to take place occurred with Augustine of Hippo's The City of God, which ultimately gives the demon the negative characteristics that it still has today...The evolution that culminated in the demon we know today occurred over a great deal of time, and had its swiftest change with the emergence of early monotheistic religion, especially Christianity...the daimon had both positive and negative influence...is that of the daimon who is "attached to a particular individual, usually from birth, and determines, wholly or in part, his individual destiny...It is reminiscent of the Christian idea of the "guardian angel"...as the daimon would eventually split into good and evil, angel and demon with the rise of monotheistic religion...Through the archaic, classical, and Hellenistic periods of the ancient world. And through the early periods of Christianity, the literature and writing show deep transformations...From there, it moves into looking at examples of the daimon in ancient Greece and Rome and how the entity shifted over time.

This Thesis is 84 pages long and well worth reading.

From Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Demon- At first the Supreme, then a god, and later, to spirits believed to be between gods and men; a kind of messenger who became tutelary (guardian, protector) deities of men and cities; AND FINALLY, THE NOTION OF EVIL DEMONS, THE LATEST FORM. Some believed they were the spirits of evil men after death. It was used to denote fortune, chance, and fate.

Demoniacs. Men subject to the power of demons, and who are deaf, dumb, blind, epileptic, frenzied, hypochondriac, imbecile, and suffer ills of both body and mind...Some supposed that the demoniacs were madmen under the influence of melancholia or mania, in neither case using reason. There are accounts of some who were maniacs and lunatics. Some also ascribe every form of disease, bodily or mental, to demons.

From The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible;
In considering the question of demonology in the Bible, it must be borne in mind at the outset that the modern definition of a demon as a devil, or malign spirit, is the result only of a long development. As used by ancient writers, the word often means something far different; while on the other hand, many of the figures of ancient belief that are today blanketed by this general designation actually bore quite distinctive names and were of quite a different character.
In the original sense, a demon may be defined broadly as an anonymous god-i.e., as a PERSONIFICATION of one or another of those vaguer, less identifiable powers or influences that were believed to operate alongside the major deities and to condition particular circumstances and experiences. In Homer, demon and god are virtually interchangeable. Such demons can be beneficent as well as harmful...the Babylonians and Assyrians speak similarly of both good and evil "spirits."

From Wikipedia:
A demon is a malevolent supernatural entity. Historically, belief in demons or stories about demons occurs in religion, occultism, fiction, literature, mythology, and folklore...Large portions of Jewish demonology, a key influence on Christianity and Islam, originated from a later form of Zoroastrianism and was later transferred to Judaism during the Persian era.

These are just five sources; there are hundreds more. I've read many of them.

Let me give you a summary. While most of the pagan religions had their daimons, good and bad, none of them had the concept of what people today consider a "demon," an evil "fallen angel," who is the minion of a single, dominant, personal devil, God's main adversary, who has an evil kingdom and wreaks havoc on people. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a description of the angels who rebelled as "fallen angels." To the pagans, a spirit was either good or bad, a spirit never switched sides. To the pagans, daimons were either gods themselves, messengers of the gods, or the spirits of ancestors. There is no ancient pagan literature about some great battle in the heavens where the losers were cast out, along with their leader.
We can look to Augustine of Hippo for the creation of our concept of "demons." He made up "demons." He took the pagan concept of daimons, supernatural beings, made them completely evil and said they were fallen, angels. Until Augustine came along, there was no such thing as a Christian "demon." None of the Church fathers before Augustine wrote anything about "demons."
The idea that "demons" could "possess" people arose from the pagan Greeks and Roman beliefs in oracles. According to the pagan belief, certain young virgin women would be chosen, who would then become intoxicated by either alcohol, drugs or inhaling vapors. Then, the spirit of a god would possess these women. The "spirit of the god" would then "speak" through the young women and foretell the future. We have one example of this in Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us...When we look up the word divination, it is the Greek word Puthon (should read Python). In Greek mythology, Python was a giant serpent living at the earth's center. Are we supposed to believe that a mythological creature who lived at the center of the earth sent its "spirit" to possess a human girl and enabled her to tell fortunes? I understand that the pagans believed this, but is it true? If you have seen the movie 300, there is a scene with an "oracle."

Before I started to study, I used to believe in "demons." I saw the Exorcist when I was 13. I went to the movies and saw the Omen and Hellraiser.I watched the Amityville Horror and Christine. I read fiction that used demons in the plot. Why did I believe in demons? Because that is what priests and pastors taught me! I didn't know any better! Who was I to question a priest or pastor? Why would I have thought that I was being lied to?

Now, I venture into an area that most are unaware of or will even believe possible. How many times has some English version been held up and proclaimed to be the authentic word of God? It doesn't matter which version; it just has to have Holy Bible printed on the cover, which is good enough! I just heard another "pastor," when asked about the best Bible version to use, loudly proclaim, "The one you can read." SIGH!
Look, the word "Bible" is not found in Scripture. No one in Scripture ever used the word. It comes from the Greek word, biblia, a collection of books. It is not a sacred word. If you have any experience, you well know that not only are there many different bible versions, no two are similar. Some have more verses than others. The different versions used different words and different syntax. And some bibles contain books that others don't. One could put together a new "bible" but choose to leave out, say, Exodus and Acts. And guess what? The book would still be called a bible. Beyond that, if you haven't put in any time in an honest attempt to determine which version you should use, how do you determine which version you should use? Sorry, it is not sufficient to go by what your favorite pastor says. It is important to remember that any English version is a translation of Hebrew and Greek texts. A translation! No English version of the original Scripture is accurate! So NO, it cannot be said that any English translation is the "accurate, authentic, and inspired" word of God! I need to emphasize this! What you hold and like to read is not the original text!

However, there are two more significant problems beyond what I mentioned. Many of you will not believe what I am about to tell you. The two things I discovered caught me totally off guard. I never anticipated them and was shocked, disappointed, disappointed, and angered by my discoveries. I knew when I began to study that there were problems with many of the verses in English translations. But what I discovered was completely unexpected.
God made it clear that His word was not to be added to or taken away, Deut 4:2, 12:32, Pro 30:6, and Rev 22:18-19. This is self-explanatory. But the longer I studied, I discovered that verses had been added!!! Added by the translators. There are quite a few. For instance, Jesus never said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," For the son of man is come to save that which was lost," or "make disciples." The woman caught in adultery was added. I'm not going to try and explain this or prove it here.
But, there is another problem. And I will follow up in the next post.

"For instance, Jesus never said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," For the son of man is come to save that which was lost," or "make disciples." The woman caught in adultery was added. I'm not going to try and explain this or prove it here.
But, there is another problem. And I will follow up in the next post.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost," For the son of man is come to save that which was lost," or "make disciples." The woman caught in adultery was added. I'm not going to try and explain this or prove it here.
But, there is another problem. And I will follow up in the next post."​

You'd better have some, really, really good proof! And I don't mean what some "scholar" says.